It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 24
58
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 


I hate to nitpick, but it was the Kursk, not the Kirsk. Also the torpedoes you mentioned use something called cavitation drive to create an air bubble around the unit. I don't think water vaporisation has anything to do with that particular system.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Drones Drones and Drones are the nightmare, no matter if 40 or 50 knots cruising speed is available its those small drones with minimal next zero radar sig that are the grim reaper of the open seas. Its only a matter of time when the emp's become public knowledge....oops...spank me for saying it in ats.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xlb40

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

There is no evidence that they worked the bugs out, in fact the opposite is true:


Wrong. And this is hardly a conspiracy.

The below video illustrates the success of lasers in an open ocean environment. the laser passed with flying colors, and yes, speedboats were also factored in, along with UAVs, and missiles.


Also, your thread title is ignorant and quite presumptive. The US carrier fleet is armed to the teeth with offensive capabilities. The Aegis ABM is highly effective at countering missile threats, not to mention the USN virginia class attack subs, The F18s, Phalanx, and a host of ABM missiles. We're talking about several billions of dollars being invested into the USN. They do not send these expensive ships all around the world in hostile areas to be completely defenseless. They are well equipped to handle all types of combat scenarios.

Iran has gone up against the USN in the past, it resulted in the entire decimation of their naval forces in the course of an entire afternoon. Speed boats a threat? lmao then I guess the soviets were stupid for trying to field a naval capability similar to the Americans...hell the chinese too! All that they needed were speedboats!

edit on 31-12-2011 by xlb40 because: (no reason given)


I have had a hard time reconciling the statements that directed energy weapons are somehow undefeatable. Every example I have seen so far requires a second or more of the laser heating a "spot" on the craft. If I were to build an aircraft that could defeat it, I would mirror the surface and have intermittent forward and side to side thrust. The intermittent thrust would constantly change the spot on the craft being illuminated by the laser. If it were a rocket, I'd mirror it, I'd rotate the rocket and give it small thrust vectors in flight.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


No offense, but I think you say MI:2 one two many times. The chimera virus does not exist, and if it did, it would be the states unleashing it, not Iran. Did you forget that Americans lead the field in biological agents, not some rag-tag outfit in Iran?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by fiorano
 


Ya especially when the goal is starting another illegal war. You Americans seem to be very good at that.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
As a member of the Biggest, Baddest, most technologically advanced Navy in the world - I can tell you that we will crush any adversary presented. Plain and simple. Gorilla tactics or not, we will crush them and there isn't anything they can do about it.

Time and again our Country's Navy has been tested, and come out on top. Japan thought they had us when they bombed Battleship row, and we showed them what American perseverance, ingenuity, and bravery can do in WWII, Midway and the battle of Guadalcanal.

Yes, we have had some embarrassing conflicts - I won't deny that. But when push comes to shove and life and liberty are on the line (WWI, WWII) America comes out on top - we have a proven track record to do what it takes to win the battle. No one can contest us on this, despite the tragic outcomes (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). I have personally been to ground zero in Nagasaki, and I can tell you it was a sobering experience, but you can rest assured that America and her might are not to be trifled with.

edit on 31-12-2011 by zeeon because: typo


I hate to burst your bubble, mate. But, America did not fight the entire Japanese army on its own for the entire war!! Other countries militaries too fought many battles with the Japs to gain back control, of key locations, taken over by force by the Japs after the attack on Pearl harbour.

The Japanese navy, also became very overstretched, with the capture of new lands, which meant more land to patrol and watch over. All this in combination plus other factors helped the United States, win the war in the end. But ye had some help never forget that. Also realistically who've America the only superpower in the world today fought since 1945?

America, according to some has the best military in the world today and had so in the past as well. America, also provides its military with the best weapons development of the day to go to war with. So realistically every war fought should be winning war and an easy defeat for weaker nations. Well ok, lets take a look at the military history shall we.

I'll look at American majors wars since 1945 for now.,

1 Korea. numbers of years fighting the peasant armies of North Korea and China. UN forces pushed back from North Korea by the Red communists of China. Treaty signed, no victory for the US military machine.
2 Vietnam, 10 years of hard fighting against a peasant army made of farmers, teachers, and so on (the US military pulls out without achieving victory in 1975)
3 Iraq 1990 victory for allied forces and Iraqi troops forced back out from Kuwait.

4 Afghanistan 2001, America won control of key areas of this country, with help from the Northern Alliance, who really did most the actual fighting on the ground, against the Taliban rag tag peasant army assembled. This country had no professional army prior to 2001

5 Iraq 2006 America engages in illegal non sanctioned war against the Iraqi state lead by Saddam Hussein. 80% TO 90% of the Iraqi army runs away and does turn up to fight. Victory however was still achieved with liitle or no fighting on the ground.

