It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 39
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
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.

Five stars for you!

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by Alien Abduct

Thank you for your insight. Iran does not have the capability to threaten our Navy. Regardless of how many of the posters on this site would like it to be otherwise. I find that "Denying Ignorance" is a full-time job here. Most of the anti-American posters are deeply and tragically ignorant about world affairs,military power,and strategy. I find great humor in the spurious thinking displayed here by those that think there is any country that could pose a serious threat to the U.S. Russia cannot,they need to worry about China...there will be a conflict between those two powers. China certainly cannot all of their questionable military power has its locus in their landlocked army. Iran,seriously? Iran couldn't even defeat Iraq. The cutting edge of Persian military strategy is to send human wave attacks into machine gun fire. They think ,if you want to call it that,in simplistic military terms.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


IF the United States uses nukes Russia would not nuke the United States. Very, very unlikely, but we can play around with it for a little. I take it you assume that

1.) United States uses a ICBM
a.) The trajectory from Russian and foreign radars detecting the launch miscalculate it.
b.) Russian/Chinese/Indian etc., governments were not warned of the launch.
2.) Stealth Bombers or another delivery platform were not used in the delivery of the nuke.

Sometimes I wonder if people actaully think stuff though.

I mean, Iran even reported nukes were used on Afghanistan
So maybe anything is possible


posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Non-scripted training simulations are commonly stop-start. This is because a free-form exercise can move away from an important aspect that should be simulated in context. This makes the exercise seem rigged so that the blue forces win but an important aspect of the simulation may be a mop up tactic that the commanders need to know how to coordinate, a tactical maneuver late in a battle plan, or just the logistics of occupation. The people that run the exercises are intelligent and run them for a reason. Cheating at solitare is not one of them.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by ThedeadeyesofCharlieSheen

Haters gonna hate. I really don't know why all you Aussies get so anti-American in your venomous posts. Your navy sucks,and hard. You couldn't even defend yourselves from Indonesia,much less China. What is even more tragic is Foster's is a terrible beer. You guys down there could learn a thing or two from England and Ireland about good beer. I guess you get this from the lackluster gene pool of being a penal colony.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:03 PM

Originally posted by irontyrant
reply to post by ThedeadeyesofCharlieSheen

Haters gonna hate. I really don't know why all you Aussies get so anti-American in your venomous posts. Your navy sucks,and hard. You couldn't even defend yourselves from Indonesia,much less China. What is even more tragic is Foster's is a terrible beer. You guys down there could learn a thing or two from England and Ireland about good beer. I guess you get this from the lackluster gene pool of being a penal colony.

Although you are right about the beer (Fosters) I have tasted some cracking beer brought to me by my Aussie pal, also the reason why their beer is so light etc is to do with the climate, they add more hops to make it keep longer.
Also I dont agree with your last statement, heck I wish my great great great great grandad went and nicked a loaf of bread so I wouldnt of had to wake up everyday to this bloody weather.
edit on 3-1-2012 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:13 PM
bottom line is this. both countries are itching for a fight..neither want to be seen as the bad guy so we wait..who will get the itchy finger first.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:36 PM
Since this Iranian fantasy thread continues, I am injecting a little reality into the situation:

