An exocet air to ship guided missile is not a torpedo

Duh

They are far far to easy to disable even with their phalanx defense.

A strong argument for a taskforce to accompany.

---

An exocet air to ship guided missile is not a torpedo

Duh

They are far far to easy to disable even with their phalanx defense.

A strong argument for a taskforce to accompany.

A task force of a dozen and an enemy with four dozen missiles ..... that is why the USA will not allow its carriers (with or without accompanying task force) anywhere near hostile costliness. They whole damn task force will be in Davy Jones locker. The phalanx can only engage one target at a time!

It is a big tactical problem at the Pentagon. Now carriers can't be brought in close and sorties have to be much longer distance flights. That cuts down on bomb load and loiter time over the target. Allows the enemy more time to react and cuts down on possible directions from which an attack can come. Requires more jet fuel resupply. All big issues.

Of course missile design has continued from the exocet and silkworm and there are now hypersonic versions which are faster than the phalanx can acquire and lock on and engage, turning US ships into sitting ducks.

---

Gary the way it has been explained to me a torpedo does not hit the ship but explodes underneath it creating a large air pocket. With out the support of the water the ship's keel is broken and down she goes.

An exocet air to ship guided missile is not a torpedo.

Since that demonstration US aircraft carriers refuse to get near hostile coastlines. They are far far to easy to disable even with their phalanx defense.

Sea Classic magzine reported two issues a go that a dummy missle had hit a destroyer and caused minor damage luckily. The Navy said they are looking as to why the missle hit. The Sea Classic reporter ask a better question. Why didnt the Phalanx or sea whizz take out the missle?

---

[/quote]

Old James

That seems to be the flaw when some talk about carriers.

Another reason why carriers need battle groups...

Carrier sunk

...with just one life lost.

TOTAL and COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF LOGISTIC'S.

Oh please. See, this is whats wrong with US military thinking. If you need a fricking fleet of ships just to do some limited airstrikes against a bunch of fanatics, you are doing it wrong. Its why the US won't be able to afford to play policeman anymore. Where these rebel forces can conquer huge parts of Iraq while using fairly simplistic and more importantly, cheap equipment, the US needs a fleet of ships from which it can launch a few airplanes dropping expensive but accurate bombs. Sorry but how can you not see that this kind of warfare is simply impossible to maintain? Its unsustainable. A bomb dropped from a US fighter probably costs more money than the target it destroys.

So your argument that the rest of the world should do the same as what you have been doing for the past several decades is flawed. It would be a mistake to follow the American example because its an overly expensive way of using military strength.

TOTAL and COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF LOGISTIC'S.

Oh please. See, this is whats wrong with US military thinking. If you need a fricking fleet of ships just to do some limited airstrikes against a bunch of fanatics, you are doing it wrong. Its why the US won't be able to afford to play policeman anymore. Where these rebel forces can conquer huge parts of Iraq while using fairly simplistic and more importantly, cheap equipment, the US needs a fleet of ships from which it can launch a few airplanes dropping expensive but accurate bombs. Sorry but how can you not see that this kind of warfare is simply impossible to maintain? Its unsustainable. A bomb dropped from a US fighter probably costs more money than the target it destroys.

So your argument that the rest of the world should do the same as what you have been doing for the past several decades is flawed. It would be a mistake to follow the American example because its an overly expensive way of using military strength.

The major flaw in your argument is plainly obvious but you still don't see it...

America/Iraq

Are they next door to each other?

The major flaw in your argument is plainly obvious but you still don't see it...

America/Iraq

Are they next door to each other?

You think this would be any different if the US was fighting ISIS in Mexico? The fact remains that their enemies get so much done with equipment only a fraction of the cost of what the US spends on its equipment.

The major flaw in your argument is plainly obvious but you still don't see it...

America/Iraq

Are they next door to each other?

You think this would be any different if the US was fighting ISIS in Mexico? The fact remains that their enemies get so much done with equipment only a fraction of the cost of what the US spends on its equipment.

It really is a waste of time discussing this with you. So as someone else suggested, take time out from your studies & get some in!

