US Navy Wouldn't Last a Week in WW3

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: NotMoose
If it is WWIII the US Navy will have no problem using Low Frequency Active Sonar, or LFA -- a new extended-range submarine-detection system . It is harmful to marine life, but if it's WWIII you know they will deploy it.

If WWIII breaks out, all sides will break out toys we haven't seen or heard of yet.

Let's just hope that it never happens.

Toys are going to break out that do not belong to any sides that we even know of yet, that is the most interesting thing about all this.....

The new victors I am sorry to say, will not be any of the "countries" that people rant and rave about constantly.

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: mazzroth

In Todays Technological World , the Carrier has gone the way of the Battleship . The Highest Ground in War is now Space , and you can rest Assured the Russians nor the Chinese have taken Full Advantage of that in a Militaristic Sense that the U.S. has .

Not really.

UK showed in the Falkland war that Carriers and carrier groups can still be valuable and fight off air power.

Russia are still using mostly 70's and 80's tec and USA is way ahead tec wise.

If the UK can fight of Argentina using 70's tec in the 1980s' then USA can fight off Russia 80's tec using 21st century stuff.

We would have done even better if our SAMs worked properly.

And whilst I really love your patriotism and agree we have some of the best ships in the world, i really think the Royal Navy is a good example where numbers would overcome technology, we have ships in the Gulf and South Atlantic leaving few to push up to hold Russia until someone else can help us.

We are also struggling to find Russian subs playing around up there in our Allies waters and our own.

We also really need the P-8 or are sitting ducks to subs, I know we have helicopters that can probably protect a battle group, might be enough with the Type 45 protecting the helo's but UK should have MPA.

Sorry off topic.

Russia sent 4 warships to Australia last year in a show of farce, a missile cruiser, anti submarine ship, a frigate and auxiliary, even the Royal Navy annually sends an Amphibious Taskforce of 5 Ships including a LHD and a company of Royal Marine Commandos to Cougar, thats a show of force!

America with its layered defence and super carriers and all other integrated supply and support services in a war footing, forget about one ship on its own in peacetime which seems to be one of the only claims made, apart from 1000 sunburn missiles? Trying to fire at numerous battlegroups moving and operating in a war footing with over 100 years of serious surface warfare conflict and training...and all you have are 1000 sunburn missiles which will probably already have been bombed out of existence by B2's.

Doom war pron junkie here - I hope someone make a movie about this....

I think our Problem is not the navy which is decades ahead of the Russians but our RAF.

Our RAF has been gutted and neglected. I think the Russians could overwhelm that with numbers.

And we have no excuse except laziness. We had a good aircraft manufacturing base and even our American friends have offered to help in the past by selling some fun toys like F-117's which we turned down. We haven’t even got a strategic bomber any more as we retired the Vulcan without a replacement! Not to mention we ditched the harrier which obviously cant be that bad as the USA still operates them.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: johnwick

Funny how the MOD backed off when asked a question that would show what lousy choices have been made by backing loosers.
BEST warriors on the planet,numbers, gear and training we have learned from the rest to do so and now we are equals.
TOO bad the Rodina wouldn't step up to join us but OBVIOUSLY free thinking won't work for them.
Without their officers they dennigrate to become thugs.

That is another very good point.

In most militaries if you take out the officers it is game over, they do nothing because they font know what to do.

If you killed every officer in the US military, it would make little difference.

The NCO corp would drive on just fine.

When you teach every soldier how to think like a commander, it is just one more weakness culled from your ranks.

Hell our command structure in the ARMY goes all the way down to squad level.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: johnwick

You can't start blowing up countries willy nilly each time mother nature comes out with a new virus that wipes out millions. So if a new virus does wipe out millions how can you tell that it wasn't made in a Russian lab.

Because there is a difference.

Ebola bad, but not nearly as bad as an "anti population virus" like those made for biological warfare.