United States: Total Population 313,232,044
Iran: 77,891,220

U S Military Manpower Available 145,212,012
Iran 46,247,556

U S Fit for Military Service 120,022,084
Iran: 39,556,497

U S Reaching Military Age Yearly 4,217,412
Iran 1,392,483

U S Active Military Personnel 1,477,896
Iran 545,000

U S Active Military Reserves 1,458,500
Iran 650,000

U S Total Aircraft 18,234
Iran 1,030

U S Total Land-Based Weapons 56,269
Iran 12,393

U S Total Naval Units 2,384
Iran 261

U STowed Artillery 2,163
Iran 1,575

U S Merchant Marine Strength 418
Iran 74

U S Major Ports and Terminals 21
Iran 3

U S Aircraft Carriers 11
Iran 0

U S Destroyers 59
Iran 3

U S Frigates 30
Iran 5

U S Submarines 75
Iran 19

U S Patrol Coastal Craft 12
Iran 198

U S Mine Warfare Craft 14
Iran 7

U S Amphibious Operations Craft 30
Iran 26

U S Defense Budget / Expenditure $692,000,000,000
Iran $9,174,000,000

U S Foreign Reserves $150,000,000,000
Iran $75,060,000,000

U S Purchasing Power $14,660,000,000,000
Iran $818,700,000,000

U S Oil Production 9,056,000 bbl
Iran 4,172,000 bbl

U S Oil Consumption 18,690,000 bbl
Iran 1,809,000 bbl

U S Proven Oil Reserves 19,120,000,000 bbl
Iran 137,600,000,000 bbl

U S Total Labor Force 154,900,000
Iran 25,700,000

U S Roadway Coverage 6,506,204 km
Iran 172,927 km

U S Railway Coverage 226,427 km
Iran 8,442 km

U S Waterway Coverage 41,009 km
Iran 850 km

U S Coastline Coverage 19,924 km
Iran 2,440 km

U S Major Serviceable Airports 15,097
Iran 319

U S Square Land Area 9,826,675 km
Iran 1,648,195 km


edit on 1/3/2012 by manta78 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:10 PM

Originally posted by ThedeadeyesofCharlieSheen
I don't care if you all believe me or not but ive worked in shipyards across the globe and I will tell you right now yank ships are not built to last..a well placeed barage of missles will sink any ship in the yank fleet no worries.

you want ships that will stand up to iranian missiles go to australia abd the new destroyers theyre building otherwise dont even talk about so called american navy might pfffttt those things are built to be sunk.

No nationalistic disrespect intended, but the new generation of Royal Australian Navy Hobart class destroyer's are Spanish designed Álvaro de Bazán class frigates built by local Australian shipyards under contract from the Spanish design firm Navantia.

It would seem that the RAN had preferred the U.S. designed Arleigh Burke class destroyer as it was larger and more capable however the Álvaro de Bazán class frigate design was chosen because it was an existing design, and would be cheaper, quicker, and less risky to build.

Beyond the obvious national pride in construction, May I ask what you are basing your statement that the Spanish designed Hobarts are a significantly stouter, more survivable build than the Arleigh Burke class

As the days of foot thick rolled steel armored belts have gone the way of the Dreadnaughts with modern naval vessels relying on countermeasures, multi layered defensive weaponry and advanced damage control procedures (which the USN excel's at beyond any other current navy) as the Arleigh Burke displaces well over 3000 short tons ( nearly CG displacement) beyond the Hobart/Álvaro de Bazán class (displacement closer to FFG) and fields a superior weapons and electronic suite?

After receiving tenders from Blohm + Voss, Navantia, and Gibbs & Cox among others, the Australian government identified Gibbs & Cox's Evolved Flight II Arleigh Burke class destroyer as the preferred design in August 2005.

The Álvaro de Bazán class frigate designed by Navantia, was identified as the official alternative, and both designs began further testing and modification as part of a two-year selection process.

The two ship designs were equivalent in many areas, including length, speed and weapons outfit, although the Arleigh Burke class was larger with a displacement 2,200 tons greater than the Spanish frigate, and had superior capabilities in regards to range (700 nautical miles (1,300 km; 810 mi) greater), helicopter operations (two embarked helicopters instead of one), primary armament (a 64-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System compared to a 48-cell launcher), and close-defence (with a second close-in weapons system).

Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Russ Shalders believed the American design would provide the RAN with a greater long-term capability, as there was greater scope for upgrades and modifications later in the ships' careers.

Despite the American destroyer being the preferred option, the conclusion of the selection process in late June 2007 saw Navantia's Álvaro de Bazán design selected, as unlike the Evolved Arleigh Burkes, the Spanish ships were a less-risky design as they had been tested and proven, they could be in service four years earlier than the American-designed ships, and they would cost AU$1 billion less to build. There were also benefits in ordering the destroyers and the Canberra class landing helicopter dock ships from the same designer.

The Hobart/Álvaro de Bazán class DDG's seem to be having some real quality control problems as well in the Aussie BAE shipyards resulting in substantial delay...

In October 2010, the 20-by-17-metre (66 by 56 ft) central keel block manufactured by BAE for Hobart had distorted, making it incompatible with other hull sections. The cause of the fabrication errors is unknown: BAE blamed incorrect drawings from designer Navantia, while the AWD Alliance claimed the other two shipyards have not experienced similar problems, and believe first-of-kind manufacturing errors were made by BAE. The delay in reworking the keel block was predicted to set construction back by at least six months...

