EU vs USA!!!!

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-05 07:13am

Also, all the conventional forces in the world could not mount a credible invasion of the US. If it ever came to a final showdown it would be done with nukes which means that everyone loses.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-05 09:27am

Lord Zentei wrote:Also, all the conventional forces in the world could not mount a credible invasion of the US. If it ever came to a final showdown it would be done with nukes which means that everyone loses.

just the police forces alone could hold off just about any invasion.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-12-05 10:42am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
just the police forces alone could hold off just about any invasion.

The US military is definitely strong, but that is just silly. Police can't fight against any kind of military. They have no armour, no air suport, no heavy weapons, no experience of fighting as a group, and no useful chain of command.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-05 10:45am

Prozac the Robert wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
just the police forces alone could hold off just about any invasion.
The US military is definitely strong, but that is just silly. Police can't fight against any kind of military. They have no armour, no air suport, no heavy weapons, no experience of fighting as a group, and no useful chain of command.

Meh, depending on who's invadeing and where they land. Some of our cops are really well armed, beyound the service pistol and shotgun.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-12-05 11:17am

Knife wrote:
Prozac the Robert wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
just the police forces alone could hold off just about any invasion.
The US military is definitely strong, but that is just silly. Police can't fight against any kind of military. They have no armour, no air suport, no heavy weapons, no experience of fighting as a group, and no useful chain of command.
Meh, depending on who's invadeing and where they land. Some of our cops are really well armed, beyound the service pistol and shotgun.

Though none of them come equiped with ground to air rockets or anti tank weaponry meaning the first APC that rolls in is going to dominate them, hell a BMP-2 could take out anything they have NTM a single Cobra or similar attack Helo

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-05 02:03pm

Mr Bean wrote:
Meh, dpending on who's invadeing and where they land. Some of our cops are really well armed, beyound the service pistol and shotgun.
Though none of them come equiped with ground to air rockets or anti tank weaponry meaning the first APC that rolls in is going to dominate them, hell a BMP-2 could take out anything they have NTM a single Cobra or similar attack Helo

A well run invasion, I'll conceed and say that the police are way toast, but anyone able to deliever adaquate forces and armor and air assets and land on the USorA is going to be dealt with in route.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-05 03:07pm

Most other countries lack what it takes to mount a credivle invasion of the US:
No transport capability to speak of, allowing them to be hacked apart as they entered the country in piecemeal dribs and drabs...

And a lack of actual fighting spirit. Would Unionized Dutsch conscripts show up for duty if they're told they're goingto atack America? Europe was willing to diddle while Yugoslavia burned on their front doorstep.

Latin American and African militaries are, with few exceptions, ill-suited for force-projection over such vast distances, and many are barely organized to feed themselves in their home countries. Asian armies pose credible threat but have no transport of re-supply ability.

Not every nation would be willing to participate anyway. The fact that the world economy would grind to a halt would be an adequate leash for the more adventurous ones.

yangja isuko · Post by **yangja isuko** » 2004-12-05 03:14pm

Lord Zentei wrote:Also, all the conventional forces in the world could not mount a credible invasion of the US. If it ever came to a final showdown it would be done with nukes which means that everyone loses.

what crack are you on? european forces have access to military technology that is more advanced than american versions, and many outfits and units outperform US counterparts. Russia too has quite advanced technology (they don't actually just have soviet leftovers). The problem in invading the US would be primarily be to co-ordinate an allied military effort. US carriers aren't as much a problem as you might think (they have been sunk in international excercises by single submarines that escaped the entire carrier group unscathed afterwards)

the strength of the US does not lie on land, european armored divisions are better equipped and trained for instance (the German Leopard 2A6 is the most advanced tank in the world). the strength of the US lies in it's highly advanced and well trained airforce, and while atm, the typhoon and the grippen are more advanced than what the US has, they are not used in large numbers.

Such a war would be utterly devastating for all sides ofcourse, but to suggest that an invasion of america is impossible is sheer lunacy.

pros and cons:

Europe:
German engineercorps and Tank divisions.
Dutch navy is the most advanced/best non-carrier navy in the world, and has sunk US carriers in excercises without losses.
British SAS commando units.
Superior Tactics/Strategy (as demonstrated again and again in international training excercises)
Diversity in training/mentality/views, which could lead to solutions that may not be reached otherwise.
Fortress europe, landmass is easier to defend and harder to hold on to with the natives against you.

