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.
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)
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
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)
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!
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)
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."
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)
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.
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