2nd Carrier Arrives Off Straits Of Hormuz

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 


Tracking is different than engaging with 100% success. Sure I can see 100 deer on a field, does that mean I can use my gun to take them all out while they are charging me?


When there are 100 of you, then it's not impossible. As you have mentioned the carrier's weapon is the aircraft.

F-18E/F are quite capable of shooting down cruise missiles, and probably there would be F-15's and F-16's from Saudi Arabia and UAE assisting.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Have you guys ever played the game Defcon? Do you all know how many aircraft are available from airbases and from our aircraft carries from allied countries all around the area? Its impossible for iran to do anything significant besides invite the entire free democratic free world to come into their country and say " no you did not!"



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
A carrier is very capable of defending itself against incoming missiles. It has several classified defense systems to handle this. ECM at its finest.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
1) War with Iran is going to happen. At this point it is inevitable. Do I agree with it? No not necessarily. I personally don't care about the past and all that jazz. To me any country that openly threatens another country with annihilation should not be allowed to have a weapon of great devastation. The whole Iran/Israeli thing is off topic. Therefore I won't go into my feelings on that. I just don't feel comfortable with a country spewing things like that; manufacturing nukes.

2) No one is going to use nukes. One simple reason being that they will have the world on their ass for using it. If one country uses one then they better expect a retaliatory strike. It's a death wish. Iran posses a problem with that though. Due to martyrdom. I'll still put my money on that they probably don't want to be wiped off the face of the earth. They sink a carrier? We won't use nukes, we will just bomb them back to the stone age.

3) I personally don't think Russia or China will get involved. The US helps them too much economically, scientifically, etc. They rely on the US as much as the US relies on them. They are probably the main reasons we haven't attacked Iran yet

Irregardless war with Iran will happen it's inevitable. I personally doubt though that they will sink a carrier.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Video worth 1000 words.



Just takes one lucky deer to get through...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Well that weasel Sarkozy has elections on April 22 and unless he does something (like starting a war) he's gonna get his butt kicked.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 




Perhaps it would be easier if we followed Iran's examples. May be should use the women as shields and have the children walk through and clear the mine fields. We could be like those brave Iranians who hid behind women and children in battle.

All that wouldn't have happened if the nutjobs running the US hadn't overthrew Iraq to put crazy Saddam in power, armed him and told him to attack Iran.

And all this ``Iran problem`` wouldn't exist today if the oil corporations running the British/US government hadn't overthrown the Iranian democracy in 1953 or if Bush wasn't a warmongering tool and didn't screw the Iranians in his ``War on terror`` speech in 2003 where he branded Iran as a terrorist state when Iran had been the biggest NATO ally in the fight against the Taliban. In 2002, US-Iran relations were VERY VERY VERY GOOD. But Bush screwed it all up.

Before saying anything, EDUCATE YOURSELF, otherwise, you look like a fool.

And any of you who wants war, you don't know what the hell WAR really is otherwise you wouldn't want it. People warmongering should be sent to Poland 1939 and see how funny and cute it is.

If you want war, YOU ARE A SICKO. You have lost your soul. WAR IS NOT A GAME.
edit on 11-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


The CDg is about half the size of a Nimitz and about 2/3rds the size of the new QE class, of which France is to buy one.

That said, it is a capable carrier in it's own right, with 40 odd aircraft in it's wing.

As for all this chatter about the Sunburn being awesome and the dismissal of either the Aegis (USN) or Samson air defence radars (RN) ability to track and destroy incoming missiles (Aegis 100 targets, Samson 300), it's all a bit silly. Time and again, Russian made hardware has been found wanting when pitted against anything the West fields. I can only really speak with confidence when discussing the British systems, but they have been though a decade or more of development and the T45's themselves that are inservice have had almost 3 years of sea trials to make sure everything works.


Remember HMS Sheffield?

Britain suffered substantial Naval losses during the Falklands War...demonstrating that technical superiority isn't everything.

Without the support of the United States Britain doesn't have much geopolitical/military clout on its own, save for its nuclear submarine fleet. The UK's primary strength is its alliance with the US, which just so happens to be the aggressor in this conflict.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 


Canadian warship bound for Mediterranian, looking for WMDs?

then there is this, looks like Canada is "getting ready" for something, maybe I'm looking too far into it but, the Mediterranean is only a short skip and a jump through the Suez canal and you're gonna find yourself right on either the Saudi's backside, or smack dab in the middle of the Arabian sea. well you can probably see where I'm going with that, should certain waters get heated enough, and whatever trouble follows will be a little gift courtesy of Herr Harper, via the Canadian taxpayer

this stinks



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


In 2002, US-Iran relations were VERY VERY VERY GOOD.


Oh, really?

Did the US have an embassy in Teheran?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
It will pay for us to keep those carriers as far away from Iran's Coastline as possible, and to protect and dominate the area that they are in.

