US State Department Stirring It Up With Iran...

#526
#526
marcusluvsvols said:
Mostly agree with this. We project power because the 1st thing we do in any conflict is take over the skies and establish a no fly zone.

Problem is...and the article may say this as I havent read it...cruise missile tech has come a very long way and China in particular has made big strides. They are now waaay supersonic..like mach 5 to 8 I believe...and have range hundreds of miles further than before. They were built specifically to take out carriers and other big ships. If several are launched at once, we couldnt keep them from sinking a carrier...which would be catastrophic. 3000plus men and billions of dollars lost. Carriers are still important, but right now we bad need to develop an answer to these cruise missiles. We have no answer for them now.
Click to expand...

That's why automated mini Gatlin guns are important on carriers.
 
#527
#527
marcusluvsvols said:
Mostly agree with this. We project power because the 1st thing we do in any conflict is take over the skies and establish a no fly zone.

Problem is...and the article may say this as I havent read it...cruise missile tech has come a very long way and China in particular has made big strides. They are now waaay supersonic..like mach 5 to 8 I believe...and have range hundreds of miles further than before. They were built specifically to take out carriers and other big ships. If several are launched at once, we couldnt keep them from sinking a carrier...which would be catastrophic. 3000plus men and billions of dollars lost. Carriers are still important, but right now we bad need to develop an answer to these cruise missiles. We have no answer for them now.
Click to expand...
We actually do. Of course, it all depends on the ship having power.



The U.S. Army Plans To Field the Most Powerful Laser Weapon Yet


The U.S. Army is pushing forward with plans for the most powerful laser weapon to date. The Indirect Fires Protection Capability-High Energy Laser (IFPC-HEL) will be a 250 to 300 kilowatt weapon, up to 10 times more powerful than the U.S. Navy’s Laser Weapon System. The power boost should be enough to destroy targets as large as incoming cruise missiles.

The U.S. military is pushing into lasers in a big way, with all three of the main services—Army, Navy, and Air Force—pushing hard to get them onto ground vehicles, ships, and aircraft. The main appeal of lasers is their fast reaction time, literally the speed of light, and their ability to fire a high number of shots without stockpiling bullets, missiles, or shells.

Lasers instead rely on electrical power, and as long as there is electricity to power the weapon it can theoretically crank out an endless number of shots. “Ammunition” is basically the cost of generator fuel, or about $10 per shot.


 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, FLVOL_79 and Mick
#528
#528
Orange_Vol1321 said:
We actually do. Of course, it all depends on the ship having power.



The U.S. Army Plans To Field the Most Powerful Laser Weapon Yet


The U.S. Army is pushing forward with plans for the most powerful laser weapon to date. The Indirect Fires Protection Capability-High Energy Laser (IFPC-HEL) will be a 250 to 300 kilowatt weapon, up to 10 times more powerful than the U.S. Navy’s Laser Weapon System. The power boost should be enough to destroy targets as large as incoming cruise missiles.

The U.S. military is pushing into lasers in a big way, with all three of the main services—Army, Navy, and Air Force—pushing hard to get them onto ground vehicles, ships, and aircraft. The main appeal of lasers is their fast reaction time, literally the speed of light, and their ability to fire a high number of shots without stockpiling bullets, missiles, or shells.

Lasers instead rely on electrical power, and as long as there is electricity to power the weapon it can theoretically crank out an endless number of shots. “Ammunition” is basically the cost of generator fuel, or about $10 per shot.


Click to expand...


Legit Star Wars stuff right there.
 
#530
#530
Don't we have bigger concerns than WTF goes on in Persian Gulf?

Oh oh oh... your going to tell me now that you are concerned about the flow of oil tankers right now in the middle of an oil glut? Why are we still poking around over there? Leave those folks alone. We have our own issues here in this hemisphere.
 
#531
#531
Rasputin_Vol said:
Don't we have bigger concerns than WTF goes on in Persian Gulf?

Oh oh oh... your going to tell me now that you are concerned about the flow of oil tankers right now in the middle of an oil glut? Why are we still poking around over there? Leave those folks alone. We have our own issues here in this hemisphere.
Click to expand...
Yea Ras, we shouldn't worry about a small 26ft gun boat ramming a 500ft destroyer. No way that's ever happened or could even do any damage, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, FLVOL_79 and CagleMtnVol
#532
#532
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Yea Ras, we shouldn't worry about a small 26ft gun boat ramming a 500ft destroyer. No way that's ever happened or could even do any damage, right?
Click to expand...
Why do we have ships over there to begin with, Einstein?