It is pretty obvious when one has been engineered.

Even the Spanish flu back in the day was a joke compared to even the weakest bio weapon.

If you dont understand the difference, I can't explain it to you.

Suffice to say, a bio weapon is very obvious most of the time.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: mazzroth

In Todays Technological World , the Carrier has gone the way of the Battleship . The Highest Ground in War is now Space , and you can rest Assured the Russians nor the Chinese have taken Full Advantage of that in a Militaristic Sense that the U.S. has .

Not really.

UK showed in the Falkland war that Carriers and carrier groups can still be valuable and fight off air power.

Russia are still using mostly 70's and 80's tec and USA is way ahead tec wise.

If the UK can fight of Argentina using 70's tec in the 1980s' then USA can fight off Russia 80's tec using 21st century stuff.

We would have done even better if our SAMs worked properly.

And whilst I really love your patriotism and agree we have some of the best ships in the world, i really think the Royal Navy is a good example where numbers would overcome technology, we have ships in the Gulf and South Atlantic leaving few to push up to hold Russia until someone else can help us.

We are also struggling to find Russian subs playing around up there in our Allies waters and our own.

We also really need the P-8 or are sitting ducks to subs, I know we have helicopters that can probably protect a battle group, might be enough with the Type 45 protecting the helo's but UK should have MPA.

Sorry off topic.

Russia sent 4 warships to Australia last year in a show of farce, a missile cruiser, anti submarine ship, a frigate and auxiliary, even the Royal Navy annually sends an Amphibious Taskforce of 5 Ships including a LHD and a company of Royal Marine Commandos to Cougar, thats a show of force!

America with its layered defence and super carriers and all other integrated supply and support services in a war footing, forget about one ship on its own in peacetime which seems to be one of the only claims made, apart from 1000 sunburn missiles? Trying to fire at numerous battlegroups moving and operating in a war footing with over 100 years of serious surface warfare conflict and training...and all you have are 1000 sunburn missiles which will probably already have been bombed out of existence by B2's.

Doom war pron junkie here - I hope someone make a movie about this....

I think our Problem is not the navy which is decades ahead of the Russians but our RAF.

Our RAF has been gutted and neglected. I think the Russians could overwhelm that with numbers.

And we have no excuse except laziness. We had a good aircraft manufacturing base and even our American friends have offered to help in the past by selling some fun toys like F-117's which we turned down. We haven’t even got a strategic bomber any more as we retired the Vulcan without a replacement! Not to mention we ditched the harrier which obviously cant be that bad as the USA still operates them.

VTOL just offers to much advantage.

Especially for a country like england with limited resources.

It turns a helicopter carrier in to a jet platform.

Makes big runways at airbases unnecessary etc...

I guess you guys were counting on the F-35 to replace them, but we haven't worked out the kinks yet.

Still not sure about a service date last heard.

Once it is operational though, will be a bad beast all around.

a reply to: johnwick

VTOL in aircraft is almost useless. VSTOL on the other hand is incredibly useful. You can't take off vertically with any kind of useful payload. Even short take off from a carrier seriously limits payload, but you can at least take off with some kind of payload.

The U.S. spends exponentially more than other countries for their military. While I disagree with that premise, it yields an incredibly strong military on all fronts. If there is one thing I am not worried about, it is the U.S. in regards to being able to go to war. Sadly.

China has been spending a lot more lately.. perhaps they are trying to play catch-up.

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.

Oh really, so technological advanced weaponry has a major edge on this does it? I have posted this link a couple of times on ATS and it is most definitely a good example of what you can do with what you have and still be successful. This news story is undeniable as it did happen and heads rolled after the fact.

Keep in mind this is a very cheap Submarine to produce and I wonder how many there are now?
Link for your enjoyment.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

I am not picking sides but .......The above link makes me wonder if confidence is a killer?
Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: Iwinder

Yes, it happened. And yes in a war we're going to lose ships. That's inevitable. But it would be harder for that to happen on a wartime footing than one a normal cruise, in international waters. On a wartime footing the sonar crews are going to be a lot more watchful, and would be using every system available to them.

originally posted by: mazzroth

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.