America:
Greater budget
Larger amount of equipment/vehicles
Unified armed forces
Militias/Armed Citizenry
Greater nuclear arsenal

[/code]

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-05 03:21pm

yangja isuko wrote:what crack are you on? european forces have access to military technology that is more advanced than american versions, and many outfits and units outperform US counterparts. Russia too has quite advanced technology (they don't actually just have soviet leftovers). The problem in invading the US would be primarily be to co-ordinate an allied military effort.

No, the problem would be the sealift capabilites that nobody but the US has.

US carriers aren't as much a problem as you might think (they have been sunk in international excercises by single submarines that escaped the entire carrier group unscathed afterwards)

These exercises are designed to give the submarines a fighting chance. In Real Life (TM), carriers are not forced to stay in a small predetermined area.

the strength of the US does not lie on land, european armored divisions are better equipped and trained for instance (the German Leopard 2A6 is the most advanced tank in the world).

The 2A6 is a moderately better tank than the M1A2, but how many of them are there? Hint: not fucking many.

the strength of the US lies in it's highly advanced and well trained airforce, and while atm, the typhoon and the grippen are more advanced than what the US has, they are not used in large numbers.

The JAS-39 is used in very small numbers, while IIRC the Typhoon has not entered service at all. Neither one can pose a credible threat to a swarm of F-15s or F-14s.

Such a war would be utterly devastating for all sides ofcourse, but to suggest that an invasion of america is impossible is sheer lunacy.

And they're going to land... how? Shit, take away the entire Army and USAF, the USN alone could destroy anything and everything that approached the coast.

Europe:
German engineercorps and Tank divisions.
Dutch navy is the most advanced/best non-carrier navy in the world, and has sunk US carriers in excercises without losses.
British SAS commando units.
Superior Tactics/Strategy (as demonstrated again and again in international training excercises)
Diversity in training/mentality/views, which could lead to solutions that may not be reached otherwise.
Fortress europe, landmass is easier to defend and harder to hold on to with the natives against you.

1. European armored groups are vastly smaller than US ones.
2. Key word "non-carrier". The Dutch Navy is quite nice for the size of the Netherlands, but is a fucking joke compared to any US fleet, let alone the entire USN.
3. You don't win a war with commando units.
4. Wow, an unsupported and unqualified blanket statement. Color me unsurprised.
5. European militaries, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems
6. The US isn't invading, you flaming retard.

America:
Greater budget
Larger amount of equipment/vehicles
Unified armed forces
Militias/Armed Citizenry
Greater nuclear arsenal

Let me rephrase that: Larger and more powerful forces across teh board, as well as the requrement that any invasion must cross thousands of miles of open ocean.

Grow a fucking brain, you ignorant twelve year old.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-05 03:34pm

yangja isuko wrote: Diversity in training/mentality/views, which could lead to solutions that may not be reached otherwise.

= "Decisions will be made in a committee of preening egotistical squabblers"

Remember, the French would be a part of this plan.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-12-05 05:26pm

How did this go from the US leaving the UN to war between EU and the US?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-05 06:47pm

yangja isuko wrote: what crack are you on?

The drug is called reality.

european forces have access to military technology that is more advanced than american versions, and many outfits and units outperform US counterparts.

Access to and already in the TO&E is two totally different things. Size and scope must also be realized when you're comparing the two.

Russia too has quite advanced technology (they don't actually just have soviet leftovers). The problem in invading the US would be primarily be to co-ordinate an allied military effort.

Actually, the first problem is getting the troops here, killer. The EU lacks the sealife and airlife capacity to get anywhere near the amount of troops close to the US for a beachhead, let alone the follow ons.

US carriers aren't as much a problem as you might think (they have been sunk in international excercises by single submarines that escaped the entire carrier group unscathed afterwards)

*shrug* Wouldn't think that a carrier is invincible. How ever, any invasion force would have to contend with them and thier battlegroups. Every troop transport that gets sunk, makes it more and more worthless to continue with the operation.

the strength of the US does not lie on land, european armored divisions are better equipped and trained for instance (the German Leopard 2A6 is the most advanced tank in the world).

While the 2A6 is supposed to be better, the actual tech gap isn't that huge and unfortunately for the Germans, they have no where near the amount of 2A6's as the US has Abrams.

the strength of the US lies in it's highly advanced and well trained airforce, and while atm, the typhoon and the grippen are more advanced than what the US has, they are not used in large numbers.

