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

YouTube ^ | 12/12/10 | Chuck Henry

[OneVike]

Ever since WWII, America has been a dominant force upon the high seas. We have become so advanced in our military technology that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed, in large part because Ronald Reagan would not back down against them. In honor of his accomplishments and great leadership, congress named the worlds largest aircraft carrier after him, the USS Ronald Reagan. Well it has been 22 years since Reagan left office, and while we have been able to hold our status as the worlds most powerful military the world has ever seen, those days could be coming to an end.

Thanks in large part to the anti military sentiment that prevails in Washington, from both sides of the isle, America is losing the war of technical advancement. What you will see in this video is a submarine from Sweden the, NemoSaltadSobrius, that cannot be detected, and even worse it has repeatedly sunk our best and most powerful naval ships in mock war games. Check out this report out of San Diego by Chuck Henry, who reports that America is attempting to figure out how to catch in before our enemies discover the secret of its elusiveness.

Follow this link to see the video about the Swedish sub that could be the end America's domination of the
high seas. The Swedish sub "NemoSaltadSobrius" beats us in ever war game we played against it.
Swedish Submarine the NemoSaltadSobrius

[SAJ]

Doubtless rather like Charles XII, until (of course) the Battle of Poltava.

[lmr]

This is all disinformation and propaganda for our enemies and rivals. Highlighting ‘weaknesses’ in an effort to misdirect our rivals to concentrate their limited resources into specific tech that they think will defeat us.

We don’t just fight wars on land, sea and air. Ever heard of Psy-Ops?

[J Aguilar]

A modern conventional submarine, equipped with AIP (Air Independent Propulsion), such as the German Type 212, is almost undetectable, especially in coastal areas. However, its speed is just a few knots, therefore, it cannot attack a carrier group moving at 30 knots unless the carrier group runs over it.

The second problem to sink the USS Ronald Reagan it is that for a ship of its size, a few torpedoes are not enough. A tactical nuclear warhead is the only thing that can do the job.

AIP submarines armed with nuclear torpedoes and missiles could be used succesfully against a carrier group in narrow seas, such as the Mediterranean, the Red sea, and the Persian gulf.

[OneVike]

Does Swedish sonar harm whales?

LOL,,,,, good one. Let us hope that George Soros does not buy Watson one of these puppies.

Can you imagine that terrorist and his pirates the Sea Shepherd group running around sinking American naval vessels after he wasted all the whalers. Claiming it is all in the name of saving the environment?

Then I want to see what those who support him have to say about his tactics.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So who will the Swedes end up playing ball with? It would be worth the hush money to buy all the rights from them.

[lmr]

See post#22. You assume you know more than the USN. These Psy-Ops are also great propaganda to use at home to justify the development (cost) of new systems which will counter these ‘threats.’

Not that I think this is a bad idea. As long as Defense Hawks have the upper hand in the political game and our rivals are misinformed at every turn, I’m good.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The second problem to sink the USS Ronald Reagan it is that for a ship of its size, a few torpedoes are not enough. A tactical nuclear warhead is the only thing that can do the job.

Looks like Iran is going to be able to furnish one before long.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yeah, I hope this is just feints. Only the Swedes know for sure.

[dennisw]

Advanced diesel sub versus our large aircraft carriers is the same as an advanced anti-tank weapon versus an Abrams

Armor is not as dominant as it used to be

[Red Steel]

Modern electric diesel subs with extended submergence are a threat. It’s good to see the Swedes are helping us to combat the threat.

[DakotaRed]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1247238/posts

[Ronin]

Or the Straights of Malacca, or coming out of harbor say at Yokosuka, or by pre-positioning based on past operational patterns, etc.

As for a CVBG moving at 30 knots, how often does that happen? Yes, I know they can go that fast, but they seldom do. It tends to break things and can take years off the service life of a propulsion plant. Ten to 15 knots is a more common advance speed.

The points I am trying to get across, in this and in other places where I have posted, is that overconfidence is not a good thing. That ASW is a constantly changing game and that the adversary is not dumb and is not going to oblige us by doing what we expect him to do.

[dennisw]

You only have to kill rudder, propellers or half kill the engine room

[OneVike]

A tactical nuclear warhead is the only thing that can do the job.

As you said as nuke is all that is needed. Even I ran is ready to produce nukes, what more does it take to put one in a torpedo and send it off to the aircraft carrier if you are within range? Also as Ronin said,

"Of course, the sub would probably be sunk shortly after he launches, but if the swap is a sub for an aircraft carrier, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is willing to pay it.
How far away does a suicidal terrorist have to get when he knows his target is wiped out. Last time I check the towers in NY went down after they were dead. So, I too think that our enemy's would consider the trade off to be well worth it.

[Ronin]

If I am not mistaken, we are actually leasing the Swedish boat. That’s right. We are paying money for them to come over and romp with us. If I am not mistaken, this is actually the second time they have done this. The first submarine we leased was the Gotland.

You think that it’s all Psy-Ops? Fine. I don’t. I think it is very realistic training and it’s a damn good thing we are doing it.

[OneVike]

Advanced diesel sub versus our large aircraft carriers is the same as an advanced anti-tank weapon versus an Abrams

As I recall the Germans in WWII counted upon their big heavy armored tanks to do the job but our smaller faster tanks were more then a match for their Shermans.(I think I got the right name for the German tank) I believe they were able to take advantage of the Shermans week underbelly and slower speed. There is always a week point and a smaller enemy will usually find it.

[21twelve]

We had the Shermans, their were the Panzers. There is a liitle town nearby with a Sherman tank in the town square - unbelievable how tiny it is!

I think a lot of our success with the Sherman was because of smart men making changes in tactics, etc. Not to say that can always be done, but it sure can help. That, and being able to make decisions in the field at very low levels to be able to quickly adapt to changing situations in each battle.

[chimera]

One article I read seemed to indicate that these super-quiet AIP boats would be mostly effective in the littoral zone, which was the model many future conflicts would be based on. Limited speed, range, and time on (submerged) station for the systems available at the time seemed to be the weak points, but in near-shore, hit-and-hide engagements, would not necessarily be handicaps to effectiveness. In any case, it is a scenario we should be paying attention to, since the cold war model of long-term, blue water deterrence operations may not encompass all of the contingencies we face moving forward.

[OneVike]

Thanks, now I remember. You are right it was Panzer. It was actually a superior tank really, but my point is bigger is not always better.

[unkus]

This sub will be long gone if it goes in a real fight with the US Navy.

________________________________

Maybe so, but we could still lose a Carrier before it is “long gone”.