Maybe, just maybe, you might see that any military operation regardless of what nation is involved logistics is the name of the game!

So your argument that the rest of the world should do the same as what you have been doing for the past several decades is flawed. It would be a mistake to follow the American example because its an overly expensive way of using military strength.

You can spend money or you can spend blood. I see you choose to spend blood.

---

Hasn't that always been the European way?

Hasn't that always been the European way?

Blow them up, and just go home?

Why didn't we do that to Western Europe, and Japan, after 1945?

Good question! Why didn't you?

America is awaiting The EU's destruction of The Child Beheading, Crucifying, Mass Murdering Jihadists.

Please explain, using your (sometimes) multi-paragraphed posts: What are the Resources, and Logistics The EU has, to do anything of real value outside of Western Europe, and North Africa?

Betting you will not.

Take a map. Look up Europe. Then look up Iraq. As you might see, its possible for European forces, should they want, to bomb targets over Northern Iraq. The only reason its not happening is because European governments don't want to get involved in a civil war there.

You can spend money or you can spend blood. I see you choose to spend blood.

Even so, the basic laws of economics cannot be ignored. The way America wages war is just extremely cost ineffective, while the way these Jihadists wage war is extremely cost effective. In the long run, America runs out of money to spend, while the Jihadists don't and they end up winning the war because they can still afford to be around when America has to pull out. History has shown this a dozen times over, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan and now again in Iraq.

& while that is going on, sneaky EU countries continue to make money with their arms sales & stuff their allies.

One must understand the long history of this, always defeated, movement.

They aren't defeated until they don't spring back up.

Of course jihad is an idea, and AFIK you can't defeat an idea.

---

History has shown that The Jihadists (under different names), over the last 1000 years, have ALWAYS lost. Yes... This started 1000 years ago.

They will, of course, lose again. It is difficult, at this time, to understand the time frame of their defeat. But, this is known: THEY will choose the time, and incident(s), which will result another failure. As they ALWAYS have.

One must understand the long history of this, always defeated, movement.

And do tell, when have the Jihadists lost exactly? When they drove the Russians out of Afghanistan? When they drove the Americans out of Iran? When they managed to turn every country in the middle east from modern, reasonably progressive societies into hyper conservative theocracies?

And you are projecting what you want to see on history. Jihadists are a relatively new movement, they did not exist before the 20th century. To say that they are a thousand year old movement who have continuously lost is just pure historical nonsense.

So do tell, when and where did they lost exactly. Give me names, give me dates, give me places. Prove your argument with evidence.

So do tell, when and where did they lost exactly. Give me names, give me dates, give me places. Prove your argument with evidence.

Feast your eyes on this: -

History of the Assassins

"Most of what survives comes from their enemies, or from fanciful second- or third-hand European accounts."

Oops, we all know that those pesky Europeans like to write history as they think it should be written!

Feast your eyes on this: -

History of the Assassins

"Most of what survives comes from their enemies, or from fanciful second- or third-hand European accounts."

Oops, we all know that those pesky Europeans like to write history as they think it should be written!

Or in other words, you got nothing...

You Temporarily stop their attempt to TOTALLY CONTROL ALL HUMAN'S. Basically, as history has shown: The say to themselves 'Well, this was not the time. Maybe our Grand, or Great Grand Children will succeed'.

You haven't shown me any proof of your claim that Jihadists have been defeated over and over again over the past 1000 years. Where is your proof?

On this & other threads, we're being told the "world's policeman" is going home. Sorry, but that is only true from a military point of view.

The world's policeman is still highly active...

Cheesed Off

"When French bank BNP Paribas was fined an eye-watering $9bn in June for violating US sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba, it was a warning to financial institutions around the world that Washington is determined to pursue and punish those who defy US policy.

"Why? Why?" he asks. "We join the sanctions and tomorrow I tell five employees in my company that I don't have any more a job for them because we don't sell to Russia? I don't want this situation for my company or for Switzerland."

As I said before, sanctions only hurt the wrong people.

World policeman...NO.
World dictator...YES.

How about the rest of the world sanctions the US for illegal wars?