Mind our own business or engage in commerce. Pick one
 
#534
#534
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why do we have ships over there to begin with, Einstein?

Mind our own business or engage in commerce. Pick one
Click to expand...
What do you think is making it safe for commercial ships to move through that region? If we moved the Navy out. Yemeni & Iranian Pirates would be hitting commercial ships like a chicken on a junebug.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Orange_Vol1321 and 0nelilreb
#535
#535
CagleMtnVol said:
What do you think is making it safe for commercial ships to move through that region? If we moved the Navy out. Yemeni & Iranian Pirates would be hitting commercial ships like a chicken on a junebug.
Click to expand...
Hey dumb-dumb...do you think Iran wants anything to happen to their exports? Or UAE? Qatar? Let those countries in the Persian Gulf protect their own shipping lanes. It is in their best interests to have free shipping lanes for the export of their products and imports of items they need.

How hard is that for you to understand? Mind our own business and let them handle their own issues in their corner of the world.
 
#536
#536
Vol737 said:
Legit Star Wars stuff right there.
Click to expand...
In the early 2000's our special ops C-130's at Hurlburt Field had an anti missile system installed called DIRCM, a directional infrared countermeasure system. The ones we had were basically rotating balls that shot lasers at missiles. Lots of straight up star wars stuff out there that most people dont even know about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Orange_Vol1321, Vol737 and 1 other person
#538
#538
Rasputin_Vol said:
Hey dumb-dumb...do you think Iran wants anything to happen to their exports? Or UAE? Qatar? Let those countries in the Persian Gulf protect their own shipping lanes. It is in their best interests to have free shipping lanes for the export of their products and imports of items they need.

How hard is that for you to understand? Mind our own business and let them handle their own issues in their corner of the world.
Click to expand...
I would love to agree but unfortunately the world doesn't work like that. I'm a big history buff and that's what lot of people wanted when war broke out in Europe in the late 30's stay out of it. It's not our concern.

If we left the middle east today in three months we would have trouble at our doorstep. It is what it is like it or not just because we leave them alone doesn't mean they will leave us alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#539
#539
CagleMtnVol said:
I say bs, outside the need for ships to be floating launch bays for Tomahawk missiles. Carriers are for more important for having planes pre-positioned. I don't see any big Naval battles on the future like before WWII and even in WWII carriers were the biggest help in those battles.
Click to expand...
marcusluvsvols said:
Mostly agree with this. We project power because the 1st thing we do in any conflict is take over the skies and establish a no fly zone.

Problem is...and the article may say this as I havent read it...cruise missile tech has come a very long way and China in particular has made big strides. They are now waaay supersonic..like mach 5 to 8 I believe...and have range hundreds of miles further than before. They were built specifically to take out carriers and other big ships. If several are launched at once, we couldnt keep them from sinking a carrier...which would be catastrophic. 3000plus men and billions of dollars lost. Carriers are still important, but right now we bad need to develop an answer to these cruise missiles. We have no answer for them now.
Click to expand...
I’m not in favor of simply “getting rid” of a couple of carriers. But I think we should think about strategically redeploying assets currently allotted to a couple of our super carriers, without sacrificing Carrier “presence” around the world.

I really like the concept of the “Lighting Carrier” that’s been floated recently. It’s the idea of taking an Amphibious Assault Ship (with the well deck removed and turned into a hangar) and loading it up with 20-25 F-35 B’s.

What you’ve got is a 900 ft “light” carrier with a squadron of stealth fighters that can operate close to shore and leave your Super Carriers out at sea and out of range of enemy ship missiles. They’re the size of most other nations full size carriers.

The Marines already have 2 such ships, USS America & USS Tripoli. They cost about $3B each. We could field 5 Lightning Carriers for the cost of 1 Ford Class Super Carrier.

1587756361574.jpeg

1587756382936.jpeg

Lightning Carriers: How the Marines are teaching an old ship new tricks

I’d switch out 1 Super Carrier for 20-25 of the new Guided Missile Frigates.
I’d switch out 1 Super Carrier for 5 more Lightning Carriers.

