US Navy Wouldn't Last a Week in WW3

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: johnwick
Don't forget, there were none before the first gulf war, they just brought a couple out of retirement for a brief one last dance.

Come on , don't be silly with facts.
Russia-Insider disagrees with your facts and they have a neutral and unbiased view of the scenario.

You are of course right, what was I thinking?

They are the pinnacle of unbiased factual truth based reporting.

My bad.

a reply to: mazzroth

Are the Russians familiar with the "Rope-a-Dope"? Sure, America slashed military spending. Sure, their Armed Forces are weakened, cut backs and all. Yes, military spending is at an all time low! Yes? Their President is a pussy-cat, doesn't want to fight. America is lame. Let us prove it! Yes! We crippled a ship!

Fools. We are all fools. We have all been fooled. Bigger stakes at play I suppose. Black Triangles...don't need them, yet. Russian Naval victory! America Defeated! In under a week, hell!, under 72 hours!

America bends but does not break, when will they learn that the pussy-cat is also a willow? Off generational American Control...the most powerful kind. Pubs come balls out War Games, Dems snuggle up and asphyxiate you.

a reply to: mazzroth

You should take a look at the Russian nay and what they could actually deploy in a war as opposed to the numbers they have now. There is a large gap between what they have and what is war worthy.

Secondly China is an emerging navy which can still be considered brown water as opposed to a true blue water navy.

a reply to: mazzroth

Your source and little story is nice and all... but what about all the tech we don't know about?

All of the sizing up people try to do it utter crap. Very few people know the truth in our numbers and just how advance we really are militarily. That goes for both/all sides.

With the size of the US defense budget, I guarantee just about anyone on ATS would need to change their pants if an all-out non-nuclear exchange took place.

a reply to: mazzroth

Wow, what rubbish! Consider the source. Yeah, russians aren't biased about the United States at all (sarcasm).

The article is a joke and is 10 minutes I'll never get back. Ugh!

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Answer

Yep, keep telling yourself that link,

Good job finding one example that proves absolutely nothing.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
The west needs to increases it defence budget three fold.

No, they need to spend the money they get smarter and stop all the ridiculous overpriced contracts to enrich their friends and politicians.

Cheers - Dave

If the United States is so weak, why doesn't anyone attack instead of talk? It's because we would destroy them if they did.

Carriers do not just said around alone and act with no doctrine. If they did they would be dead. Just as Apache's do not act alone with not doctrine. If you just flew Apaches into enemy airspace they would be dead. The same with Armor or and other weapons platform. A carrier operates within a battle group, a battle group operates within a fleet and a fleet operates within a Joint Command. In time of war nobody is getting near a carrier. And at this point the Chinese navy has another decade before it would be able to defeat Japans fleet. And Russia is not takeing on anybody at sea.

Will go in depth later, but there is no way we would lose our entire fleet in a matter of weeks or even months. Granted, there will surely be casualties, but not nearly what is being hyped up by our rivals. In any case in the event of that type of war returning to the world, it means that this country will become fully mobilized for war. When that happens, noone on Earth can match our production rates and capacity for battle gear, so long as the supply chain can remain intact.

Our military is not invulnerable and invincible. Heck we would take casualties that hurt even if we were to fight Iran (although we would certainly dominate their air space within the span of a month, it will come at a heavy cost). But when it comes to battle doctrine, advanced weapons platforms, and trained and disciplined personnel we absolutley have the upper hand, even against Russia. That does not mean we would not suffer casualties, I just think we will lose less than our rivals. Thats the Air and Sea game. Once you hit the ground, all men are equal when established and proven armies confront each other. The chaos of war makes its own decisions.

originally posted by: Answer
The US has nearly as many subs as Russia and China combined. The difference is our subs have the technological advantage.

You don't need superior technology to win a war.

originally posted by: mazzroth
which crippled the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea with 27 crew members asking to be dismissed a week later.

Do you have some valid proof for that tall tale?

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
If the United States is so weak, why doesn't anyone attack instead of talk? It's because we would destroy them if they did.

Like the 22 Terrorist's back in 2001 ? from then to now the US has become a Rabid Psychotic Serial Killer who has been hell bent on invading more Countries than it usually did. I bet the Romans thought back in the day they were invincible as well.

If WW3 started I would be more worried of the Americans than any other nation, no other Country has used Nuclear weapons on civilians and the USA see's everyone and everything as a hostile enemy.

United States Naval Space Command.

Tremble before it's might.

Not to mention US Navy Laser weapons and rail guns, and that's what's public knowledge.

Russia's navy is 40% rust and 60% Putin's chest hair.

a reply to: abe froman

Strategy and air superiority mean nothing, ground troops already battle hardened dont mean nothing either. it would be a shame billions of starving Chinese get all that international aid cut off from america too, hard to fight a war when you can t even feed a population. I think many Russian and Chinese citizens embrace their American counterparts and do not even think about war. It is a shame some of the stuff TV tells us, don't believe it. There has not been a conventional war in a very long time because America has superceded all aspects of conventional warfare, screwing with economy and all that don't change much in tune to the fact that America is and has been everywhere ready to fight.

a reply to: mazzroth

Unless those subs can go undetected by P3's I wouldn't say the USN's carriers would be destroyed in WWIII. What's the web address of that article? Propaganda, could it be?

a reply to: mazzroth

Old threat sea ram was designed to destroy the sunburn they are already useless. Aparently Russians missed all that testing they did in the Pacific against multiple supersonic missiles.The effective range of the SeaRAM missile is 11 miles. The CIWS part of the SeaRAM can track multiple targets and fire multiple missles at a single target. Each SeaRAM platform holds 11 RAM missiles.As far as effectiveness a missile has a 95 percent chance of intercept. Fire 2 well I'd say it's safe to say it won't make it.

Than there's the other problem sunburn only actually hits the target about 60 percent of the time in Chinese tests. And this sub as soon as it fires will have a missile returning on the same path. In other words the Russian general is clueless and let's hope he's in charge of their subs at least we know they won't last long.Their best shot is a torpedo provided they aren't detected but the sunburn thing is just stupid.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Answer
The US has nearly as many subs as Russia and China combined. The difference is our subs have the technological advantage.

You don't need superior technology to win a war.

This very true.

Lesson learved in ww2.

Germany found that out the hard way.

Though they were outnumbered on all sides in a landlocked war.

To wage war on America you have to cross natural barriers germany didn't have the benefit of.

So your point is well stated, but is spokes to oranges.

Nobody but america has ever truly owned the Pacific, and we don't own it, we kinda lease large parts if it.

The Atlantic is a crap shoot.

The arctic ocean?

I honestly couldn't say who could win that one.

I don't think the highest tech is the key.

I think numbers will make the difference.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: mazzroth
which crippled the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea with 27 crew members asking to be dismissed a week later.

Do you have some valid proof for that tall tale?

It is true I saw the article and links here on ATS, it was thoroughly vetted.

Nobody really knows a lit about it though.

I am sure the russians and now the US military do, but us plebs are lacking in info.