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: 35
58
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Camperguy
 


you're right on everything but one, the cole is a steel hull ship, as are all ships of the arleigh burke class, the only aluminum hull warships are the LCS's and there's only 2 of them, Ticonderoga class Cruisers have and aluminum superstructure, but still have a steel hull, either way, you're right about being refuled and on a skeleton crew, also, things are run much differently now, it would be hard for that to happen again.




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
With this kind of plan.....?????

Nawww, don't think so....





www.bahrainviews.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, I'm in the navy, and there are a lot of people here, enlisted people included, with college degrees... what are you talking about with this "dreggs of society" crap?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   


youtu.be...


Go NAVY!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 3-1-2012 by freetree64 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by freetree64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Having done 6 deployments to the Persian Gulf, all on carriers, I can assure you that Iran's speed boats are no match for the 25 .50 cal mounts, the minimum of 4 SH-60 Seahawk Helicopters with .50 cal, GAU-17 miniguns and Hellfire missiles, the destroyers with the same weapons capability, Tomahawks, Harpoons, and torpedoes. If I had a dime for every time an Iranian speedboat made a run at my ship I would be a rich man. It is almost impossible to sink a Nimitz class carrier. Bottom line is that Iran is no match for the U.S. Navy. Oh, I almost forgot... an aircraft carrier, as a last resort, can outrun a speedboat. A Nimitz Class carrier can reach speeds in excess of 70 mph with no problem. Also, if I had a dime for every time Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz I would be very rich. This is nothing new... in fact this news story made me yawn, and so does the "analysis" provided in the OP.


The HMS prince of wales was an unsinkable ship aswell....

en.wikipedia.org...

I think 3 kilo class submarines would be more than a match for a Nimitz Class carrier.

Just my 2 cents worth..



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by eyespying
 


3 kilos, a match for a carrier, yes, that's more than true, if the carrier is alone, to bad that at all times a U.S. carrier is surrounded by a BATTLE GROUP!!!!!!!! Why does everyone forget that fact. Let me break it down for you in crayon.

1. The usual battle group has around 5 combatants other than the HVU (carrier or amphib). Each of these ships have active and passive sonar, along with most of them having highly sensative, narrowband towed arrays.

2. At least one Los Angeles class attack submarine, sometimes a Virginia class. Either of them out class a kilo.

3. Although the Kilo class is a great diesel submarine, it is still a diesel submarine, top speed submerged is around 17 knots. They blast out a 50 Hz signature, broadcasting that they are not an ally. They can only stay submerged for a matter of hours at they're quietest and most frugal speed (around 4 knots). Also, all ships carry A/N SLQ-25, aka nixie, a very good counter torpedo tool, along with several other countermeasures.

My point is, do some research.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Yes it is not like the Bismark sea, Block island, Gambier , Liscome bay, etc, etc, where all unescorted in WWII.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The US war mongers would welcome some losses--it would be just the catalyst they need to order the full scale smack-down on Iran we all know they're moist for.

Having said that, I doubt any conflict with Iran would pan out like that. Sure, the Iranians aren't a complete pushover. But unless the communists got involved (on their behalf), Iran's snarl would peter out in a few weeks.

After all, that's what 'sanctions' do; they soften up the prey for easy mastication and expectoration down the track.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


If only people WOULD do some research then all of this "all the Iranians have to do to defeat a CSG is..." nonsense would peter out I'm sure. Star for you sir.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyespying
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Yes it is not like the Bismark sea, Block island, Gambier , Liscome bay, etc, etc, where all unescorted in WWII.


I think the Bismark crew scuttled their ship when the main guns were knocked out.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by eyespying
 


3 kilos, a match for a carrier, yes, that's more than true, if the carrier is alone, to bad that at all times a U.S. carrier is surrounded by a BATTLE GROUP!!!!!!!! Why does everyone forget that fact. Let me break it down for you in crayon.

1. The usual battle group has around 5 combatants other than the HVU (carrier or amphib). Each of these ships have active and passive sonar, along with most of them having highly sensative, narrowband towed arrays.

2. At least one Los Angeles class attack submarine, sometimes a Virginia class. Either of them out class a kilo.

3. Although the Kilo class is a great diesel submarine, it is still a diesel submarine, top speed submerged is around 17 knots. They blast out a 50 Hz signature, broadcasting that they are not an ally. They can only stay submerged for a matter of hours at they're quietest and most frugal speed (around 4 knots). Also, all ships carry A/N SLQ-25, aka nixie, a very good counter torpedo tool, along with several other countermeasures.

My point is, do some research.


The SSN 21 Seawolf could sink all of Iranian submarines easily.

The Iranians would probably shoot about 20 Chinese silkworm antiship missiles instead.

I'm sure the admirals in charge have a contingency plan already in place.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hoghead cheese
 

Sorry to nitpick, but first you say this:



The only country that actually was fought by anti-ship missiles was Britain during the Falkland war and the Argentinians was using what few exocet missiles they had on a couple of planes. They hit 3 ships and sunk one possibly two, the rest where damaged severely.


Then you say this:




And by "accident" Sadam Hussiens forces almost sunk one of our Aegis cruisers with an Exocet during the Iran Iraq war. And the Aegis is a anti-missile ship. The type of anti-ship missiles that Iran has are specificially designed to kill Carriers and evade anti-missile systems.


I would say that the USS Stark being hit by two Exocet missiles by the Iraqis counts as being 'fought' by anti-ship missiles.

Then there is the little problem that pteridine noted, the USS Stark was a frigate, not a cruiser.