Actually, the strength of the US is the large, well trained, technologically advanced, modern, volunteer military. There are militarys bigger, but most of those are antiquited compared to ours. There are militaries that are as or close or even slightly more advanced than ours, but they're no wear as big.

As for the Air Force, and as with the tanks, those few types of fighters who are slightly better than US birds, don't have suffient numbers and their tech advantage isn't large enough to make up for it.

Such a war would be utterly devastating for all sides ofcourse

I'll agree with you there.

, but to suggest that an invasion of america is impossible is sheer lunacy.

It is, unless some one has a shit load of gator navy ships they're not talking about and the means to get them here without being blown out of the water.

pros and cons:

Europe:
German engineercorps and Tank divisions.

No where enough to A) go against the sheer numbers of the US armor and B) no where enough to cover the vast space that is the US mainland.

Dutch navy is the most advanced/best non-carrier navy in the world, and has sunk US carriers in excercises without losses.

Again, not enough in numbers. I don't discount that the US could loose some ships, but not enough to change the outcome.

British SAS commando units.

One regiment against how many American ones? Let me compare it like this. The USMC has ~160 thousand troops. Thats the Marine Corps. Most countries Armys are that size. But you want to pin some of your hopes on one regiment?

Superior Tactics/Strategy (as demonstrated again and again in international training excercises)
Diversity in training/mentality/views, which could lead to solutions that may not be reached otherwise.

I'd like to see your reasoning for this?

Fortress europe, landmass is easier to defend and harder to hold on to with the natives against you.

I don't think the US could take Europe either, though its possible for us to take parts I suppose, but it would quickly go nukey.

America:
Greater budget
Larger amount of equipment/vehicles
Unified armed forces
Militias/Armed Citizenry
Greater nuclear arsenal

[/code]

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-05 06:47pm

Gustav32Vasa wrote:How did this go from the US leaving the UN to war between EU and the US?

*shrug* for fun?

yangja isuko · Post by **yangja isuko** » 2004-12-06 01:23am

Howedar wrote:
yangja isuko wrote:No, the problem would be the sealift capabilites that nobody but the US has.

huh? again? what crack are you on?

they aren't designed to give subs a fighting chance actually, and the fact that they can sail away doesn't really mean shit because....so can a sub.
the fact that a single sub can and HAS sunk US aircraft carriers whilst they are protected by an entire carrier BATTLEGROUP, and then ESCAPE unharmed pretty much makes the U.S navy look very, VERY incompetent.

The 2A6 is a moderately better tank than the M1A2, but how many of them are there? Hint: not fucking many.
a few thousand. in the event of a war, there would be a lot more ofcourse due to wartime production efforts.

The JAS-39 is used in very small numbers, while IIRC the Typhoon has not entered service at all. Neither one can pose a credible threat to a swarm of F-15s or F-14s.[/quote]

it IS a fact however that western european fighter pilots do outperform american topgun fighters, even if they are using american jets.

And they're going to land... how? Shit, take away the entire Army and USAF, the USN alone could destroy anything and everything that approached the coast.

any european naval entity would be protected by dutch air defense vessels, these are WITHOUT QUESTION, the most advanced and efficient such vessels in the world (the dutch goalkeeper system vastly outperforms the phalanx system for instance). such a naval entity would NOT be destroyed very easily. the US navy would have a serious problem in itself, european ships, while outnumbered, do have the distinct advantage of being designed with survivability in mind, european ships are generally heavier armed and armored, while the american navy relies on a ship specialization strategy.

2. Key word "non-carrier". The Dutch Navy is quite nice for the size of the Netherlands, but is a fucking joke compared to any US fleet, let alone the entire USN.

a carrier is worthless if it's sunk. a carrier itself isn't very well defendable, which is why they sail in battlegroups most of the time (thus requiring an even greater resource shift), and as for using the aircraft on said carriers, these are useless against a dutch navy group due to the virtually impenetrable air defenses of dutch vessels. even the USN tries to get dutch naval vessels in it's carrier groups whenever it can (international operations)

Grow a fucking brain, you ignorant twelve year old.

the american mentality in action.

yangja isuko · Post by **yangja isuko** » 2004-12-06 01:35am

Actually, the first problem is getting the troops here, killer. The EU lacks the sealife and airlife capacity to get anywhere near the amount of troops close to the US for a beachhead, let alone the follow ons.

negative, the EU does *not* lack sealift capabilities in this regard, the dutch/british battlegroup in fact has enormous sealift vessels with far larger capacity than anything the U.S has (the H.M.S Rotterdam for instance). though i'll agree that, as with everything else, the U.S has *more* of everything. ofcourse, WHY they do, nobody knows, it used to make sense, what with the cold war and all that, but it really doesn't in today's world.

