Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

reply to post by Alien Abduct


He'll just ignore you now because you're right.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


Ok fine, it was not leading edge but still important, and to think I stopped my aviation week subscription years ago lol.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by justaskin

 

The drone may have been expendable but the technology is not, but lets not get side tracked on the drone topic. Back to why the US Navy will be sunk.

Seriously to say that the US Navy would be sunk is a borderline trolling argument. I think enough points have been made in this thread to counter your claim AND your simulation to conclude that this is an absurd argument on your behalf.

-Alien

Originally posted by MrStyx
reply to post by apacheman

 

Nam we couldn't apply the full might of the military due to the unpopularity of it back home and civilian casualties. If all of Nam was against us and we weren't trying to protect half of it we would have just laid waste to it all.

Thank you for bringing up a fallacy that is incorrectly cited ad-nauseum as a historical precedent.

There have been a number of posts throughout this thread referencing U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia as a military defeat by quoting varying degrees of misinformation and ignorance of the historical record.

As some ATS posters are eagerly trying to draw hypothetical parallels between the outcome of the current situation with Islamic Republic of Iran and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1973.

Clearly, the end of hostilities in Vietnam came about somewhat differently than quite a few people seem to believe.

Please forgive the following repost in an effort to correct some of the current misconceptions regarding the military situation surrounding the initial cessation of hostilities and brokered peace agreement.


reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Vietnam is referenced ad nauseum as the textbook application of a successful asymmetric guerilla warfare campaign by the history channel crowd that as usual, couldn't be any more incorrect.

Very briefly, U.S. military involvement in Indochina was an example of what happens when a military power with essentially infinite resources loses the context of the purpose of war and the military as a political tool.

U.S. military involvement in S.E. Asia ended January 27, 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, of which the North Vietnamese were more than eager signatories.

In Dec of 1972 the United States grew weary of stalled peace negotiations and issued an ultimatum that they unfortunately (for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) chose to ignore.

What followed was the largest conventional bombing raids the world had seen since the 2nd world war and absolute devastation for the North.

"The Christmas bombings" as they were dubbed by the press saw the large scale strategic employment of the B-52's , in short Richard Nixon tasked the Strategic Air Command to do their job for the first time since the beginning of open hostilities in 1965.

The B-52's laid waste to the entire Northern infrastructure, they bombed the power-plants and factories, they mined Haiphong harbor essentially ending Soviet resupply. After the 5th day the North Vietnamese Air Force and Surface to Air defenses had ceased to exist defaulting total air superiority to the U.S.

In short,12 days of unrestricted strategic bombing brought the DRV to their knees and brought favorable peace terms for Indochina to the Nixon White House with the promise that unrestricted bombing would resume if the North pursued any further aggressions against the South.

Two and a half years later, all U.S. forces have been drawn down and sent home leaving only a token diplomatic contingent of Marines, the leadership in Hanoi (correctly) judged American resolve for any escalation of hostilities to be unacceptable. Taking advantage of domestic political turmoil, the NVA launched a conventional assault into Southern Vietnam.

President Gerald Ford in a televised speech on April 23rd 1975 declared an end to all U.S. aid to South Vietnam.

On April 29th Saigon fell and an estimated half million men,woman and children were butchered by the rampaging NVA

....and the rest is history.

The point being, when U.S. military doctrine was finally correctly applied by the strategists pulling the strings from dark cubby holes in the Pentagon, North Vietnam was asymmetrically bombed into the stone-age over a very brief and brutal 12 days.

Originally posted by FoosM

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

January 27, 1973, Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by OWSisdead

Originally posted by DerekJR321
There's a whole lot of "Rah Rah USA" going on in this thread.

Are you people so blind that you WANT another war? Give it a rest. A war against Iran has a LOT more consequences than does any of our other "engagements". A LOT of good soldiers will DIE because of nonsense. I'm glad so many of you want to thump your chest to prove who's tougher. Is it your son or daughter on the line?

You are rediculous! This war is comming whether your little liberal bleeding heart wants it or not. You best be advised to quit picking sides against your own country and get your mind right.

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

So I suppose it'll be your redneck ass or your red neck ass kids lining up to join the military then??

reply to post by Alien Abduct

First off sanctioning Iran is not attacking them, and the sanctions aren't just coming from the USA.

-Alien

It dosent matter what you or anyone else think sanctions are. What matters is how Iran reacts to them.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

The aircraft carrier already went through.

Correct, the aircraft carrier left because of the Iranian drill. Not very smart to have the carrier so close to a exercise where live ammunition is used.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

Anyways that drone was expendable, nothing on that drone technologically was a loss to us don't act like it was a big deal that we lost a little drone its not the first one that has gone down

How do you now it was expendable? Did you work on the drone project? If it was expendebale why was obama begging for it back? How do you know there was no technological loss to us? Do you know the engineers and military personell who worked on the project and they told you?

