TexasCHLforum.com

gregthehand wrote:You guys realize there hasn't been a surface engagement between a US Navy ship and a foreign enemy ship since WWII right? Well, actually there was one. The USS Simpson blew an Iranian gunboat out of the water in 1988. Other than that you guys want to spend a ton of extra money on a boats that can sustain damage that our fleet has not had sustain since WWII.

Maybe there has not been surface engagements BECAUSE the naval warships were DEADLY. Remove the weapons and guess what happens?

Same as a gun free zone. Same principle. No difference on the high seas.

gregthehand wrote:You guys realize there hasn't been a surface engagement between a US Navy ship and a foreign enemy ship since WWII right? Well, actually there was one. The USS Simpson blew an Iranian gunboat out of the water in 1988. Other than that you guys want to spend a ton of extra money on a boats that can sustain damage that our fleet has not had sustain since WWII.

Uh, all it took to disable the USS Cole was a couple of guys in a motor boat filled with explosives. I can't remember the name of the ship that got whacked by the Exocet missiles from an Iraqi plane, way before the Gulf War....accidentally. And, hey, no one has used nuclear weapons since we dropped a couple on Japan in WW2, so why are we wasting money on nuclear weapons and missile submarines?

You also don't need $450 million ships to combat enemies in motor boats. So, either the mission is to fight pirates in small boats...which means these ships are overkill and therefore a waste of money...or to fight a capable enemy on the ocean, which means these ships are under gunned and under armored and therefore a waste of money.

Why do you carry a gun? When was the last time you were in a shootout in the US, or Texas? The whole idea of military preparation is to be ready for the NEXT war, not the last one. China and Russia are potential enemies. They have actual navies. Soviet ships are heavily armed and armored. The Ruskies and the Chicoms won't be attacking in bass boats.And both of them have a lot of cruise missiles.

Should we ever come to blows with an enemy like Russia or China, a Navy of ships that can't sustain damage is a surface Navy that will cease to exist after the first wave of cruise missiles are launched. Even the Iranians are said to have over 200 Sunburn cruise missiles....bye bye then any Littoral ships within the range of those missiles should we come to blows with Iran. The Brits came close to losing the entire fleet they were using in the Falklands, and their landing force, by an enemy with a handful of old planes operating at the limit of their range, and employing bombs that didn't detonate and missiles not half as effective as those available today.

VMI77 wrote:

gregthehand wrote:You guys realize there hasn't been a surface engagement between a US Navy ship and a foreign enemy ship since WWII right? Well, actually there was one. The USS Simpson blew an Iranian gunboat out of the water in 1988. Other than that you guys want to spend a ton of extra money on a boats that can sustain damage that our fleet has not had sustain since WWII.

Uh, all it took to disable the USS Cole was a couple of guys in a motor boat filled with explosives. I can't remember the name of the ship that got whacked by the Exocet missiles from an Iraqi plane, way before the Gulf War....accidentally. And, hey, no one has used nuclear weapons since we dropped a couple on Japan in WW2, so why are we wasting money on nuclear weapons and missile submarines?

Why do you carry a gun? When was the last time you were in a shootout in the US, or Texas? The whole idea of military preparation is to be ready for the NEXT war, not the last one. China and Russia are potential enemies. They have actual navies. Soviet ships are heavily armed and armored. And both of them have a lot of cruise missiles. The Ruskies and the Chicoms won't be attacking in bass boats.

Should we ever come to blows with an enemy like Russia or China, a Navy of ships that can't sustain damage is a surface Navy that will cease to exist after the first wave of cruise missiles are launched. The Brits came close to losing the entire fleet they were using in the Falklands, and their landing force, by an enemy with a handful of old planes operating at the limit of their range, and employing bombs that didn't detonate and missiles not half as effective as those available today.

A British nuclear attack submarine pretty much ended it all. The only nuclear submarine known to have engaged an enemy naval vessel with torpedoes, sinking the cruiser General Belgrano.

anygunanywhere wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

gregthehand wrote:You guys realize there hasn't been a surface engagement between a US Navy ship and a foreign enemy ship since WWII right? Well, actually there was one. The USS Simpson blew an Iranian gunboat out of the water in 1988. Other than that you guys want to spend a ton of extra money on a boats that can sustain damage that our fleet has not had sustain since WWII.

Uh, all it took to disable the USS Cole was a couple of guys in a motor boat filled with explosives. I can't remember the name of the ship that got whacked by the Exocet missiles from an Iraqi plane, way before the Gulf War....accidentally. And, hey, no one has used nuclear weapons since we dropped a couple on Japan in WW2, so why are we wasting money on nuclear weapons and missile submarines?

Why do you carry a gun? When was the last time you were in a shootout in the US, or Texas? The whole idea of military preparation is to be ready for the NEXT war, not the last one. China and Russia are potential enemies. They have actual navies. Soviet ships are heavily armed and armored. And both of them have a lot of cruise missiles. The Ruskies and the Chicoms won't be attacking in bass boats.

Should we ever come to blows with an enemy like Russia or China, a Navy of ships that can't sustain damage is a surface Navy that will cease to exist after the first wave of cruise missiles are launched. The Brits came close to losing the entire fleet they were using in the Falklands, and their landing force, by an enemy with a handful of old planes operating at the limit of their range, and employing bombs that didn't detonate and missiles not half as effective as those available today.

A British nuclear attack submarine pretty much ended it all. The only nuclear submarine known to have engaged an enemy naval vessel with torpedoes, sinking the cruiser General Belgrano.

Yes, which is part of the point. Surface ships are targets. The British surface Navy was getting pounded by a vastly inferior military with a few anti-ship missiles. They came very close to losing their entire landing force before they even disembarked. Almost every British ship in theater was disabled or sunk. And it would have been a lot worse had not some of the Argentine munitions failed to detonate. They had virtually no naval presence except the Belgrano which was sunk by a sub before it could even engage.