In late May 2011, the government announced that the delay in building Hobart had increased to between one and two years, and would attempt to reduce the workload on BAE (which is also responsible for superstructure work on the Canberra class amphibious ships) by redistributing up to 13 of the 24 hull blocks the company was slated to build for the first two ships to the other two shipyards. In addition, the three blocks containing each destroyer's hull-mounted sonar are being assembled by Navantia in Spain and the United Kingdom, with the possibility another two hull blocks could be assigned to the Spanish shipyard.

Side by side comparison, the Arleigh Burke DDG seems to be the superior vessel...?

Hobart class destroyer

Computer-generated impression of the planned Hobart class destroyer
Class overview
Name: Hobart class
Builders: Navantia (designer)
ASC (primary shipbuilder)
Operators: Royal Australian Navy
Preceded by: Perth class destroyer and Adelaide class frigate
Built: 2009-2017 (predicted)
In commission: 2014 onwards (predicted)
Building: 1
Planned: 3
Completed: 0
General characteristics (as designed)
Type: Air warfare destroyer
Displacement: 6,250 tonnes (6,890 tons) full load
Length: 147.2 metres (483 ft)
Beam: 18.6 metres (61 ft) maximum
Draught: 5.17 metres (17.0 ft)
Propulsion: Combined diesel or gas arrangement
2 x General Electric Marine model 7LM2500-SA-MLG38 gas turbines, 17,500 kilowatts (23,500 hp) each
2 x Caterpillar Bravo 16 V Bravo diesel engines, 5,650 kilowatts (7,580 hp) each
2 x controllable pitch propellers
Speed: Over 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph)
Range: Over 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 km; 5,800 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
Complement: 186 + 16 aircrew
Accommodation for 234
Sensors and
processing systems: Aegis combat system
Raytheon AN/SPY-1D(V) S-band radar
Northrop Grumman AN/SPQ-9B X-band pulse Doppler horizon search radar
Raytheon Mark 99 fire-control system with two continuous wave illuminating radars
2 x L-3 Communications SAM Electronics X-band navigation radars
Ultra Electronics Maritime Systems' Modular Multistatic Variable Depth Sonar System
Ultra Electronics Series 2500 electro-optical director
Sagem VAMPIR IR search and track system
Rafael Toplite stabilised target acquisition sights
Electronic warfare
and decoys: ITT EDO Reconnaissance and Surveillance Systems ES-3701 ESM radar
SwRI MBS-567A communications ESM system
Ultra Electronics Avalon Systems multipurpose digital receiver
Jenkins Engineering Defence Systems low-band receiver
4 x Nulka decoy launchers
4 x 6-tube multipurpose decoy launchers
Armament: 48-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System
• RIM-66 Standard 2 missile
• RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile
2 x 4-canister Harpoon missile launchers
1 x Mark 45 Mod 4 5-inch gun
2 x Mark 32 Mod 9 two-tube torpedo launchers
• Eurotorp MU90 torpedoes
1 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x M242 Bushmaster autocannons in Typhoon mounts
Aircraft carried: 1 x S-70B-2 Seahawk