Perhaps you should consider making an effort to educate yourself of that which you clearly have little knowledge and no experience before trying to impress others with your expertise?...

post by Drunkenparrot

Regarding the potential for Iran or anyone for that matter to study and glean some hidden secret from the wreckage, sure it is possible but not likely.

the RQ-170 is clearly something Iran and a few dozen other countries are capable of designing and building. The catch is to have the budget to afford a large semi stealthy drone program as well as the industrial base in place to produce them without massive upgrades to ones aerospace manufacturing infrastructure.

The RQ-170 is a flying wing design and its take-off weight is estimated to be 8,500 pounds.

The design also lacks several elements common to stealth engineering, namely notched landing gear doors and sharp leading edges. It has a curved wing platform, and the exhaust is not shielded by the wing.

Aviation Week postulates that these elements suggest the designers have avoided ‘highly sensitive technologies’ due to the near certainty of eventual operational loss inherent with a single engine design and a desire to avoid the risk of compromising leading edge technology.

It was also suggests that the medium-grey color implies a mid-altitude ceiling, unlikely to exceed 50,000 feet since a higher ceiling would normally be painted darker for best concealment.

Defence Aviation/ Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel still in top secrecy

Externally, RQ-170 is nothing special. Blended stealth applications are from the 1970's, radar reflector over the intake in lieu of proper s-ducting to hide the turbine blades, even rather than serrated panel lines, little effort to clean up the rear quarter etc are telling.

Defence Aviation

Defense Systems/ RQ-170 crash might put US sensor technology at risk

Defense Aviation

What is new about the RQ-170 is that it is the first generation of UAV to combine some stealth into an affordable, easily maintainable planform. The design is intended to be built in large numbers to help ease the current high demand for drone time and to easily replace losses whether through mundane attrition or combat.

Follow the landing of a damaged Navy EP-3E in China, in early 2001 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called a classified, all-day session of those with responsibilities for “Sensitive Reconnaissance Operations.” (AW&ST, June 4, 2001, p. 30)

They discussed how to avoid future embarrassing and damaging losses of classified equipment, documents or aircrews without losing the ability to monitor the military forces and capabilities of important countries like China.

Their leading option was to start a new, stealthy, unmanned reconnaissance program that would field 12-24 aircraft. Air Combat Command, then led by Gen. John Jumper, wanted a very low-observable, high-altitude UAV that could penetrate air defense, fly 1,000 nau. mi. to a target, loiter for 8 hr. and return to base.

Aviationweek/ RQ-170 Has Links to Intelligence Loss to China

Technically, the RQ designation denotes an unarmed aircraft rather than the MQ prefix applied to the armed Predator and Reaper UAVs. The USAF phrase, "Support to forward deployed combat forces," when combined with observed details, suggest a moderate degree of stealth (including a blunt leading edge, simple nozzle and overwing sensor pods) and that the Sentinel is a tactical, operations-oriented platform and not a strategic intelligence-gathering design.

Aviationweek/ USAF Confirms Stealthy UAV Operations

Iran is a big country with a finite aerial surveillance radar capability. Stealthy just means harder to see, not invisible. Hypothetically, if the RQ-170 degraded search radar performance by only 50%, it opens up a lot of holes for a surveillance platform to get inside of a radar picket undetected. The lower RCS even modestly degrading detection range combined with a high sub-sonic speed would make the drone nearly immune to interception, as long as you stay out of the detection range of the more savvy and powerful fixed ground to air tracking and targeting radars.

An more sophisticated airframe is simply unnecessary for the role at hand.

post by Drunkenparrot

The RQ-170 is a tactical platform, it was designed from the beginning to be good enough to do the job with a minimum of technical sophistication so that it would not be a tremendous threat to national security if it were flown into harms way and lost in hostile territory.

Case in point, the estimated fly away cost of the RQ-170 is estimated to be around $6 million.

Contrasted with the estimated fly away cost of over $50 million for the strategically tasked MQ-9, I think some of the more imaginative folks commenting should start to see the RQ-170's role in the big picture.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Two words, Persian Glass.


2nd

reply to post by Alien Abduct


Nothing got countered. No one was able to provide evidence as to why the training simulation was wrong. I am taking the word of Commander Viper over any of the people on ATS, even if they served in the navy because this was the word of the actual man who was the commander of the exercises.

All everyone ever did on here was name the weapons on the carrier battle group..big whoop, it depends on how the weapons work in harmony against a coordinated attack which Commander Viper sought to explore and succeeded in destroying the carriers defenses

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Iran has a no win situation, if they attack the US Navy and fail they will look the fool and be our bitch. If they get lucky and sink a significant US warship resulting in the loss of many US personnel the cry back home and in the fleet will be for blood. Also, with the presidential election coming in the US Obama will make the popular move. What this means is really big bombs and missiles coming from directions and altitudes that Iran cannot defend against. We are talking the US Navy will stand down and the USAF will step up. Wonder if the Iranians think that they can hit an incoming target traveling at mach 20 with multiple reentry vehicles. Good luck with that thought boys. Better get out the SPF 5,000,000

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


So, it sounds like there was

a) stalemate during a guerilla campaign for years
b) victory by the side when they engaged in unrestricted bombing
c) victory by the other side when they engaged in large scale ground invasion.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

Nothing got countered. No one was able to provide evidence as to why the training simulation was wrong. I am taking the word of Commander Viper over any of the people on ATS, even if they served in the navy because this was the word of the actual man who was the commander of the exercises.

