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

[jveritas]

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.

[OneVike]

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

Pride always goes before the fall. Long before Rome feel, it lost its pride.

The way I see America, our pride is leading us to a path of ruin and destruction. I for one am glad that the military does not think like you, because they are spending the money it takes to figure out the problem before it becomes their defeat.

[OneVike]

It takes a lot to destroy a US carrier and one or two torpedo would not do it.

All it will take is one nuclear tipped torpedo not multiple ones. Then if the Swedish style submarine is destroyed, does it matter anymore? It was cheaper, there will be more and we have very few Aircraft carriers in comparison.

[jveritas]

This is not pride this is a fact. Few conventional torpedoes are not going to sink a US carrier or even do enough damage to stop it. You are way overrating the capability of this Swedish submarine, actually this whole thread is a joke.

[freethinker_for_freedom]

“Go ahead and laugh, but sometimes it is good to be reminded why we need to keep spending money on the military instead of stupid social programs.”

I’m all for a strong military, but this hardly makes an argument for more spending. What is our military budget compared to Sweden’s and why didn’t we come up with this sub instead of them if money decides who stays on top?

[Ronin]

That’s assuming we know who’s sub it is. If a sub penetrates a CVBG and launches a spread of cruise missiles, it will indeed be attacked and sunk, but how are you going to prove who’s sub it was if it’s on the bottom of the ocean?

We have enough enemies around the world at this particular time to make any number of candidates. All it takes is sufficient deniability to cloud the issue.

You think Obama would order a strike in that case? I don’t.

[jveritas]

Then we are talking a nuclear war and only one nation can match us in this case which is Russia. Except Russia, we will annihilate any other nation who attacks our US Navy with nuclear weapons and win the war in matters of minutes.

[unkus]

You think Obama would order a strike in that case? I don’t.
__________________________________

Hell, I don’t trust Hussein 0bama any further than I could throw the USS Nimitz.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Superior American ICBMs Nuke Sweden

[Monterrosa-24]

Well there were Panzer MKls, MKlls, MKllls, MKlVs, MKVs (Panthers), MKVls (Tigers), and more. The Sherman’s 75 could take out even Panthers and Tigers but not always...especially against their frontal armor. Our M4 Shermans had vertical stabilzation, decent armor, mobility, superior maintenance units, and numbers. We produced about 49,000 M4s during the war.

The Panthers were great tanks but only about 5000 were made. Tigers and King Tigers combined amounted to less than 2000 copies.

[J Aguilar]

Rudder? You can turn using the propellers.

Propellers? In a ship of its size they are too far one from another, either in the transverse or longitudinal axis.

Two reactors and four engine rooms, again they are far one from another, and deeply buried under decks and walls.

I think it can be applied here what it was said from the first big caliber guns mounted on ships in the late 19th century, which had a very low firing rate: “the enemy could die of boredom”.

It would be a big propaganda hit indeed, but besides that, IMHO, it is futile trying to sink an aircraft carrier with conventional weapons.

[Jim from C-Town]

The biggest reason that the Sherman was so effective was because the U.S. made so many of them. They simply out produced the German war machine in a significant way.
The Panzer Tank was a superior tank. The Russians also mde a very good and tough tank, but the Americans made a ton of tanks, planes, jeeps, liberty ships, rifles boots and every other war impliment needed.

[chilltherats]

I suspect the computer model this war game is based on is about as accurate as the global warming computer models.

[Always Independent]

I’m just wondering about the range of this sub, for the most part, it looks a little small to be able to roam the atlantic let alone the pacific for extended periods in low detection mode. Secondly, how good are its detection capabilities? I don’t think it would be hard to find a carrier, but a modern USN attack sub running at good quiet I wonder.

[Ronin]

I am not sure of the range of those boats. I do know, however, that they were loaded onto floating drydocks and carried over to the Pacific rather than driven over under their own power.

I am assuming that was to save time on the propulsion plants, but it could also have been a range issue.

As for how they would stack up against a USN SSN, I have no idea. I do know, however, that in the past, when the JMSDF exercised against USN they won about half the time.

Of course, that might have been Psy-Ops.

/tongue in cheek

[unkus]

I would think not.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Most of you are talking about sinking a carrier?? Why sink a ship when all you need to do is cripple it.

[sukhoi-30mki]

These exercises were mostly real barring the use of live weapons. The sub penetrated the carrier’s defensive escort screen and snapped a few photos

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread204113/pg1

[Talisker]

Let's get real - the US Navy is not going to advertise vulnerabilities, especially during a war. And what is left out of this report is how much we hobble ourselves during the wargames, to test the efficacy of various detection systems, in full and partial deployment. I hardly think these subs would be invisible in a full war scenario, with satellite gravimetric, IR & wake analysis and a/c sonobouys actively pinging to subs, surface ships and whatever land-based EM assets we have, all going full blast.

On the ther hand, it might be very useful to encourage Iran, North Korea, Venuzuela and the rest of the Tin Pot Gods to buy technology we actually can already track quite nicely (oops, did I give away the game?).

And as for the USS Ronald Reagan...

[ROTB]

Most of you are talking about sinking a carrier?? Why sink a ship when all you need to do is cripple it.

*******************************

Crippled with or without the ability to field fighters?