Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 3
58
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 




“This is free play,” he said. “The OPFOR has the ability to win here.”

“Not so,” Van Riper told Army Times. “Instead of a free-play, two-sided game as the Joint Forces commander advertised it was going to be, it simply became a scripted exercise. They had a predetermined end, and they scripted the exercise to that end.”


You're right, I guess someone who's been in a scenario multiple times, where the opposition (in speed boats, such as the little war game) failed to do anything besides get themselves killed, or seen first hand the weapons aboard battle ships, doesn't qualify as being experienced. You have multiple people with ACTUAL experience telling you otherwise, and yet you choose to keep your own opinion based on what? Did you serve in our military? Have you been on a ship? Have you ever been attacked? Are you a military historian? What exactly are your credentials to make such a bold claim as to say the "US Navy will be destroyed?" Besides a scripted, outdated war game?

I miss when ATS was about denying ignorance, not promoting it....




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 




Besides a scripted, outdated war game?


Once again, it only became scripted when the US Navy side lost and Red team won, that is when the Red team commander resigned to express his anger at it becoming scripted. Bring me someone to ATS who has a higher rank then the Red Team commander then i will listen to him.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


sigh....I rest my case



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
You really think Russia or China would go to war over Iran? Especially if Iran closed the strait?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by isaac7777
 


Crazy huh, almost as crazy as going to war to iran with nothing more than some IAEA report with no evidence right



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by elrey72011
 


Truth hurts, and tell that to the Seal team six members on the chinhook. Oh wait they were shot down using 1950s RPGs...FACEPALM



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
The Iranian Navy??? Are you serious??? Have you ever even seen an U.S. Naval ship in real life? We have the most advanced navy in the world. To say there would not be casualities is one thing but to say that the Iranians would wipe out an entire battle group, thats just too funny. Speed boats are no match for the destroyers and cruisers so even getting close enough to the carrier is a lost cause. Look, I don't want us picking a fight with Iran either but lets be real here. We haven't lost a ship to enemy fire since WW2....



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


The CH 47 chinook is a 1960s transport helicopter (with exception to modern improvisions for power), not a freaking attack helicopter. It was hit while it was hovering and the SEALs were exiting the aircraft. What were they supposed to do....? And what does this have to do with your war game rant?




FACEPALM


edit: By the way ,the RPG-7 is from the 60s, not 50s. Although I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, as it's proven to be an extremely effective weapon system, I thought I'd just point that out.
edit on 31-12-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Both the scenario and analysis are way off, I served in the US Navy up until 2010, My first ship, which was an Arcrtaft Carrier, was the oldest ship in the entire U.S. Navy. Without going into too much detail no missile speed boat would ever be a threat to ANY U.S. ship considering the distances we can identify and target them if need be. Much less a danger to a U.S. Aricraft Carrier which travels with a fleet of ships generally out to protect the carriers since they represent the main power of any fleet. The most danger to any U.S. ship would come from small inconspicuous fishing boats loaded down with explosives that do not seem like a threat such as the attack on the USS Cole.

There are a lot of assumptions with this scenario, and of course any scenario can be made to come up with the results you desire to see. One big assumption was a 'preemptive strike', something like this could only be accomplished if the fleet was caught in total surprise which is almost impossible anymore after Pearl Harbor.

It takes a lot to sink any U.S. ship as the USS Cole showed however it is much more to sink an Aircraft carrier. Even the "Massive cruise missile" stike outlined here would likely have a tough time sinking a single aircraft carrier alone with the fleet around and the detection and defense capabilities, much less 15 other ships. Even if launched out of nowhere again our detection equipment is so good that there would be time to prepare and defend the fleet.

The bottom line is sure the scenario is possible but only if they could achieve complete surprise, which would likely mean certain people on duty on every ship in the fleet would have to be sleeping at the exact same time as the attack. The carrier fleet would also have to be operating under certain relaxed conditions which after 4 tours in the middle east I can say never happens there. The fleet would also have to likely be operating without any CAP (combat air patrol) which I can pretty much garrauntee will not happen right now.

Any scenario can be written to achieve any result, this was likely one scenario out of 100 where as the 99 other scenarios had the opposite result. Any military should always prepare for worst case scenarios and underestimating any enemy can end up destroying any Army or battle group. If this were to happen Iran could NOT stand alone however they would likely get a lot of assistance or even get other more dangerous countries into a massive workd war.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The US navy would cheat.

The US can at any time do a freedom of transit run through Hormuz.

But first they would have target data on every Iranian weapons site on shore and have them countered and targets laid in.

The US Navy would not fire the first shot but would fire the last.

My guess would be that the navy would have shore backup of a high number of assets on the friendly side plus things like B52s and B2s from Diego Garcia in the air and circling over international waters ready to take out targets.

The thing about the US navy is communications, A carrier battle group can change plans in seconds and is a lot more fluid then the Iranian navy could ever be.
Plus iran would never see part of the carrier battle group because there are at least two subs with a battle group and that could go to 4 subs if needed.

Much of the navy weapons against anti ship missiles are passive jamming and spoofing.
Then you have all the active weapons from anti radar missiles that take out the launch site radars and then you have the outer defense missiles. And the inter defence gun systems like phalanx.

And a carrier battle group is one weapon system. If a ship in the group needs to fire in defense they can fire a missile from any other ship of the group.

The carrier battle group is computer linked and will automatically take command from any ship of the group.
you could knock out the combat control room of one ship and another ship could keep firing the knocked out ships missiles.