That, and the Stark was 'almost sunk'? It went back to port under it's own power and served the Navy for another decade after repairs. I guess one could argue that any ship afloat is almost sunk, but I don't believe that is what you meant.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 





The SSN 21 Seawolf could sink all of Iranian submarines easily.

The Iranians would probably shoot about 20 Chinese silkworm antiship missiles instead.

I'm sure the admirals in charge have a contingency plan already in place.


The SSN 21 is in reality a deep water sub, and is not designed to hunt small Iranian subs in the shallow Straight. The SSN 21 is designed to hunt large Russian subs in open sea.

Iran wont use its subs to attack the Fifth fleet unless the fleet is within the Straight of Hormuz. The small Iranian subs are designed to hide close to shore. And its purpose is to attack from cover of shallow waters along the shore lines.

The US subs also have a weakness compared to the Iranians, The US subs have to hunt, and that means that the US subs have to be moving around. The Iranian subs would be hidden and silenced. Iran wont use its subs to hunt. They are not designed for hunting other subs in open water. They are designed for ambushing what ever moves in the water in front of it.

Iran also have stationary underwater torpedo containers, And Torpedoes stationed in hardened shelters along the cost line. These torpedoes can be activated and guided by prepositioned underwater sensors. These torpedoes alone can threaten any US sub hunting Iranian subs in the Straight, or of the coast of Oman.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I'm suprised that this thread is still going. I thought the motto here was to Deny Ignorance, but this thread seems to embrace it. It is based on what was written in WIKI about a computer simulation. And to top it all off, those that were in command of the naval force were Land commanders. How is everyone missing this badly flawed simulation?

Some times I think that it is too bad ignorance isn't painful.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Submarines
 





WIKI about a computer simulation


Wiki referenced it to reliable sources and part of it was computer simulation, not the entire thing; most of it was live exercises. Which part of the 'wiki' do you find unreliable? Do you have contradicting evidence to support your position?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Don't you see any flaws in land commanders commanding a naval force?

That would be like a submarine commander deploying land, tank forces. The commander would not have the faintes idea on how to deploy those troops.

And, if any of this wargame was played in reality, who were the oppsoing forces? Was it a US force against another US force? Who fought who?
edit on 1/3/2012 by Submarines because: finishing thought



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by pteridine
 


I'm pretty sure there were lots of children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Didn't stop the US from dropping nukes on them, as usual we have a case of selected morality.

They (the Iranian youth) were defending their country, show me a nation that won't have young volunteers when SHTF.

I will defend any and all nations that have not made an act of aggression in over 300 yrs, Iran poses absolutely no threat to the US whatsoever, yet here we are, the US being Israel's attack dog as usual.

Back to the subject, Iran only has to concentrate on the 35 mile wide bottleneck in the Strait, they probably have a passive sensor array on the seabed, it would be very easy to fill such a small area with mines, they have advanced anti-shipping and surface to air missiles.

Cosmic..


Stop apologizing for a cowardly Khomeini. I am not discussing the morality of having children wrapped in blankets rolling through mine fields. I am speaking of world opinion based on this fact and why Iran is perceived to be too unstable to have nuclear weapons. The perversion of Islam that rules Iran and their desire for an Iran-led Caliphate makes the rest of the world uneasy. Threats to shut down sea lanes and Naval exercises to show intent may not be all bluster; they may be deluded enough to think they will succeed. They tried it before and may well try it again. What would prevent such a crew from using a nuke if they had one? What do you think would happen then? Do you think Allah would save them from being over run after all their suspected nuclear facilities were vaporized? It is apparent that Iranian leadership will sacrifice anything to reach their goals and it must be concluded that the consequences of using of a nuclear weapon would not deter them.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Submarines
 


I understand what you are saying, it still goes to show that no matter how much technology is on the CBG, a land commander can overrun the CBG and still win, and technology loses out to planning. As a side note China is extensively building a satellite support system to enable its carrier killer missiles to be operational.

Another example of this situation is this thread of mine:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I will check out your other thread.

I can understand your point of view, but I would suggest that if the same simulation with the proper officers in charge, that it would probably have played out differently.

This I found to be interesting in the data that you provided:
After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action. After the wargame was restarted, the war game was forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among the rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on all his anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and Red Force was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3
edit on 1/3/2012 by Submarines because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I think people severly underestimate the fire power on these craft. If one were to be determined hostile at any one specific time the craft which would be approaching any us vessle would literally be shower with so much metal that one could not comprhend.

Now I'm not even talking about the really high tech stuff which is on board. I'm talking just the tracking and metal on target down range.

Listen if a group of fast moving boats traveling at 80- to 100mph which I highly doubt it. The boat would detect the craft heading in its direction and a call would go out for them to change direction or stop. If they proceded to get within a non specified range the boat would be sunk in a slit second. And before the rounds stop firiing the targiting would have lett out a bursrt at the second target and would be woving on to the forth then fifth and so on.

Within a minute a group of 20-30 fast movers would be sitting in the bottom of the straight.

We are talking tactical and simulation.

Now in the real worl the fire power on the carriers not to mention the hit to kill tech on board you people have kniow idea what you are talking about.

Yes the peek up behing the kitty halk happened. Are you trying to tell me they were not listening in to the chinese sub. we were.

We are not that stupid. What did you expect us to do it was not hostile just tracking we do it ervery day its cat and mouse. Gotcha.

How many times do you think we flow over Iran at night. Lie 3 times a week min. Do you they stopped flights.

I think not.

They are smart the iranians. Not stupid. If they were stupid they would launch a barrage at one of the ships from shore and then they would see the FOURTh OF JULY for the first time you know what I mean.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join