Arleigh Burke class destroyer
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), lead ship of the class
Class overview
Name: Arleigh Burke class destroyer
Operators: United States Navy
Preceded by: Kidd-class guided missile destroyer
Succeeded by: Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer
Cost: US$1,843m (DDG-114–116, FY2011/12)[1]
Planned: 75[2]
Completed: 62
Active: 61
General characteristics
Type: Destroyer
Displacement: Fully loaded:
• Flight I: 8,315 t (8,184 long tons; 9,166 short tons)
• Flight II: 8,400 t (8,300 long tons; 9,300 short tons)
• Flight IIA: 9,200 t (9,100 long tons; 10,100 short tons)
• Flight III: 10,000 t (9,800 long tons; 11,000 short tons)[3]
Length: 505 ft (154 m) (Flights I and II)
509 ft (155 m) (Flight IIA)
Beam: 66 ft (20 m)
Draft: 30.5 ft (9.3 m)
Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines each generating 27,000 shp (20,000 kW);
coupled to two shafts, each driving a five-bladed reversible controllable pitch propeller;
Total output: 108,000 shp (81,000 kW)
Speed: In excess of 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range: 4,400 nmi (8,100 km) at 20 kn (37 km/h; 23 mph)
Boats and landing
craft carried: 2 Rigid hull inflatable boats
Complement: • Flight I: 303 total[4]
• Flight IIA: 23 officers, 300 enlisted[5]
Sensors and
processing systems: • AN/SPY-1D 3D Radar
• AN/SPS-67(V)2 Surface Search Radar
• AN/SPS-73(V)12 Surface Search Radar
• AN/SQS-53C Sonar Array
• AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar
• AN/SQQ-28 LAMPS III Shipboard System
Electronic warfare
and decoys: • AN/SLQ-32(V)2 Electronic Warfare System
• AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Torpedo Countermeasures
• MK 36 MOD 12 Decoy Launching System
• AN/SLQ-39 CHAFF Buoys
Armament: • 96 cell Mk 41 vertical launch system
• BGM-109 Tomahawk
• RGM-84 Harpoon SSM (not in Flight IIA units)[6]
• RIM-66M Standard medium range SAM (has an ASuW mode)[citation needed]
• RIM-161 Standard Ballistic missile defense missile for Aegis BMD (15 ships as of March 2009[7] )
• RIM-162 ESSM SAM (DDG-79 onward)
• RUM-139 Vertical Launch ASROC
• RIM-174A Standard ERAM to be added in 2011
• one 5 inch (127 mm/54) Mk-45 Mod 1/2 (lightweight gun) (DDG-51 through -80)
• one 5 inch (127 mm/62) Mk-45 mod 4 (lightweight gun) (DDG-81 onwards)
• two 20 mm Phalanx CIWS (DDG-51 through -84, one on several later units), two 25 mm bushmasters
• two Mark 32 triple torpedo tubes (six Mk-46 or Mk-50 torpedoes, Mk-54 in the near future)
Aircraft carried: • None on Flights I and II, but LAMPS III electronics installed on landing deck for coordinated DDG-51/helo ASW operations
• Flight IIA onwards, two MH-60R Seahawk LAMPS III helicopters
Aviation facilities: Flights I and II: Flight deck only
Flight IIA onwards: Flight deck and enclosed hangar for up to two MH-60R Seahawk helicopters

edit on 3-1-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Two words, Persian Glass.


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.

In a word "YES"

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:34 PM

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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?

Russia and China will do nothing. Neither of them want what would come of a real nuclear exchange between us. However, spanking Iran is a different story. I'd say 3 Minutemen III would just about do it and still leave us with 697 left over in reserve.

And, no hypocrites here. For now it is our bat and ball. Things will change and things have changed but until then get over it.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by whywhynot

Really?? are you that sure??

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:39 PM
reply to post by whywhynot

Yes you are a hypocrite if you want to nuke Iran. Now tell me why do you want to nuke Iran? What is your logical reasoning for this fantasy of yours?

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003

Sometimes leaders have to make the hard calls. JFK did and Russia backed down. Plenty other examples if you remember history. Either you spend your life in fear or you make the tough choices.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

he has no understanding that thermonuclear warfare will lead to more thermonuclear warfare.Russians would do the same to Israel and Arab world in response to the Syrian crisis then.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Sorry buddy but I have no reason to conform to your ideas. I have my own ideas and will express them freely. You don't like them... to bad so sad.

The history of the world (including Persia's) support my ball and bat view.

Get over it.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by whywhynot

And USA backed down in 1971 indo-pak war when Brezhnev was willing to start up a nuclear war.Russia has a far lot more nukes than 1962 today.Plus a reasonable good Civil defence and excellent bioweapons program. in 1962 russian missiles could not reach USA ,today it can.

Willing to risk that??

edit on 3-1-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003

Here is the big difference, Russia, China, USA, Israel, France, England ect.... want to live. The leaders in Iran and certain other Arab countries want to die. If you want you live you will act to support that desire. If you want to die you will act to support that desire. Now, in which of the above countries do we see suicide bombers? Hmmmmm

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003

There you go, proved my point, they acted like they wanted to live!

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:53 PM
reply to post by whywhynot

And who created AL Qaeda ?? Guess who?? CIA.

Do you remember Operation fast and Furious ,the US govt arming drug cartels??

As for the suicide bomber they are mainly Saudi do you know.The 9/11 'hijackers' were Saudi.Al Qaeda is a smokescreen.Then why is USA establishing Al qaeda dictatorships in Libya and supporting Al qaeda terrorists in Syria via the proxy Turkey.

new topics

<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in