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: 27
58
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by arbiture
 


Why quote so much and then add nothing to the discussion. Very annoying.

You should learn to just use the reply feature and assume your talking to people not so stupid as to need WALLS of text to read over and over again.


I'm annoying? Please. NOT EVERYONE reads EVERYTHING people post or knows all about what I may be responding to. I try to be polite and, connect the dots when it comes to a post, if its too much reading for you, this ain't War and Peace for Christ sake, got a problem with that? Excuuuusse me...
edit on 1/1/12 by arbiture because: next time I'll leave a trail of fricken bread crumbs...




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by mantisfortress
 


Just curious, but are all carriers exactly the same?? Could the one he speaks of be different than the one you are talking about?
edit on 31-12-2011 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)


He specifically referred to a Nimitz class carrier. Also, no sailor would refer to the speed of a watercraft in mph.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

Originally posted by Wintergloom

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

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 ?


Actually no. Would you like to answer this question and add to the discussion?

-Alien


How should i begin... Lets see now, what level of intrusion do you believe the " opposing " force has within the u.s. infrastructure. That would be my first question, before i am able to continue.


Why don't you just elaborate on your original statement. That would help keep focus on the topic and it would also give a bit of incite in you thoughts on this "China taking out the United States".

-Alien



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


ONE ICBM and ALL of Iran is glass. Russia would be foolish to elevate this because of MAD. As would China. The rest of the Arab world will be ECSTATIC with Iran "wiped off the face of the earth" Iran knows this too. It's all bluster. And for the record, Iran is ALREADY backing down.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
id say the biggest threat is Super cavitating torpedos.

U dont think that surface to air missles have any use now aganst the new tech. With radar absorbing and deflecting paint many targets are now incapable of getting locked on to.

Not only that but any dumb fired missles will be taken down by computer assisted machine gun fire.

There is absolutly no threat to the US navy from IRAN other than super cavitiating torpedos. You cant dodge or defeat something going mach 3 through the water.


Not so new a threat but very serious. It seems at least 5 nations have this technology and we have worked on certain technology to defeat it. I have NOT heard of mach 3 in the open literature. Supersonic, yeah. Also of course the speed of sound is a bit faster underwater, but thats not that critical. Still, very nasty.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Author John Dolan (Aka: Gary Brecher - Aka: The War Nerd) weighed in on this topic back in December 2002.

U Sank My Carrier!

And again in this April 2011 interview with Dylan Ratigan > F/F to the 13:00 minute marker.

Finally, here's his last written piece on carrier vulnerability with emphasis on China's Dong Feng 21 BM.

The War Nerd: This Is How the Carriers Will Die - April 2009

If you aren't familiar with The War Nerd, please don't let his irreverent style fool you. He's sardonic as hell but totally Pro-American. He's also as well versed in historical/conventional/asymmetric warfare - hardware & technology as any civilian military pundit I've read.

Hope you enjoy it.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Yeah being that the advanced countries of the world has known about EMPs and its effect on modern transistors for like fifty years It would not stand to reason that the United States would have built any if not all of their tech with resistance to EMPs


Nah I mean why would they? Just because they know it can crash the systems of most all new transistors doesn't make any sense why they would likely make it a priority to manufacture their new tech to resist EMP nope makes no sense.

-Alien



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FrankieNinja
 


I just hope they DO back down. Considering the Iranian president is considered a "liberal" compared to to even more wacko religious nuts? In most countries this kind of coo-coo behavior would get you a 72 hour psych. hold in a secure facility, all we can do is hope the Russians use "certain influence" as is required. They don't usually leave tracks...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


The US navy has no right to be in the Arabian/Persian Gulf or the Straits of Hormuz anyway.
If your yank politicians had any street smarts at all since 1970, you would be allies with Iran by now, fighting the real enemies - Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Amazing that posters here are talking about nuking Iran, sounds like the same argument used in 1945 before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Just remember that it is you, the USA that is the only nation to have ever used nukes in anger and now you guys are saying - "do it again"!
Bloody sickening.
edit on 1-1-2012 by Sailor Sam because: spelling



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


But China will stop sending you flat screen TVs and other rubbish and Japan and Korea all those good cars and you would run out of oil very quickly.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silverado292
reply to post by mantisfortress
 


My last ship was the USS O'Kane DDG77 yes we're actually equipped to deal with air and surface threats. We have a nice sonar and we can launch a few MK-46's but with our awesome SPY series radars we're closer to air dominance up to knocking out satellites and ICBM's than sub hunters. We also carry a a ton of Tomahawk's my ship launched 21 into Iraq with 3 raytheon refunds. Also the Arleigh Burke class looks like a 50 foot long trawler on radar with the IR signature to match.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Silverado292 because: (no reason given)


Right on then man. Thanks for setting me straight. My only point was that post I replied to was written by someone totally misrepresenting himself as a veteran. Not just incorrect on details. Take a look at his post, let me know if you agree shipmate.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Call me crazy but...why is the "Red Teams Commander" of a naval group dressed in a Marine Corps uniform.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by P12SOLD
 


Oh yes, you yanks won 2 wars since Vietnam -
1) the Grenada war
2) the Panama war
D

edit on 1-1-2012 by Sailor Sam because: spelling



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FrankieNinja
 


Why would USA use an ICBM for a lost carrier? If the USA caused the war and lost a carrier, if the USA uses ICBMs guess what everyone can use ICBMS on the USA now.