American war machine, has taken on some of the weakest nations around the world and their militariies,and have not come out looking too good on the other end.. Lets be real here the US military in the fifties was the strongest military force in the world. But the Chinese peasant army kicked some United States butt in Korea. China, today has way stronger military then had back then and its getting stronger. This video is a perfect end to this conversation for me.



www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
The OP really cannot get over this war game. OP you do know the war games are scenarios intended to reflect multiple possible outcomes of a battle. It is not absolute reality. It cannot predict with %100 certainty the outcome of any given situation. This was a decade ago, as well. The military brass has has time to learn from the initial failure in their SIMULATION. And what is all your babble about if America lost a carrier that "it is fair game?" Do you honestly think that's how the military thinks? I imagine that you think a conversation would go like this:

Lt. Dan: Admiral, the damn Iranians just sunk the USS Enterprise, should we counter attack, sir?

Admiral: Hell no, Lt. Dan! The Enterprise was fair game. The Iranians win this one!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
So, apodictic, it is 2012. How is the world different because 90 Marines were killed in Fallujah?

I wish I could say that they died for something worthwhile but I can not.

If a single US Sailor gets a paper cut because we are threatening Iran it will not be worth it.



Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by murch
 


Kicking our ass? Lol wut? Do you have statistics to back that one up? Because I think you'll fail miserably at proving your point. For example, here's the statistics from Operation Al-Fajr AKA the 2nd battle of Fallujah. The HEAVIEST fighting experienced in Iraq. By mid December we had around 90 Marines KIA and over 1200 insurgents KIA, not counting the 1500+ insurgents captured by coalition forces.

Come on, really? In Afghanistan they take random pop shots at us from a far off mountain side and then run away. They don't even fight. I think you need to get your facts straight before you start spreading BS.
edit on 31-12-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by P12SOLD
 


Of course you would mention the conflicts which we didn't do we well in - except, how much did the US Navy have to do with any of those?

Afghanistan and Iraq - Strictly air support. Which, was unmatched.
Vietnam and Korea - Again, air support - which again - was unmatched.

As far as Midway, Coral Sea and Guadalcanal - those victories were instrumental to victory over the Japanese. Had the US Navy not won those battles, we would have never been able to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and end the war. The United States Navy was out matched (in that the Japanese fleet HAD their Battleships and Destroyers, and we did not), under gunned (the Zero vs. the P-15 Mustang), and over came Kamikazes tells me that you cannot - no you must not underestimate the power of the United States Navy.

Seeings how the topic is relevant to the United States Navy, I think we should keep the discussion relevant to engagements of the US Navy.
edit on 31-12-2011 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by zeeon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
# will go down this year. No doubt about it. With the continued unrest in the Middle East and Europe. Without a doubt we are looking at two options:

Best case scenario a few small skirmishes then a ceasefire worst case a international war where alliances and obligations will be tested.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall
The OP really cannot get over this war game. OP you do know the war games are scenarios intended to reflect multiple possible outcomes of a battle. It is not absolute reality. It cannot predict with %100 certainty the outcome of any given situation. This was a decade ago, as well. The military brass has has time to learn from the initial failure in their SIMULATION. And what is all your babble about if America lost a carrier that "it is fair game?" Do you honestly think that's how the military thinks? I imagine that you think a conversation would go like this:

Lt. Dan: Admiral, the damn Iranians just sunk the USS Enterprise, should we counter attack, sir?

Admiral: Hell no, Lt. Dan! The Enterprise was fair game. The Iranians win this one!


these kookoos have got to mean "fair game" as in fair for us to blow the $h!+ outta them once they take out a carrier... if they mean otherwise... I honestly don't believe I fell for this troll



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
You can prove me wrong if you can find the statistics but I seem to recall that man for man the Japanese Navy actually beat the US Navy.

In other words the Japanese Navy killed more American that the American Navy killed Japanese.



Originally posted by zeeon
reply to post by P12SOLD
 


Of course you would mention the conflicts which we didn't do we well in - except, how much did the US Navy have to do with any of those?

Afghanistan and Iraq - Strictly air support. Which, was unmatched.
Vietnam and Korea - Again, air support - which again - was unmatched.

As far as Midway, Coral Sea and Guadalcanal - those victories were instrumental to victory over the Japanese. Had the US Navy not won those battles, we would have never been able to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and end the war. The United States Navy was out matched (in that the Japanese fleet HAD their Battleships and Destroyers, and we did not), under gunned (the Zero vs. the P-15 Mustang), and over came Kamikazes tells me that you cannot - no you must not underestimate the power of the United States Navy.

