Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 5
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 




Many of the publically released "simulations" are psyop bait to direct thinking in the emenies minds.

Riiiiiiight. Internal Pentagon war games are psyops for the enemy?
And I guess the general resigned too because of a psyops uh?


Huge holes in the simulations are left out intentionally so as to give the enemy confidence to move forward with those actions.

Huge holes in simulations that nobody knows anything about except the Pentagon officials who were there... or are you saying Iran got spies inside the Pentagon war gaming for a war against Iran?


What I believe he was saying was that that sacrificing a destroyer would work just a well and wouldn't degrade our naval capabiliteis like the loss of an aircraft carrier would.

Well they might think that a destroyer wouldn't be ``enough``... just like the 93 WTC bombing wasn't enough to pass big anti-gun laws and give more power to the ATF... they then staged OKC and killed kids to make sure people would be pissed enough to be able to pass anything they wanted.


And whoever wants to go to war with Iran, log off ATS and go to the nearest army recruitment center. And if Israeliguy you are really from Israel, what about you leave the US out of it and cheer for Israel to do it alone... America has had enough of waging war for Israel.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by area6
 


I guess then it would be a bad year to invest in glass with all that glass flooding the market.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by area6
 


Why would the US destroy Iran if they lost the carriers fair and square? If the US loses its carriers it would be unable to destroy iran. The carrier is what is used for destroying places and once you destroy the carrier, the US would be impotent. Think about that for a second. Also I said it will destroy the US Navy in Hormuz, I did not say elsewhere.




It does equal 600,000 square miles of Iranian glass.


Do you have a war game scenario that can provide backup evidence for this statement?
edit on 30-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)





Think it's worth it?


You think its worth it losing a carrier group for a supposed nuclear weapon that you have no proof of?
edit on 30-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)
LOL. I think a few mrvs would totally annihilate Iran. If they destroy a CVBG then nuking them is an option imo.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by area6
 





You know Iran will be destroyed if they sink a US carrier


Russia is saying dont mess with Iran, if iran gets invaded it couuld go nuclear. If the US loses a carrier, it was fair game. If the US tries to destroy irans mainland expect DC to get nuked and NYC. Do you think it is worth having NYC and DC nuked over irans supposed nuclear weapons?

Also if the US navy attacked iran, of course Iran would take them out. Do you really expect Iran to idly sit by and take a beating by the US Navy? Of course Iran would think it is worth it if the US attacks them.

Do you think the Russians will trade Moscow for Tehran? Seriously???



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:11 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.


Please don't be ridiculous ... a carrier doing 70 mph


Top speed of a Nimitz Class is 30 knots or 34 mph

source



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
The purpose of these exercises is to learn from them and to change tactics accordingly. While the war game outcome is important, it is almost secondary to what can be learnt at every level.

2003 seems too far back where there were little if any drones. Not sure who wins with the new drone technology but I would have thought that the onset of drones have changed the war gaming parameters since then.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Fitch303
 


LMAO, two are in dry dock under going refuling and many others supporting other missions. The US Navy in the strait would undergo heavy losses. I am talking about the one in the strait, not worldwide dude. Do you have evidence to counter my claim other than "uh no it wont"



You know, the USA also has the US Air Force.

B-2 stealth bombers could also attack the Iranian Navy & Army.
You need to take off your blinders and look for the big picture.

The US Military could win the short war in the Strait of Hormuz by just using armed
predator drones.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
To everyone who is saying "If they did sink a battlegroup Iran would be glass" well if you do that I really think the whole world would just turn their backs on the US, also the Russians and Chinese would be very peed off,
You wanna start WW3? use a nuke in anger..
Hey you have the best navy in the world if you do attack Iran (which you will) do it with conventional means please so my future children will have a chance to grow up.

Heck to you all of you saying it will be easy? like Iraq? like Afghanistan? who long did they go on? how much did they cost? how many kids on both sides died? how many civ's died?

Its like some of you are getting giddy about it.
edit on 31-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I thought the US navy had a couple of Air Craft Carriers stationed just East of Tel Aviv. The unsinkable type?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Excellent point boymonkey. Those people who say that if Iran sinks any ship, the USA will use nukes. Was the whole reason for going to war so that Iran wont use nukes? That will give Iran a green light in the future to create Nukes enmasse and have any right to use it on the USA; do you think world opinon will side with the USA who used nukes on Iran or with Iran? Haha using nukes, allows all other countries to nuke the USA. Good luck with that scenario. It has been tried in MAD, and nukes are never the option, both sides lose.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Let me refer you to this gem of a thread regarding stealth aircraft:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also the predator drones would not be a match for any modern air defense network; now understand that the Predator drone is also less stealthy and advanced than te RQ-170 that Iran just brought down.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin

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.