You are bound to lose some but if the gloves are off, we WILL destroy any known army on the battlefield. You can pick out isolated incidents but we all know who the master is.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Yes, it happened. And yes in a war we're going to lose ships. That's inevitable. But it would be harder for that to happen on a wartime footing than one a normal cruise, in international waters. On a wartime footing the sonar crews are going to be a lot more watchful, and would be using every system available to them.

See here is one thing that I can't shake. As you say above this happened without a doubt, now I ask how many of these Subs have been produced in the past Eight years since the above occurrence? I am speculating now of course but after that successful show I would think that there are probably hundreds now.

10 Carriers and protection versus a lot of rubber subs half way across the world does not make me warm a fuzzy at this time. And yes those subs are capable of launching the infamous carrier killer missile.

And I am only speaking about Chinese subs, toss in the Russian fleet and there is major trouble. It's not like they can build a Carrier in a year to replace one if its lost. Not to mention how many jet fighters have been lost due to one small crude sub.
One loss is catastrophic 3 more losses and then it would be just guard the coast of the USA and that is game over.
As I said above it is my speculating only but I believe what I said is close to the gist of things right now.

Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: Iwinder

They're diesel boats. The Russian fleet is in terrible condition. The Chinese diesel boats are a brown water force. They can't go long range out to sea. These are all older boats, China and Russia both are concentrating on nuclear boats going forward, not diesel boats.

A diesel boat that goes long range is somewhat easier to detect, because at some point it's going to have to snorkel during the cruise. That makes a lot of noise, and can be detected by sonar nets and ASW platforms, quite a distance away.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

They're diesel boats. The Russian fleet is in terrible condition. The Chinese diesel boats are a brown water force. They can't go long range out to sea. These are all older boats, China and Russia both are concentrating on nuclear boats going forward, not diesel boats.

A diesel boat that goes long range is somewhat easier to detect, because at some point it's going to have to snorkel during the cruise. That makes a lot of noise, and can be detected by sonar nets and ASW platforms, quite a distance away.

Well if they are "brown water boats" how did one get to the Pacific Ocean undetected?

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy. The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat. One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age. The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

I stand by my speculation that not all is what it appears to be, perhaps you can help me here....how many fighter jets on average on one Carrier?

All gone because of a "Walmart" Sub:-)
Regards, Iwinder

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: mazzroth

In Todays Technological World , the Carrier has gone the way of the Battleship . The Highest Ground in War is now Space , and you can rest Assured the Russians nor the Chinese have taken Full Advantage of that in a Militaristic Sense that the U.S. has .

Not really.

UK showed in the Falkland war that Carriers and carrier groups can still be valuable and fight off air power.

Russia are still using mostly 70's and 80's tec and USA is way ahead tec wise.

If the UK can fight of Argentina using 70's tec in the 1980s' then USA can fight off Russia 80's tec using 21st century stuff.

We would have done even better if our SAMs worked properly.

And whilst I really love your patriotism and agree we have some of the best ships in the world, i really think the Royal Navy is a good example where numbers would overcome technology, we have ships in the Gulf and South Atlantic leaving few to push up to hold Russia until someone else can help us.

We are also struggling to find Russian subs playing around up there in our Allies waters and our own.

We also really need the P-8 or are sitting ducks to subs, I know we have helicopters that can probably protect a battle group, might be enough with the Type 45 protecting the helo's but UK should have MPA.

Sorry off topic.

Russia sent 4 warships to Australia last year in a show of farce, a missile cruiser, anti submarine ship, a frigate and auxiliary, even the Royal Navy annually sends an Amphibious Taskforce of 5 Ships including a LHD and a company of Royal Marine Commandos to Cougar, thats a show of force!

