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: 29
58
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

58,000 American soldiers died

1,500,000 Vietnamese soldiers died

You tell me who won.



Where did Vietnam leaders capitulate to the US Americans?
When did they surrender?

The US & France lost their campaigns or police actions in Vietnam.
The US will cripple itself trying to invade Iran.



1,500,000 Vietnamese soldiers died


And why does this make you proud?
Is that what the US was interested in, body-counts?

Goes to show you how many people will sacrifice their lives to keep their land free from
agressors, colonialists, and invaders.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krono
Can't believe this thread... The Iranian navy taking out the US fleet?


That's just like saying George bush was the best president in US history.


You better hope that Iran takes out the US Fleet if they get attacked.
We might finally get some peace on this Earth.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Krono
Can't believe this thread... The Iranian navy taking out the US fleet?


That's just like saying George bush was the best president in US history.


You better hope that Iran takes out the US Fleet if they get attacked.
We might finally get some peace on this Earth.



Would be easier to chuck a missile at the White House or the Senate and the Israeli government building (no idea what its called) only then will peace be on Earth. Unless Putin thinks he can take on the world, which will be like writing a deathwish for himself.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


It certainly was not the USA and its allies.
The whole world knows that, except perhaps for a few people like you.
If you had won Vietnam you would be crowing about it all over the place and would still be there, having bases to confront China.
Vietnam proved to the rest of the world that the USA could be beaten.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 


With help from the Chinese ofcourse. Oh yes and a sheer mass amount of fighters helps aswell.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
It just amazes me that any American can say that the United States won the war in Vietnam.

We lost the war in every way.

It is just BS American propaganda talking in the form of American Exceptionalism to say that the adventure in Vietnam was not a disaster, failure and f-up that we should be ashamed of.

Let me give you a parallel. You are walking down the street and for no reason you pick a fight with a perfect stranger. The fight lasts several minutes and you kill the person but you come out with an arm torn off.

Did you "win" that fight?

No, because only an idiot would have gone into a fight for no reason in the first place and now you are missing an arm.

Maybe 58,000 Americans deaths is nothing to you but it is something to me. 58,000 dead for no reason is a disaster.

Attackingh Iran because Israel wants us to is as stupid as fighting in Vietnam and it is not justified in any way.

Israel is not worth a single American life or dollar





Notice he mentioned Ron Paul.


Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
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


Are you suggesting we lost Vietnam?

We didn't lose Vietnam, any ground we were told to take we took and held as long as we wished. We were told to stay put. It was a political game.

We achieved every objective given to us.

58,000 American soldiers died

1,500,000 Vietnamese soldiers died

You tell me who won.


-Alien

edit on 1-1-2012 by BRAVO949 because: grammar



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949
It just amazes me that any American can say that the United States won the war in Vietnam.

We lost the war in every way.

It is just BS American propaganda talking in the form of American Exceptionalism to say that the adventure in Vietnam was not a disaster, failure and f-up that we should be ashamed of.

Let me give you a parallel. You are walking down the street and for no reason you pick a fight with a perfect stranger. The fight lasts several minutes and you kill the person but you come out with an arm torn off.

Did you "win" that fight?

No, because only an idiot would have gone into a fight for no reason in the first place and now you are missing an arm.

Maybe 58,000 Americans deaths is nothing to you but it is to me. 58,000 dead for no is a disaster.

Attackingh Iran because Israel wants us to is as stupid as fighting in Vietnam and it is not justified in any way.

Israel is not worth a single American life or dollar





Notice he mentioned Ron Paul.


Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
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


Are you suggesting we lost Vietnam?

We didn't lose Vietnam, any ground we were told to take we took and held as long as we wished. We were told to stay put. It was a political game.

We achieved every objective given to us.

58,000 American soldiers died

1,500,000 Vietnamese soldiers died

You tell me who won.


-Alien


I wholeheartedly agree with you. The US government, as you rightfully said, has used YET ANOTHER lie to boost propaganda. Just like the US history is based on a lie. The War of Independance anyone? Remember when the French beat us Brits when we invaded the US.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Still you guys don't believe it huh? Do you remember the USS Stark:

en.wikipedia.org...