Please don't be ridiculous ... a carrier doing 70 mph


Top speed of a Nimitz Class is 30 knots or 34 mph

source


haha, you don't know that much about Navy ships do you. The U.S. is known for only putting the "advertised" speed out there. One of my good friends was stationed aboard a Destroyer in a carrier group, and he said that when they would go full speed, all seamen not privy to classified information were not allowed to see the speeds they were travelling. He wasn't allowed to tell me anything other than "advertised" is not correct at all.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by longtermproject
 


I bet a lot of sailors have GPS on their smartphone apps and can accurately measure the speed, I believe it can go pretty fast, but still not faster than a missile
edit on 31-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Let me refer you to this gem of a thread regarding stealth aircraft:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also the predator drones would not be a match for any modern air defense network; now understand that the Predator drone is also less stealthy and advanced than te RQ-170 that Iran just brought down.


I wouldn't want to be an Iranian on a warship that is being attacked by 3 new and improved drones
armed with hell fire missiles.

It sure would be a great option for President Obama. - zero casualties -


You know it's entirely possible that the US Military has some hardware that you have
not seen or even heard about. Hmmm........



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Nope. China would probably invade Iran first if Iran blocks the strait.


How would they get there?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 




You know it's entirely possible


Anything is possible on both sides, like how Iran downed the US drone which is more advanced than the Predator. I bet the Iranians have a few surprises up their sleeves as well.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
Please don't be ridiculous ... a carrier doing 70 mph


Top speed of a Nimitz Class is 30 knots or 34 mph


I thought this was a very well explained answer in regards carrier top speed:



The practical speed limit in knots for a displacement-type hull is approximately equal to the square-root of the hull length at the waterline (LWL) times 1.34

The Enterprise is the longest warship ever built. You'll find some variation among different sources, but most of them list her length overall (LOA) as 1,123 feet, whereas ALL of the Nimitz class are usually listed as 1,092 feet. The Enterprise and the Nimitz class have the same length at the waterline (LWL), 1,040 feet.

If the hulls may be considered displacement hulls, this puts the limit of both the Enterprise and Nimitz class warships at the square root of 1,040 (32.249) times 1.34= 43.2 knots.

The "threshold speed" is generally considered to occur at a speed of about 1.2 times the square root of the ship's LWL, which would mean that the Enterprise and Nimitz class ships are not likely to exceed a speed of 38.7 knots.

Naval architects have long considered the problem of achieving significantly higher ship speeds, without increasing length or decreasing beam, as the equivalent of "breaking the sound barrier" in aeronautical technology.

In the nineteenth century, Froude first accurately measured and defined the phenomenon by which increased length is required for higher ship speeds because of the prohibitive drag rise which occurs at a threshold speed corresponding to a length Froude Number of 0.3. The length Froude Number is defined by the relationship 0.298 times the speed length ratio .sqroot..sub.L.sup.V, where V is the speed of the ship in knots and L is the waterline length of the ship in feet. Thus a Froude number of 0.298 equates to a speed length ratio of 1.0.

Today, the maximum practical speed of displacement ships is about 32 to 35 knots. This can be achieved in a relatively small ship by making it long, narrow and light but also costly. To some extent it has been possible to avoid increased length above Froude numbers of 0.4, but this has been achieved in small craft design using semi-planing hulls for ships up to 120 feet long and 200 tons and improved propulsion units. In a larger ship, such as a fast ocean liner, the greater length allows a greater size and volume to be carried at the same speed which is, however, lower relative to its Froude number (i.e., 38 knots for an aircraft carrier of 1,000+ feet waterline length is only a Froude number of 0.34). On the negative side, the larger size of these ships requires significantly larger quantities of propulsion power. There are major problems in delivering this power efficiently through conventional propellers due to cavitation problems. source



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by longtermproject
 



Sorry mate I was trained a s a shipwright in a military dockyard and worked in the drawing office designing these things.

They don't do 70mph

You believe what you like. It was a good laugh though. Keep it up.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 




You know it's entirely possible


Anything is possible on both sides, like how Iran downed the US drone which is more advanced than the Predator. I bet the Iranians have a few surprises up their sleeves as well.


I don't think that drone was very advanced.
The Iranians probably just set up some GPS jammers. The drone lost the signal and then
just circled until it ran out of gas.

The drone has a jet engine. So what?
Landing gear? Satellite com gear and a cool gyro camera on the nose. It's a toy.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 




I don't think that drone was very advanced.


Do you have any evidence to support this allegation that it was not advanced?



The Iranians probably just set up some GPS jammers


Probably is not evidence. Do you have evidence of how they actually did it? There are numerous threads that discuss this.



The drone lost the signal and then just circled until it ran out of gas.


Do you have evidence of this happening? At least a link or source stating this.




The drone has a jet engine. So what? Landing gear? Satellite com gear and a cool gyro camera on the nose. It's a toy.


If its a toy why cant you just go to an airbase and buy it? Why were millions of dollars of stealth tecnology advanced avionics, sensors, and optics were put into this with USAs best engineers working on this project and you marginalize with, oh its just a toy. Just like the CH-47 Chinook that was shot down, was also a toy? If it was a toy why was Obama begging for it back on his knees? If it is a toy please buy one for me, I would like to see you try]
edit on 31-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: grammer





new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join