America with its layered defence and super carriers and all other integrated supply and support services in a war footing, forget about one ship on its own in peacetime which seems to be one of the only claims made, apart from 1000 sunburn missiles? Trying to fire at numerous battlegroups moving and operating in a war footing with over 100 years of serious surface warfare conflict and training...and all you have are 1000 sunburn missiles which will probably already have been bombed out of existence by B2's.

Doom war pron junkie here - I hope someone make a movie about this....

I think our Problem is not the navy which is decades ahead of the Russians but our RAF.

Our RAF has been gutted and neglected. I think the Russians could overwhelm that with numbers.

And we have no excuse except laziness. We had a good aircraft manufacturing base and even our American friends have offered to help in the past by selling some fun toys like F-117's which we turned down. We haven’t even got a strategic bomber any more as we retired the Vulcan without a replacement! Not to mention we ditched the harrier which obviously cant be that bad as the USA still operates them.

VTOL just offers to much advantage.

Especially for a country like england with limited resources.

It turns a helicopter carrier in to a jet platform.

Makes big runways at airbases unnecessary etc...

I guess you guys were counting on the F-35 to replace them, but we haven't worked out the kinks yet.

Still not sure about a service date last heard.

Once it is operational though, will be a bad beast all around.

Expect we got rid of our VTOL harrier fleet......we sold it to you guys

We should have at least waited until we got the first F-35's

And all though we have less resources to you guys we are not Africa we are still a G8 country so our resources are still pretty good. We wont ever get close to the USA but it could and should be a hell of a lot better than it is.

If Russia starts a fight there air force would overwhelm our small fleet of typhoons. Sure they are better than Russian fighters but they far out number our fleet. And without strategic bombers we have no way to strike back expect with old tornados that are all but useless except in bombing third world ME countrys were we have superiority..

a reply to: Iwinder

I didn't say that they CAN'T go long range, but that they're trained and equipped more for shallower water operations, not going all the way across the Pacific, or vast fleets of them going out into deep water.

And sinking a carrier is a lot harder than you think. During the scuttling of the Oriskany I think it was (either Oriskany or America), they performed multiple weapons tests on it. This was a CV, used during Vietnam, and built shortly after WWII. One of the tests was detonating 2,000 pounds of explosives within three feet of the hull, similar to how a torpedo would detonate. Even after that detonation, and all the detonations within the hull, the ship continued to float until the scuttling charges were detonated.

A Nimitz class carrier has more protection built into it, and is capable of withstanding more damage.

a reply to: mazzroth

Russia insider* sounds like a legit neutral source

second subs are easily seen and easily destroyed. Do you think we just put a carrier in the middle of the ocean by itself without any protection? They are guarded and protected at all costs. foolish thread foolish propaganda

a reply to: Iwinder

There is speculation that the navy LET the chinese close on purpose to score more funding. It worked and their funding was raised that year if i remember correctly. SO some sailors got sacrificed by navy brass. it was cheap for the funding.

The US military has NEVER successfully repelled an attack on the United States. EVER.

They spend almost a trillion $ on their military every year, and laughingly call it a Defense Department.

In a nuclear confrontation, most launch systems are "off the grid" and are analog in nature rather than digital (most systems are no newer than the 1970's) but this helps protect them from vulnerabilities of modern technology.

Most Americans can't live without their creature comforts, and even survivalists have problems when they actually try and put their plans into practice, most survivalists can't execute their go plan to get out of town, let alone survive without power, running water, grocery stores, pharmacies, and Government assisted services.

a reply to: babybunnies

A person can and will adapt as needed,do you think we just ROLL over and die?
IF any enemy WERE able to get close and they were ACTUALLY stupid enought to try ,THEN they would fail.
Successful deployment of our navy has handled things well.

a reply to: babybunnies

I guess that revolutionary war was a failure right? lol.