While the 2A6 is supposed to be better, the actual tech gap isn't that huge and unfortunately for the Germans, they have no where near the amount of 2A6's as the US has Abrams.

the dutch also have the 2A6. but not in those kind of numbers i agree, still, i'm fairly certain i remember reading somewhere about a 3 to 1 kill ratio in excercises.

It is, unless some one has a shit load of gator navy ships they're not talking about and the means to get them here without being blown out of the water.

european nations do still have some colonial assets in the area you know? not all of our naval assets would come from the european continent. there's EU naval assets in the carribean, south america, and asia aswell.
ofcourse, the same is true for the US, so what the hell am i babbling about anyway? i guess i'm just sour that a bunch of colonials got a better fighting chance because they decided to spend their money on guns instead of universal healthcare.

No where enough to A) go against the sheer numbers of the US armor and B) no where enough to cover the vast space that is the US mainland.

we don't want redneck land anyway

One regiment against how many American ones? Let me compare it like this. The USMC has ~160 thousand troops. Thats the Marine Corps. Most countries Armys are that size. But you want to pin some of your hopes on one regiment?

the SAS was the penultimate example, other european commando corps. outperform american commando units aswell.

I'd like to see your reasoning for this?

simple, international excercises.

I don't think the US could take Europe either, though its possible for us to take parts I suppose, but it would quickly go nukey.

exactly, just like it's possible for us to take parts of the US, but in either case, not for very long. a war between the EU and US seems impossible, but i don't know, what with the way the american government been behaving lately (and not just under the bush administration), it will certainly come to a political war, and a stepping up of the economic war.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-06 01:57am

yangja isuko wrote:
Howedar wrote:No, the problem would be the sealift capabilites that nobody but the US has.

huh? again? what crack are you on?

How do you think you land a credible invasion force? A flotilla of good intentions?

Strike one.

they aren't designed to give subs a fighting chance actually, and the fact that they can sail away doesn't really mean shit because....so can a sub.

Not a diesel-electric, which is the exercise you're referring to.

Strike two.

the fact that a single sub can and HAS sunk US aircraft carriers whilst they are protected by an entire carrier BATTLEGROUP, and then ESCAPE unharmed pretty much makes the U.S navy look very, VERY incompetent.

Not when your opponent is a diesel-electric sub, numbnuts. There has never been an exercise in which a USN battlegroup, in opean ocean (not littoral waters), unconstrained by location, has been "sunk". Ever.

Strike three.

Hint, I usually stop after three strikes. However, this shit is just too funny not to continue.

The 2A6 is a moderately better tank than the M1A2, but how many of them are there? Hint: not fucking many.

a few thousand. in the event of a war, there would be a lot more ofcourse due to wartime production efforts.[/quote]Actually, the answer is several hundred.

Strike four.

Oh, and what is the US Army doing over these buildup years? Sitting on its hands?

Strike five.

it IS a fact however that western european fighter pilots do outperform american topgun fighters, even if they are using american jets.

Another unsupported claim. I'm shocked.

Back your shit up or stop wasting my time.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-06 01:59am

Howedar wrote:Mother of God, get a clue. The USN is second to none. There is considerable doubt if the entire "world navy" could defeat the USN in a head-to-head engagement, never mind the thoroughly laughable assumption that a Dutch frigate could stand against a US battlegroup! Christ Almighty, the entire Dutch navy possesses not more than 80 ready-to-fire area-defense SAMs - about as many as a single US carrier. Never mind that these are only SM-1 MR's, a missile that went out of first-line service in the US Navy in, IIRC, the early 1980's. The entire Dutch frigate fleet would have to achieve a kill for every missile they fired to do more than piss off a single US carrier. Never mind thirteen.

Rather, about as many SM-1 MR's as a carrier has aircraft. My bad.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-06 02:10am

Poo, lost some stuff in some quote fixing. Oh well, no matter.

any european naval entity would be protected by dutch air defense vessels, these are WITHOUT QUESTION, the most advanced and efficient such vessels in the world (the dutch goalkeeper system vastly outperforms the phalanx system for instance). such a naval entity would NOT be destroyed very easily. the US navy would have a serious problem in itself, european ships, while outnumbered, do have the distinct advantage of being designed with survivability in mind, european ships are generally heavier armed and armored, while the american navy relies on a ship specialization strategy.