Iran has no idea how a US carrier battle group operates so that they can plan there attack.
We have watched them conduct maneuvers from AWACS and other intelligence planes and satellites for years.

I expect it to be a one sided battle with many Iranians ending up on suicide missions.

I am not saying that a US Navy ship will not get hit but Iran will pay for it way beyond what they expect.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Seriously The_Pro, you are desperately trying to fool yourself here. You know, we know, that the US would trample the Iranian navy silly when it comes to a conflict.
You base your entire argument over a drill that happened 10 years ago.

Also, your victory dance over the death of team six shows your true colors. And then you call yourself and the US army "we"... "We would, we should".. The US army does not serve freeloading traitors like you.

Tip: Try waiting a little more to see what the real thing will look like. Making assumptions based on the past is ignorant. But if you insist on relying on the past, the poster in page 2 showed you what happened last time the US and Iranian navy met at sea. It's not a surprise you chose to ignore his post and respond to other posts that you can use your circular logic on.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I think Iran would survive what nuclear fire power we could realistically unleash on them....there must be a limit as to destructive capacity and acceptable fallout..after a point, a specific point....you are limited as to how much radiation you can effectively endure on a planet you find yourself on as well



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitch303
The US Navy has 11 carriers which means 11 battle groups. Only one group is in that location so I doubt the US Navy will be destroyed.

You are missing the point.

Iran only needs to inflict enough damage so that the American people says no to invasion. Or even disrupt the strait long enough so that it cripples the world economy.

Hopefully if this war goes down, it leads to a boatload of votes for Ron Paul.


The US army does not serve freeloading traitors like you.

You are right, they serve even bigger traitors, aka the bankers. The army is a tool of the elite, like any other army in the history of the world.


You really think Russia or China would go to war over Iran? Especially if Iran closed the strait?

Nope. China would probably invade Iran first if Iran blocks the strait.


If the US loses its carriers it would be unable to destroy iran.

That's funny.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If the US loses its carriers it would be unable to destroy iran.

And then we have this gem.. lmao. Yeah, the only way to destroy a country is carriers. Right-o.
And after hearing such a stupid uninformed claim, how are we suppose to take you seriously?


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Well OP i think you are correct....

..logic dictates that a Carrier group is no match for a whole national armory.

Iran will use its large arsenal of missiles to overwhelm any defensive systems, together with torpedo's from subs and fast attack boats.

The Stennis Carrier group may very well be able to stop..10..20..missiles, but it won't be able to cope with hundreds of missiles coming its way simultaneously, it's just a ridiculous proposition by people with more pride and arrogance than intelligence.

History shows us that technology is not the decisive factor in warfare, the ability to rapidly mobilize forces and to keep them stocked is far more crucial, logistically the US Carrier group is already sunk, they may be able to fight for 24 hrs but after that they will need to resupply whereas Iran can keep firing all day, all week.

A Carrier group against a nation like Iran...no contest, Iran wins.

It would not be the first time strategic planners were willing to make a sacrifice for a larger goal, they KNOW the carrier group will be destroyed, they KNOW Iran will destroy Saudi Oil Refineries and Pipelines, they think they KNOW what a $500 per barrel of Oil world will look like.

Cosmic..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
..logic dictates that a Carrier group is no match for a whole national armory.

It really depends who you are up against. Not just any nation can sustain an American super carrier fleet.


A Carrier group against a nation like Iran...no contest, Iran wins.

What does "a nation like Iran" suppose to mean? Is Iran a superpower or a global military hardcore force and we didn't know about it?


You're speaking as if the plan is to have this strike force destroyed, which is silly to even mention. A fleet this size is not something any army on Earth, not even the US army (being the biggest with the biggest navy), can afford to lose just like that.

You are one person that speaks his mind in an online forum, and you think you got it all figured out better than US top generals. Why? Because Iran can launch missiles simultaneously?

You guys are a mockery to any military debate. I am serious.

Edit- You remind me of this guy.

Iran strong!
Iran vs USA? Iran win no contest!
Iran launch 9 trillion missiles at once at US pathetic fleet, IRAN WIN!

Basically both of you won't admit defeat until the enemy is holding his boot up your arse inside your fortress and points at you with a gun.
edit on 31-12-2011 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


A sunk carrier group and 20 000 dead US sailors would sure be great propaganda in the US to pass a draft to invade Iran...

Wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to ``sacrifice`` those soldiers. Wouldn't be the first time a government does this.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Wouldn't surprise me if they were willing to ``sacrifice`` those soldiers. Wouldn't be the first time a government does this.

Oh COME ON.. Here we go again.
If the US wanted to sacrifice something it'd sacrifice a boat, a sub, a ship.. not an entire fleet worth of hundreds of billions of dollars just to give themselves an OK to go to war.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
..logic dictates that a Carrier group is no match for a whole national armory.

It really depends who you are up against. Not just any nation can sustain an American super carrier fleet.


A Carrier group against a nation like Iran...no contest, Iran wins.

What does "a nation like Iran" suppose to mean? Is Iran a superpower or a global military hardcore force and we didn't know about it?


A nation like Iran means...

..well stocked with up to date missile capabilities.

..able to draw on its resources.

Look at a map...Iran has an even bigger super duper carrier...it's called Iran.

You cannot project enough force on Iran with a single carrier group, hell it took 6 months of preparation to attack Iraq who were mostly conscripts and didn't want to fight anyway, Iran is a different proposition altogether.

Cosmic..






top topics



 
58
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join