Seeings how the topic is relevant to the United States Navy, I think we should keep the discussion relevant to engagements of the US Navy.
edit on 31-12-2011 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by zeeon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   


Look at the wake.............



After this essay was originally published in April 1999, the USN publicly released the speed of the nuclear carriers in June 1999: Enterprise 33.6 knots after last refit Nimitz 31.5 knots Theodore Roosevelt 31.3 knots Harry S Truman 30.9 knots



There is a caveat here. The CVNs effectively have no concerns about running out of fuel. They can be optimized for running at high speed continuously (that is, their hull form can be selected for maximum efficiency at maximum speed). In contrast, a conventionally-powered carrier has to be optimized for optimum performance at cruising speed - 20 knots. Their hulls become progressively less efficient as the ship speed increases. This means that the sustained speed of a CVN over long duration is close to the ships maximum speed (say 30 knots) while the sustained speed of a CV over long duration is the ship's cruising speed (20 knots). So, while there is no significant difference in maximum speed of the two ships, the CVN will have a much higher transit speed. It is quite possible that it is that difference in transit speed that gets misapplied to maximum speed and is the core of the "40 Knot Myth."


Speed Thrills III - Max speed of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers
edit on 31-12-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


If this simulation had any credence I'm sure the United States war machine has taken it into consideration.

That being said they have only placed one of their battle groups in the area. This tells me that this little simulation doesn't worry them one bit.

If there were any chance in hell that Iran stood even a remote chance of taking out that battle group or any major portion of it they most assuredly would have more than just that one group in place.

The United States isn't worried for a reason, but if you gather something from this little simulation that all of those highly trained extremely schooled Generals, Admirals etc. Then by all means please feel free to share in detail how exactly you seriously think that based on this one simulation the entire war machine of the United States is wrong and you are right.

-Alien



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
reply to post by P12SOLD
 


Of course you would mention the conflicts which we didn't do we well in - except, how much did the US Navy have to do with any of those?

Afghanistan and Iraq - Strictly air support. Which, was unmatched.
Vietnam and Korea - Again, air support - which again - was unmatched.

As far as Midway, Coral Sea and Guadalcanal - those victories were instrumental to victory over the Japanese. Had the US Navy not won those battles, we would have never been able to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and end the war. The United States Navy was out matched (in that the Japanese fleet HAD their Battleships and Destroyers, and we did not), under gunned (the Zero vs. the P-15 Mustang), and over came Kamikazes tells me that you cannot - no you must not underestimate the power of the United States Navy.

Seeings how the topic is relevant to the United States Navy, I think we should keep the discussion relevant to engagements of the US Navy.
edit on 31-12-2011 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by zeeon because: (no reason given)


Ya but non of those nations had an Air force to counter the United States, in the first place. So the fact air support was unmatched can't be considered a great achievement of those wars can it?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the US won the war, due to the unconditional surrender by the Japanese at the end.
What I have found by googling is that the Japanese suffered 2,120,000 military deaths in WWII vs 416,800 for the US(including the European theater).

So, not really even close.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I just really do not understand why we would go after iran considering the last time we demonized a nation for having wmd on CIA intelligence or some stupid report we found none.


many dead troops later it is still a mess there and we sunk a lot of money there.

Now we are being fear mongered into the same deal with iran and people are retarded enough to eat the same slop over and over again.

I think those in power are correct in using our lives just for their selfish goals. Too many people are too stupid and retarded to be nothing more than canon fodder.

I hope we go to war with iran and when we find that there are no wmd there we will be weakened and china with any of its allies will just knock us out.

We will deserve it for being retarded nit wits with the attention span of a gold fish.

hope you all enjoy having size 4 boots stepping on your necks because that is what our government is working on.


edit on 31-12-2011 by yaluk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by BRAVO949
 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the US won the war, due to the unconditional surrender by the Japanese at the end.
What I have found by googling is that the Japanese suffered 2,120,000 military deaths in WWII vs 416,800 for the US(including the European theater).

So, not really even close.


I guess the means justifies the cause, do you agree as there are more than just bloggers eager to read this.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by yaluk
 


You obviously know squat about what the United States and its allies are capable of. Could you elaborate just how China would "knock us out"?


-Alien

edit on 31-12-2011 by Wintergloom because: changed "take" to "knock"



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wintergloom
reply to post by yaluk
 


You obviously know squat about what the United States and its allies are capable of. Could you elaborate just how China would "take us out"?


-Alien


Obviously your joking now..not that i am defending or opposing your question...but you are joking right ? Does the term "mad" ring a bell at this point ?



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join