This is a fucking laugh riot. The largest air-defense vessel the Dutch navy boasts is a fucking frigate with not a third the number of SAMs as a US Ticonderoga. Each missile is, of course, substantially less effective than its USN counterpart. Armor doesn't matter for shit anymore, and US radar systems are second to none. Why you think a last-ditch close-in weapons system matters I have no idea, but you don't really surprise me anymore.

a carrier is worthless if it's sunk. a carrier itself isn't very well defendable, which is why they sail in battlegroups most of the time (thus requiring an even greater resource shift), and as for using the aircraft on said carriers, these are useless against a dutch navy group due to the virtually impenetrable air defenses of dutch vessels. even the USN tries to get dutch naval vessels in it's carrier groups whenever it can (international operations)

You fucking crack me up. A carrier is so well defended because it is a huge investment, not because it is highly vulnerable. As for your "virtually inpenetrable" air defenses, please do me the courtesy of lifting my jaw off the fucking floor. A US carrier literally has more aircraft than a Dutch frigate has missiles, let alone the vast aerial armada of Harpoons that can attack the frigate from outside it's own SAM range.

Grow a fucking brain, you ignorant twelve year old.
the american mentality in action.

The American mentality, then, is apparently characterized by such things as "thinking" and "rationally comparing capabilites". The Dutch (you could only be Dutch to suck the Koninklijke Marine's dick so hard) mentality, therefore, must be to make such laughable assertions that even a casual reader knows that the arguer is bullshitting.

Seriously, get a brain and stop wasting my time.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-12-06 02:11am

And do note that the USN can put at least 7 carriers in one place at one time. This is somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 aircraft. Now admittedly, some of those are helicopters( but they can be armed with anti-ship missiles) and some of them are AEW birds. How many blue water warships does Europe have?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-06 03:07am

the US navy would have a serious problem in itself, european ships, while outnumbered, do have the distinct advantage of being designed with survivability in mind, european ships are generally heavier armed and armored, while the american navy relies on a ship specialization strategy.

Let us review.

Maritime Exclusion Zone off the Falkland Islands, 4th May 1982. HMS Sheffield, a Type 42 destroyer, is struck by a single Exocet missile. Flames aboard rage out of control; the ship is abandoned and sinks.

San Carlos Water, East Falkland, 23rd May 1982. HMS Antelope, a Type 21 frigate, is struck by two 1,000 pound bombs dropped by an A-4C raid. The bombs fail to explode. After an unsuccessful attempt to defuse the bombs, one goes off, setting the ship afire and forcing it to be abandoned. A secondary explosion occurs the next day, breaking the ship's back. It sinks soon thereafter.

25th May 1982. HMS Coventry, a Type 42 destroyer, is struck by three 1000 pound bombs, two of which explode. It sinks soon thereafter.

Atlantic Conveyor was also hit and destroyed by at least one Exocet that same day, but as she was a civilian container ship and not a British warship, this has little bearing on the discussion.

So, where's this vaunted European naval toughness? These losses were inflicted by the Argentinian air force, a force far inferior to the USN air groups or the USAF.

a carrier is worthless if it's sunk. a carrier itself isn't very well defendable, which is why they sail in battlegroups most of the time (thus requiring an even greater resource shift), and as for using the aircraft on said carriers, these are useless against a dutch navy group due to the virtually impenetrable air defenses of dutch vessels. even the USN tries to get dutch naval vessels in it's carrier groups whenever it can (international operations)

Let's suppose you're right, and the Dutch navy can shoot down US air groups so easily. They can only do so until they run out of missiles. The USN has more aircraft than the Dutch air defense ships have missiles.

Howedar wrote:The Dutch (you could only be Dutch to suck the Koninklijke Marine's dick so hard) mentality, therefore, must be to make such laughable assertions that even a casual reader knows that the arguer is bullshitting.

I dunno, he called us colonials. That suggests British to me.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-06 03:29am

Could a moderator please fix the second picture in my post above? Thanks.What needs fixing? -Beo.

negative, the EU does *not* lack sealift capabilities in this regard, the dutch/british battlegroup in fact has enormous sealift vessels with far larger capacity than anything the U.S has (the H.M.S Rotterdam for instance).