Wasn't the whole premise to go to war with Iran so they wont develop nukes, and then the USA goes and uses it? Then the Iranians will say, see we told you we needed nukes to deter from invasion



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Also those of you who keep bringing up the CIWS forget the INS Hanit incident. Even thought the CIWS has been replaced the ship still relies on it

The INS Hanit has:


Electronic warfare and decoys:
Argon ST AN/SLQ-25 Nixie decoy
Elbit chaff rocket launchers
Rafael RF corner reflector
Elisra NS-9003A/9005 RWR
Armament:
8 RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
64 Barak surface-to-air missiles
Phalanx CIWS
2 Mark 32 SVTTs (6 tubes)


Yet it was still knocked out of commission by a single missile. Not only that the defending equipment was the Phalanx CIWS which failed. This is proof that the CIWS is not as good as some may have you think. Though the Israeli navy claims that the system was not activated..
edit on 1-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Some were wondering why the US seems to be inviting a war, with their constant provocations...Well it seems to me that the mindset that causes this is the same mindset that prompted them to basically "cheat" during the wargames to prove a system that obviously had failed...

Instead of being humble and acknowledging their faults, and then fixing them, they pretend that there are no faults, in which case they don't have to do anything, and the defense contractors who are making this electronic "crap" will keep getting their millions upon millions of dollars.

This country's government started out with a bang, but it is winding down slowly, and it will crash very soon imo. You cannot keep a sinking ship afloat forever. Instead of putting in to port for repairs, our government wants to attack Iran with this un-seaworthy vessel, among other things, and just pretend that if they don't acknowledge the problems, then the people won't either. Sociopaths is all I can say. Some people should have their votes revoked.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Great Thread OP and very timely indeed. If I was a moderator I'd give this thread the applause.

It was first mentioned on page 4 by Buster2010.. the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We cannot escape the parallels between today and August 2, 1964 the similarities are grave.

...naval maneuvers, international waters, speed/torpedo boats, enemy regime, it's all pretty disconcerting.

It is plausible that a false flag torpedo or missile attack on a US fleet in Hormuz could trigger WWIII. Because it has happened before. As many other intellligent posters have pointed out these geo-political tricksters have played these cards and they are known to be cheaters. I'm talking about the M-I-C.

If there is anyone who believes that a bloody confrontation could be averted, well, NOW is the time to offer your better solutions to the geo-political situation, if you can do it. We can't let the mass media dictate to us what the situation is, no. That dictatorship belongs to the masses and we must let them know that...

"ONE ICBM and ALL of Iran is glass." is not a valid solution. And neither is a repeat of Gulf of Tonkin.
The Professional has brought this wargame scenario to our attention now. We have a unique opportunity to review history and current events. And we can stop WWIII from happening. Thank you and Good night. Happy New Year to you all.
edit on 1/1/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Never Forget It. "That firmness will always be measured. It's mission is peace." - LBJ


edit on 1/1/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


I know it isn't worth it. I was replying to the statement he made that they are "kicking our ass"



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Given the expence of the war game, 250 million, the computer was used only as a game board. Some sort of manuevers were executed by real boats, rockets, arms, men and ships in order to tell the computer what would happen under various conditions and then the computer was used to scale up the size of the battle field and the number of combatants. Data like the actual time to kill a speed boat ( 10 to 30 seconds ) times the number of speed boats (dozens to thousands) divided by the time until the boats are close enough to use their weapons.

The game was reset because of the large quantity of men and material assigned to the operation, presumably to get performance data to put into the computer.

Since Red won it can be assumed that it had a huge number of quickly trained men operating easily mass produced vehicles and weapons. Also the Red comander may have used insights into the training and operation cycles, both mechanical and tactical, that the real Red force may not have, but then again could surmise or buy.

The war game senario wasn't stated to be in the straight of Hormuz or the Persian gulf. It implied only that a coastline was to be attacked by the blue force.

If flight over land were precluded then the navy versus Iran specifically would put the navy in the Persian Gulf, The Staight of Hormuz, or the Gulf of Oman. This would make naval forces easy to find and restricted in movement. All of these locations are accessable by littoral vessels, weather permitting. Also restricted movement makes prepositioning of submarines and mines more effective.

It looks likely that if the navy got too close, or was attacked as part of an unforseen escalation, that it could be overwhelmed by exteme numbers.




top topics



 
58
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join