Hopefully the carriers will consolidate in one area of the strait and pwn it!

Let's do this!

*War is imminent!
edit on 12-1-2012 by maestromason because: *addition



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelastlineofwhat

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
They wont last long if WW3 breaks out. Iran has home base advantage. Shooting 500 missiles at one CBG is sure to take it out. This will only happen if they do war in the strait.

USA only has the advantage if they are out in the open, then Iran has no chance.
edit on 11-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



Iran only needs 1 per ship with these babies, Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn. Maybe lauch 2-3 / ship and its a sure hit.


That sounds like a good way to get yourself nuked by the US military.... If Iran destroys 1 carrier they will be royally screwed....



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Scenario a US carrier battle group head through Hormuz with a number of UN observers on board .

Say Iran starts a attack and the battle group goes into defence mode and somewhere in the Arabian sea a US ballistic missile sub pops up and fire one missile.

That missile tracks to a point 30 to 40 miles ABOVE Iran and detonates with a massive EMP burst taking out most of the electronic in Iran.
Iran's C3 will be dead with no one killed and no massive radiation cloud and no chance of giving orders to there units in Hormuz.

There has never been a ruling by any world body on the use of nuclear weapons for a EMP pulse and the UN observers will be there to certify that Iran was the aggressor

The sunburn missile needs a launch site radar to launch them in the right direction and the missile guidance system is active radar that can be saturation jammed and subjected to other countermeasures

The Russian sold sunburns to India and likely India has let the US see and test a lest one to get all the data for the US countermeasures

Also the Russians seldom export top of the line weapons and the sunburn was made in a Russian and a export model.
Iran likely got the export model and its not as good as the Russians have

And its very likely that our Harpoon even though its slow will take out more Iranian ships then they will get of ours .



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


There is no way the US will launch a nuclear attack, even in an EMP capacity.

You underestimate the PR aspects of waging war.

If there's ever going to be a nuclear escalation anywhere for the coming years, it will be around Pakistan or North Korea.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Nope but it doesn't matter. There was very frequent and friendly contact between the 2 countries. Iran arrested more Taliban warlords than anyone...

There was no embassy opened in Iran because the neo-cons warmongers ran the White House. They never wanted peace with a country they don't control, like they control the Saudis.

If good relations would have lasted with Iran, and even improved, Ahmadinejad wouldn't have come to power, (even if he doesn't control squat) the extremists in Iran would have been ignored and the more moderate would have had more power. The whole middle-east would be different right now.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 


While a carrier can take multiple hits, if you destroy the runway, its main weapon system is destroyed, the carriers most powerful weapon is its runway.


WOW! you are SO wrong on all counts...

First, Iran is just foolish enough to start the war however, NOTHING Iran has is even remotely able to do anything more than a mosquito bite to an aircraft carrier.

The flight deck, contrary to logic, is not the carriers most powerful weapon...
It is the nuclear sub sure to be somewhere in the vicinity, locked and loaded...

EVEN if it were possible, (it's not) But lets say it were, the moment the first carrier goes down, our first nuke goes up and its game over. Period.

Russia and China will NOT start a war with the US. Russia and the US still have M. A. D. and as China goes,
they want their money. Nice little blackmale we can do to China...

China: Give money back or we take u country
U.S.: Come and get it.... if you dare...OH! BTW, Thanks for the financial gift... YOU GOT SERVED! LOL

Simply put, the fact that they want their money back will guarantee that they wont try to destroy their "investment" that would be a REALLY bad return on investment HAHAHAHAHA



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by maestromason
 




Let's do this!

Let's do this uh? What about you sign up right now for the military or your shut your mouth? You're basically cheering for the death of thousands of people and the crash of the world economy.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I think sometimes people dont realize that the aircraft carrier is the center of a large area of ships, all of which have an aray of weapons to stop an attack aimed at the carrier or themselfs.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Do people honestly believe that if we wage war against Iran that Russia will not only support Iran but they will in turn attack the US??? Russia has WAY too much to lose by doing that, they dont want to go to war with us...they will be happy to fund another nation money and weapons to fight us, but i doubt they would want to get involved with their own people...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Nope but it doesn't matter. There was very frequent and friendly contact between the 2 countries. Iran arrested more Taliban warlords than anyone...


Respectfully, you are a bit full of it. Bush declared Iran part of the "axis of evil" in January 2002, while there was no embassy in Teheran, right in the year you said Iran-US relations were "very, very good". What nonsense. Even during the Clinton years, slumbering hostilities never thawed.

After the 1979 hostage crisis, relationships between the US and Iran have never been formally restored. The US openly supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.

And you say relationships were "very, very good" in 2002?

The only thing left to say to you is: What's the color of the boathouse at Hereford?






top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join