Again Falkland Islands War. Britain had to nationalize luxury liners to haul her troops to the South Atlantic. This is not what I call sufficient sealift.

i guess i'm just sour that a bunch of colonials got a better fighting chance because they decided to spend their money on guns instead of universal healthcare.

Bud, if the U.S. didn't spend it's ass off to make a military large enough to be the backbone of NATO, thus forcing Europe to get it's rear in gear during the Cold War, you wouldn't have all that money to spend on universal healthcare.

yangja isuko · Post by **yangja isuko** » 2004-12-06 03:40am

Again Falkland Islands War. Britain had to nationalize luxury liners to haul her troops to the South Atlantic. This is not what I call sufficient sealift.

that was quite some time ago.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-06 03:49am

yangja isuko wrote:
Again Falkland Islands War. Britain had to nationalize luxury liners to haul her troops to the South Atlantic. This is not what I call sufficient sealift.
that was quite some time ago.

And has Britain been building more sealift since then? At the time they were on the verge of decommissioning what they had.

yangja isuko · Post by **yangja isuko** » 2004-12-06 03:52am

This is a fucking laugh riot. The largest air-defense vessel the Dutch navy boasts is a fucking frigate with not a third the number of SAMs as a US Ticonderoga.

wrong, the LCF is a *destroyer*. and the most advanced naval vessel currently in existence.

some stats on the LCF:

radar systems:
Multifunction / Air Search:
1x APAR (Active Phased Array Radar) multifunction 3D phased-array (target acquisition, illumination, and navigation).
Air/Surface Search:
1xSMART-L 3D long range volume search early warning (LRR).
Navigation:
1x DECCA NAV navigation.
1x Scout navigation and surface search.

sonar system:
1x STM Atlas Electronik DSQS-24C hull-mounted

IR/Optical Sensors:
1x Thomson Signaal Sirius (IR).
1x Thomson Signaal Mirador (Optical)

EW/CM systems:
1x 'Sabre' integrated ECM/ESM suite by Thomson Racal Defense
1x Mk XII IFF Identification Friend Or Foe
1x AN/SLQ-25 'NIXIE' Towed torpedo decoy
4x Mk 36 SRBOC Chaff mortars

Armament:
SSM:
8x Boeing Harpoon
SAM:
5x 8-cell MK-41 VLS for
32x SM-2 Block 3A medium/long range SAM and
32x ESSM (Quadpacked) short/medium range SAM (64x missiles total)
(Upgradable to 6x 8-cell)
Guns:
1x OTO-Breda 127mm/54 'Compact' gun
2x 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS
2x 20mm Oerlikon guns
Torpedoes:
2x 324mm MK-32 Mod 9 ASW torpedo tubes (MK-46 Mod 5 torpedoes)

Air:
1x NH-90 multi-function helicopter with hangar (Room for two in hangar.).

Combat system:
Thomson Signaal SEWACO X, fully intergrated combat management system.

"For sensors the design features the APAR system, which has been build and designed by the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada. This is a high powered Active Phased Array Radar, which is smaller, yet considerably more powerful, than the American SPY-1 phased array radar. It can track up to 250 targets at one time, and at the same time can function as a illumination radar for up to 16 targets (with 32 missiles in the air), removing the need for seperate illumination radars. Because of its relatively small design it was possible to locate the four APAR panels in a single structure high above sea level. In a move which cause some last-minute delays the Dutch decided to have the APAR mount redesigned, so that in the future the guidance equipment for Standard TBMD missiles can be fitted. The long range search radar is the SMART-L phased array 3D radar. This radar is not stabilized, but the emission-angle of the radar is adapted to the curent sea state and angle. It has a range of up to 400 km, and can track up to 1000 targets. Mounted above the APAR, at the very top of the ship is a Sirius long range dual band infra red seeker, with a maximum range of roughly 30 km. Mounted on the hull is a Atlas Electronik active sonar."

so, sure, if you send the entire airfleet of a carrier against one of these destroyers, you will likely destroy it. but,

A) you can't launch the entire air fleet of a carrier simultaneously,
B) to use 88 aircraft (or something along that number) against a single target is...well, absurd.
C) in the event of a war that destroyer would likely not be alone.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-12-06 03:52am

How many fighters can the US field? I'm pretty sure we can strike anything offshore from fighters refueled in freaking MISSOURI and hit without too much trouble.

What military we have right now is just for a good "striking force". If we actually WANTED to jack someone, we could produce so much war mateiel it would make your head spin. And Dutch Navy? Give me a break. No one has been afraid of the dutch navy since 1690.