All everyone ever did on here was name the weapons on the carrier battle group..big whoop, it depends on how the weapons work in harmony against a coordinated attack which Commander Viper sought to explore and succeeded in destroying the carriers defenses

edit on 3-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: spelling

Well, tactics and weaponry are different today as a consequence of the war game. That's the point of it, right?

Primarily one wouldn't take the Blue side again without having helicopters and A2A fighters already going.

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

Two words, Persian Glass.


2nd

Wow your about the 10th person to say this....Do you really think if you nuke Iran the world will just shrug their shoulders and forget it? I really think if this happens you may as well build a wall around the USA because not one country will want to know you. Let alone what the Russians and Chinese would do.
Use nukes and you will be nuking yourselves.
It seems some of you really want it all to kick off. You forget that war is not fun it is bloody and horrid for everyone involved.

Originally posted by justaskin
reply to post by randomname

 

From a Naval Veteran that drove an Aircraft Carrier in the Arabian Gulf (As the Navy calls it..) and in the Med during Bosnian conflict for years. I will address the obvious here:

1. Small craft are easily identified and neutralized. Aircraft carriers cary....wait for it... Aircraft, which were not part of the exercise. One F-18 can destroy a whole fleet of small craft in 5 minutes. One aircraft carrier has as many as 100on deck, and can carry 100 more in the hangar bay. AWACS would be deployed and helos would drop sonobuoys in a perimeter. Maybe 1-2 could get thru if right circumstances, but not enough to matter..

Of course, small surface water craft are toast against F18-'s and attack helicopters if the attack craft have full air superiority and don't have to worry about high-performance (i.e. not MANPAD) SAMs.

2. An aircraft carrier, despite some posters insistence, can survive a missile attack. Planes carrying armed missiles have caught fire many many many times on an aircraft carrier, and not taken the flight deck out.

Catching fire isn't the same though as activating a shaped charged warhead pointing on target with an explosively formed penetrator, or an underwater torpedo.

3. One word, submarines.. Their Navy would be history within 1 week of tactical strikes..

The submariners will be able to torpedo burning hulls only, a B-2 with JDAMs will be there faster.

4. The scenario in the simulation involved a terrorist group.

Well, van Riper's side launched a few hundred cruise missiles. That's a pretty damn powerful terrorist group. My real question is how is Iran going to accurately target them in a war scenario.

IRAN is a STATE... See... this isn't like the gulf war, against an non-uniformed enemy. A "state" that actually goes to war against the US would be a smoking hole in the earth within minutes, without using a single nuke. There are many conventional weapons we have now that are more powerful than the Hiroshima nuke.

Such as? Even the largest thermobaric conventional bombs are way smaller than Hiroshima.

reply to post by whywhynot


If you are suggesting nukes, the Russians will mistake the incoming nukes and nuke Washington dc cab you stop 20000 nukes coming your way at Mach 20? No one is going to nuke anyone, even If the USA lost a carrier.

Wasn't the point to attack Iran so they don't have nukes? And then you want to use nukes? How big of a hypocrit are you?

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

Two words, Persian Glass.


2nd

Wow your about the 10th person to say this....

In that case please allow me to be the first person to post an obligatory photo...

Trinitite

Trinity was the name of the first atomic bomb test, on 16 July 1945, in a desolate desert valley in New Mexico between Socorro and Alamogordo. The explosion created an expanse of sandy desert ground covered with glass, later dubbed "trinitite." This trinitite specimen is a small piece of it, a tangible reminder of what we have wrought. It is mostly melted quartz with traces of olivine and feldspar. The radioactivity it once had is now negligible (see an analysis of trinitite's radiation).

The trinitite appears to have formed as sand was sucked up into the nuclear fireball and fell back in a rain of molten glass, according to a new theory. It was always assumed that trinitite formed on the ground under the fireball's direct glare, but science thrives by revisiting assumptions in the search for truer explanations.

Although in this case, being geographically specific and the first of its kind, I believe ATS should get the mineralogy naming rights.

Which do you prefer, Persiatite or perhaps Ahmadinejadite?

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by justaskin

 

The drone may have been expendable but the technology is not, but lets not get side tracked on the drone topic. Back to why the US Navy will be sunk.

Seriously to say that the US Navy would be sunk is a borderline trolling argument. I think enough points have been made in this thread to counter your claim AND your simulation to conclude that this is an absurd argument on your behalf.

-Alien

The only answer they will accept is Yes it will.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Star for you

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


DC nuked? Well, maybe it is worth it afterall. That's certainly one way to end the Progressive corruption.