No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missiles. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear before the first missile hit.[4]


Destroyed by a simple pair of exocets.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


The Stark made it back to port (Bahrain) under its own power.

Just saying.

en.wikipedia.org...

Read under "aftermath"



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Still you guys don't believe it huh? Do you remember the USS Stark:

en.wikipedia.org...


No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missiles. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear before the first missile hit.[4]


Destroyed by a simple pair of exocets.
Hmmmm.
Which Stark are you talking about?

The one that was hit by Exocet missiles in 1987 stayed in service until it was decommissioned in 1999.

You did write the word destroyed.

37 sailors were killed when the second Exocet hit. The ship did not sink and continued in service for another decade.

Another point to note..... The Stark was not an aircraft carrier.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Still you guys don't believe it huh? Do you remember the USS Stark:

en.wikipedia.org...


No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missiles. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear before the first missile hit.[4]


Destroyed by a simple pair of exocets.


Times have changed. The US has spent phenomenal amounts of money on it's defense's and their weaponry has advanced alot. Compare the amount Iran and the States spend on it's defense.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 
Come to think of it, the USN is wasting money on missile countermeasures, judging by the case of the Stark.

A little frigate takes two Exocets with no defensive measures and steams back to port under it's own power.

Anti-ship missiles? Phhht.. Eh?




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 

Sorry, but I can't link with the machine I am using right now.

I googled imperial Japanese navy casualties.
Then I googled US Navy WWII casualties.

There are numerous sites that have the official tallies. I will be happy to U2U the links to you in less than 48 hours when I am back at home.

edit on 1-1-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


That is true, the Stark was hit by Exocets. Note that the Stark did not have defense systems online and, at that time, the lookouts were not trained to visually recognize incoming missiles. Any ships transiting the straits of Hormuz at a time of increased tensions would have all their defense systems online and the transit would be covered by aircraft and other assets. Electronic countermeasures have also greatly improved since the attack on the Stark and your OP and examples are unrealistically out of date.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Are you suggesting we lost Vietnam?
We didn't lose Vietnam, any ground we were told to take we took and held as long as we wished. We were told to stay put. It was a political game.
We achieved every objective given to us.
58,000 American soldiers died
1,500,000 Vietnamese soldiers died
You tell me who won.-Alien

Really?
Picture of American victory in Viet Nam:



What is it they say? Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
I had an instructor who told me that the windspeed on a carrier deck is often 90mph. I said "must have been a windy day" and he said "you would be suprised".


If a carrier is doing 30mph and aircraft want to land or take off they point the ship into the wind.

Whatever the wind speed is at the time can be added to the ships speed, so if the wind is blowing hard say 50 mph that gives you a deck wind speed of 80 mph.

Wind speed at sea is often much higher than on land for the same conditions are the open sea is exposed and there is nothing to slow the wind down. Anyone who has been to sea will tell you this.

Hope that makes sense.


Yes that makes sense, don't get 50mph winds much on land. Up in the high mountains I got caught in 90mph (according to the weather radio) gusts that held me up in the air or a second or so when i jumped off of my cabover truck. Somehwere around 90mph is where people get lifted off of the ground.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


WHY THE HELL do you still keep bringing up incidents from the 80s to try and defend your point? IT WAS 1 FRIGATE, not a battle group. You have some serious problems.

Might I add, it survived and didn't sink, and has been the ONLY successful anti-ship missile attack on a Navy war ship. They were hit from a blind side that their weapons systems could not pick up. There are no blind sides in a battle group. You're really starting to piss me off with your faulty logic. Just let this thread die.
edit on 1-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by orangetom1999
As to the carriers top speed..I can tell you that the USS Enterprise is the fastest of the carriers. Ironically she is also the oldest of the nuclear boats. For she was designed to transit the Panama Canal...therefore she is more narrow across the width than are the Nimitz class.


