Superior Swedish Sub Sinks American Nuclear Subs & Aircraft Carrier, USS Reagan (Video)

YouTube ^ | 12/12/10 | Chuck Henry

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Wow, the Germans named their tank after a US Confederate War hero! How cool is that? lol, Shermans are US tanks, Panzer is German tanks.

Confederate war hero????

William Tecumsah Sherman was a d***yankee.

[jpsb]

LOL, I am very good at history, American or otherwise, my problem is the link between the brain and the keyboard is not very reliable. The brain was saying Civil War and the keyboard typed Confederate. Most times I catch errors in perview but not always. The link between the eye and the brain while better then the keyboard brain link is also somewhat prone to errors.

[antisocial]

“If we lose a carrier we will annihilate the nation that attacked the carrie but we are not going to lose a carrier from a Swedish style submarine or any other vessel that exist with any nation on the planet. It takes a lot to destroy a US carrier and one or two torpedo would not do it.”

BS -I served on an old DE sub back in the ‘60s. They were real noisy compared to these new subs, yet we were able to hide from our ASW most of the time. One torpedo properly placed could sink the largest of carriers.

[liveoak4]

I think its amazing that a nuke power carrier Enterprise that entered service in the early 60 is still out there .
keeping the peace .Being an ex airdale with a heavy attack out VAH-9 we flew A3D-2 that could carry nukes .from what i recall in the early 60s the carriers were given a life span of less then one hour if we went to war. if aircraft were launched and 1 got through it was consider a success.the A3d-2 ,A4d-2 and the Ad-6 (spad ) could all strap one on ,Foreststal CVA59 /and Saratoga CVA 60( SARA ) now sit in RI.

[PapaBear3625]

Yes, they can be found with active sonar, and sometimes with MAD technology. But active sonar gives away more information than it collects.

Seems like there would be a niche for a submersible version of the Predator UAV, something relatively small and inexpensive, just big enough for a sonar and drive, which could cruise around and report back if it finds anything.

Might even be cheaper to have an unmanned surface vehicle which tows an underwater sensor suite on a long umbilical cord.

But that would not be sexy, so the brass might not like it.

[grey_whiskers]

The Sherman had a short-barrel, relatively low velocity 75 mm cannon which was easily outclassed by the German guns; furthermore, the Sherman's gun was literally unable to penetrate the frontal armor of the later German tanks (say the Tiger, Tiger II, or Panther).

Oftentimes the kill ratio for tanks favored the German tank over the Shermans at a ratio of 5 or 10 to 1 : we had to swarm the German tanks to allow one or two of ours to move to the Germans' rear and shoot at their tanks from behind.

Incidentally, the German nickname for the Sherman was the Ronson -- after the cigarette lighter, since the Sherman caught fire so easily.

I have been to the ordnance museum at Aberdeen Proving grounds and seen some WW II German tanks on display; I recall in particular seeing the frontal armor of one with what looked like ice cream scoops removed from the front armor, where incoming rounds had basically bounced off.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

T-34s did a pretty good job on the Germans at Prohorovka (Kursk).

The maneuverability of a Sherman (or better) with decent armaments.

I always wanted to see a head-to-head comparison of the Russian JS II vs. the King Tiger.

Tho' I heard the weakness of the JS II was lack of ammo. Apparently it only carried something like 22 rounds.

Cheers!

[PapaBear3625]

All it will take is one nuclear tipped torpedo not multiple ones.

Is this sub quiet enough to come into contact distance with the carrier?

Keep in mind that a culture that can produce people willing to turn airliners into flying bombs, can also produce men willing to turn their sub into a giant torpedo. A sub loaded with tons of TNT ramming a carrier would probably sink it.

[r9etb]

Only, it is turning out to be a bit of an embarrassment for the USN because the Swedes keep winning.

Not just the Swedes, apparently. Subs in general keep winning, without regard to nationality. Surface ships are at a huge disadvantage.

[RipSawyer]

Actually I have a similar problem, what goes through my mind is often not what comes out of my mouth. I think I inherited that from my mother, she was exceptionally intelligent but often said something different from what she thought she was saying. My wife does the same thing and she scores at genius level on an IQ test.

I am much better at writing than I am at speaking.

[grey_whiskers]

Point 4: Sonar is good, but it doesn't make the sea transparent, and active sonar is a target for a homing torpedo, even with a nixie.

Except that homing torpedoes can't yet reach helicopters.

Last I"ve read on this has been > 20 years old (Clancy's Red Storm Rising).

Do we still use helicopters as part of hunting for subs? Or are there tactical considerations I am missing?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

"I can make...Georgia howl."

Cheers!

[verity]

[PapaBear3625]

We also have Sonobuoys, which can be dropped from aircraft

[tanknetter]

Great point but the issue is the sites of potential conflicts; Persian Gulf, Straits of Taiwan, etc partially negate the depth of the ASW defense.

In a real conflict, I'm not sure you'd see CSGs operating in the Straits of Taiwan. They're great for steaming CSGs through when we want to make a "peaceful" point to the ChiComs, but in a shooting war they'd operate to the North, South and East of Taiwan.

The Persian Gulf is an interesting situation. We'd know, almost instantly, whether Iran was putting it's Kilo-class SSNs to sea, and would hound them continuously with P-3s and SH-60s. Using active sonar from the SH-60s and sonobuoys from the P-3s wouldn't give away the location of a CSG like it would in open ocean. The Persian Gulf is also shallow enough that MAD and other sensors (I wouldn't be surprised if there were SOSUS-style passive arrays laid in the Gulf) would work well - no thermocline for a sub to hide above or below for example.

[BikerJoe]

Does Swedish sonar harm whales?

Only Swedish Fish are safe.

[jpsb]

An unreliable brain to mouth link can be a very dangerous thing. I tend to kept my mouth shut when I am unsure of what might come out. lol, now while a bad brain keyboard link can be embarrassing it is rarely life threatening. It can however lead to unemployment if not carefully monitored.

Thanks for being understanding!

[tanknetter]

Do we still use helicopters as part of hunting for subs? Or are there tactical considerations I am missing?

Yup, sure do. There have been two types: SH-60B LAMPS, which is a radar and MAD-equipped ASW helo that operates from CGs, DDGs and FFGs. Then there's the SH-60F, which doesn't have the radar but does have a dipping sonar.

The USN is replacing both types with the MH-60R, which will have MAD, radar AND dipping sonar.

[Ronbo1948]

The evolution of naval warfare?

It could be that the submarine will control the seas...Remember the battleship? Replaced by the more deadly carrier...Perhaps the mighty carrier is to be replaced by the submarine as the terror of the seven seas.

[hinckley buzzard]

I agree. The superiority of Swedish submarine technology is not new, nor is it a sudden surprise to our Navy. This media story is a feature story, not breaking news. As the guy said, the Navy has been working on this problem for over a year already.