That would leave us with 9 Super Carriers & 7 Lightning Carriers.
And the Frigates would increase our total ship presence and fill a need on the low end of operations where we currently have to send a Destroyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, hog88 and CagleMtnVol
#542
#542
VolStrom said:
This laser stuff is cool and all, but nothing is more bad ass than the Phalanx close in weapon. I want to see them use one on the Iranian gunboats.

Click to expand...

With the Iranians swarming the Navy ships in basically bass fishing boats from Bass Pro Shop not only can they be quickly dispatched it would destroy about 25% of their navy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, CagleMtnVol, Orange_Vol1321 and 1 other person
#544
#544
85SugarVol said:
I’m not in favor of simply “getting rid” of a couple of carriers. But I think we should think about strategically redeploying assets currently allotted to a couple of our super carriers, without sacrificing Carrier “presence” around the world.

I really like the concept of the “Lighting Carrier” that’s been floated recently. It’s the idea of taking an Amphibious Assault Ship (with the well deck removed and turned into a hangar) and loading it up with 20-25 F-35 B’s.

What you’ve got is a 900 ft “light” carrier with a squadron of stealth fighters that can operate close to shore and leave your Super Carriers out at sea and out of range of enemy ship missiles. They’re the size of most other nations full size carriers.

The Marines already have 2 such ships, USS America & USS Tripoli. They cost about $3B each. We could field 5 Lightning Carriers for the cost of 1 Ford Class Super Carrier.

View attachment 273134

View attachment 273135

Lightning Carriers: How the Marines are teaching an old ship new tricks

I’d switch out 1 Super Carrier for 20-25 of the new Guided Missile Frigates.
I’d switch out 1 Super Carrier for 5 more Lightning Carriers.

That would leave us with 9 Super Carriers & 7 Lightning Carriers.
And the Frigates would increase our total ship presence and fill a need on the low end of operations where we currently have to send a Destroyer.
Click to expand...
44 Carriers in the world.


20 are American..
 
#546
#546
NurseGoodVol said:
because corporate USA congress spends tax dollars without the people's input.
Click to expand...
You live right there in the middle of taxpayer funded USA. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in the Tidewater area has a job that is not funded, either directly or indirectly by the federal, state or local government.
I'm not complaining because both my older brothers worked at the NN shipyard and Nasa and 2 of their sons work at the Norfolk naval yard and Nasa.
People in TN don't realize how much money the government infuses into some areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and NurseGoodVol
#547
#547
VolStrom said:
You live right there in the middle of taxpayer funded USA. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in the Tidewater area has a job that is not funded, either directly or indirectly by the federal, state or local government.
I'm not complaining because both my older brothers worked at the NN shipyard and Nasa and 2 of their sons work at the Norfolk naval yard and Nasa.
People in TN don't realize how much money the government infuses into some areas.
Click to expand...
Of course there is. A $20bil Corp is hq in NN with many others on both sides of the water
 
#548
#548
CagleMtnVol said:
I would love to agree but unfortunately the world doesn't work like that. I'm a big history buff and that's what lot of people wanted when war broke out in Europe in the late 30's stay out of it. It's not our concern.

If we left the middle east today in three months we would have trouble at our doorstep. It is what it is like it or not just because we leave them alone doesn't mean they will leave us alone.
Click to expand...
Uhh, we didn't have and wouldn't have had trouble at our doorstep in WWI or WWII. WTF are you talking about?
 
#550
#550
VolStrom said:
You live right there in the middle of taxpayer funded USA. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in the Tidewater area has a job that is not funded, either directly or indirectly by the federal, state or local government.
I'm not complaining because both my older brothers worked at the NN shipyard and Nasa and 2 of their sons work at the Norfolk naval yard and Nasa.
People in TN don't realize how much money the government infuses into some areas.
Click to expand...
We can patrol our own borders in this hemisphere. And besides, is that really a good use of our resources and intellectual knowledge (war making)? Couldn't we just as easily be using all of those resources and knowledge for peacetime activities and pursuits in the Tidewater area just as well?

Some of you people just think war making is just fine and dandy. meanwhile, all of the military might we have spend in the last few years and we are brought down by a stinking virus... not Iranians. Make that make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top