The Enterprise has a beam of 132 feet at the waterline, the Panama Canal locks are 110 feet wide, not to mention it exceeds the length of the locks. It will not be able to fit through the Canal even when the Third Lock Project is completed later this decade raising the width limit to 180 feet as their superstructures are too wide.




edit on 31-12-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.




Wow this is a fast moving thread. I was shocked to see how many pages are on here since 12/31/2011.

AugustusMasonicus,

My thanks for replying and correcting my post on page 12 of this thread.
Your correction to the information's on the lock dimensions of the Panama Canal got me to thinking. Thereby I searched for a photo of the USS Enterprise in the canal system. Alas none to be found. It was then that I did look up the canal dimensions as far as width. It is indeed about 110 feet across. And then I searched the length of the ship and she is to long by about 100 feet for the same locks. Thanks for the correction.

I don't know where I heard that the Enterprise was designed to go through the locks as it was some time back. I do know she is the fastest of the Nuclear Carriers. I have been down on her in several compartments including the reactor areas. Same with the Nimitz class. Some of the reasons are obvious and some are not.
Suffice it to say that the Nimitz class are more "Updated ": as compared to the Big E.

One of the other posters mentioned that Submarine are the biggest Nemesis to surface ships and especially carriers. I tend to agree with this assessment.

As to this so called fast torpedo...I believe the US Navy has experimented with it and rejected it. This torpedo may be very fast ..but it is not quiet by a long shot.

I do know that our torpedoes can be programmed to swim out quietly to close the gap between them and the target and then only to run fast when they need to finally close the gap and it is to late.

The name of the business in torpedoes and their launch platform today is "Stealth."

I don't know if some of you are aware of it but there are people out here who's main task is to find ways break into satellites and their operating systems. This is a full time occupation for selected peoples. Ask yourself what kind of tools are provided for this work??? And then who can afford them??

No cover charge for this.

A further note to the person who posted that so many who bang the drums for war often have no idea how long these wars will last.

I agree again.

I remember in our time when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo or was it Yugoslavia..no matter. I knew with the first announcement that they would be there for years and years. I believe it wound up being over 10 years. By that time we were involved in other nations troubles.

In the American civil war...it was so with Bull Run...Manassas. The ridiculousness was that most thought the war would last a couple of weeks and everyone would go home. Even civilians went to watch like some circus show until everything went bad and the Union ran back to Washington DC.

It was so in the WW1 in the early days..lots of Brits joined up thinking it would be over in a couple of months and everyone would be back home. It turned out to be four years of of a horrible meat grinder. If you read accounts of what happened to some in the trenches it makes WW2 look tame in places.

Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be similar. So too was Vietnam. The gist of these wars seems more today to be how to keep them going ...not to end them.

So don't be all that big in a rush to rattle sabers. That is the message from history. We are not here to unzip and see who has the biggest one. Pardon the Crudity but conflict of this type can be a very crude business. You don't have to go to war to find out..just read a detailed history book. Even out on the high seas it can be dreadful business for those who have witnessed accidents even in peacetime.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Still you guys don't believe it huh? Do you remember the USS Stark:

en.wikipedia.org...


No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missiles. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear before the first missile hit.[4]


Destroyed by a simple pair of exocets.



You're a Ruskie, the USS Port Royal +$1 Billion guided missile cruiser....

When that ship left port in Hawaii and drove itself up a coral reef.....was it China or Russia that was feeding false GPS data that sent her off course?

Doesn't really matter which one it was......the ship was taken out of the fight without a shot fired. Americans became too reliant on Technology. With the US Navy cutting people from ships and wanting them even more "automated".....it's an achilles heal.

But just because you can thwart 1 ship, won't mean the entire US Navy would be destroyed. Eventually there would be 1 Captain who'll put down his bottle of liquor and steer the ship himself.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Wars are won economically. The Allies won WW1 and WW2 because of greater economic capacity. The US lost Vietnam and the USSR lost Afganistan because war costs the superpower more to field its army than it costs the insurgents.

For the money paid to build one frigate another country could build 100 exocets.

Two Exocet misslies are alot cheaper that one Frigate. And the first missle did not detonate.




top topics



 
58
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join