How HSwMS Gotland Sunk an U.S. Aircraft Carrier

Рет қаралды 33,499

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер

@waheex Жыл бұрын

stolen from reddit...There was no defensive mistake. One of the best anti-sub tactics for a carrier is to travel at flank speed, far from the coastline, and randomly change its course every so often. The reason is that a Gotland-class sub (the one used in the exercise or any similar AIP sub) can not keep up with a carrier at flank speed. If it tried (typically up to 21 to 25 knots), it would be incredibly loud (due to cavitation). It would also use up its batteries in a matter of hours. You may say it can stay submerged for weeks using AIP. You would be correct, but its speed is limited to single-digit knot speeds. The max AIP speed used to be 5 knots or so, but I hear it is up to 8 knots. A carrier and its combat escorts can run at 27 knots all day. A diesel-electric sub is basically a lurking ambush predator. It sits and waits for prey to come into range. By operating far from shore, the ocean area is much greater and a sub is much less likely to be at the right spot at the right time. So why was the US carrier so close to the coastline and essentially stationary? Because the purpose of the exercise was to test US anti-sub equipment and tactics. For that to happen, the US forces had to forgo one of its best defensive tactics just so the Gotland can get close to the carrier group for the escorts to even have a test. What it did do was wake the USN up to the very real practical dangers of the AIP technology, rather than the theoretical and mentally distant dangers that they pose. The US Navy actually leased a Gotland-class sub for further testing (and I suspect modifications and upgrades) of the USN equipment and tactics.

@Coole-ee1vg 8 ай бұрын

After one year " please Gotland , stay one more year , please please "...

@sambitranjan9584 8 ай бұрын

Nice video

@hifinsword Жыл бұрын

This is a great PR video for the Gotland class of subs. But as far as the Naval exercise commentary it leaves out the details that enabled it to attack the Ronald Reagan carrier. Were escorts subs for the BG involved in countering a sub attack? Were sonobuoys allowed or used to combat the Gotland? From what I've read, the exercise was designed to highlight the Gotland's capabilities. But to do that the carrier's BG had to be limited as to its track and capabilities. It was a success to show the Gotland's capabilities and the carrier's vulnerabilities. But you have to keep in mind, the combat scenario was designed to do just that.

@Coole-ee1vg 8 ай бұрын

Another expert has spoken...

@StivenBagheri-hs8jk 6 ай бұрын

US, asked for a "test" !

@hifinsword 6 ай бұрын

@@Coole-ee1vg In my Naval career, I was involved in many of these types of exercises. There are many restrictions laid out in order to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of specific systems. Those details are critical if you want to evaluate what was being tested.

@Samson373 6 ай бұрын

Correct. When it comes to the story of Sweden's Gotland sub, few people tell the whole story. As it is typically told, the story makes people think that American carriers are more vulnerable than they are in real life. One exception is the Australian youtuber Hypohysterical. According to his more complete telling, the war games rules subjected the carrier various artificial limitations that made things much easier for the Gotland. For example, the carrier could use neither its sonar buoys nor its anti-torpedo torpedos (simulated of course). There were other limitations that I can't recall, but I do recall that they would make a difference in real life. The youtuber didn't mention it but I'm guessing the war games also circumscribed the aid that the carrier could get from its escort group, which typically comprises four ships three of which focus on anti-submarine. The escort group also includes one or two attack submarines which of course also focus on anti-submarine. The upshot is that the odds that in real life combat the Gotland could have hit the carrier are lower -- probably much lower -- than the odds suggested by the incomplete version of the Gotland story. The real life odds that the Gotland could've not only torpedo the carrier but also SUNK it are even lower, much lower. Much much lower are the real life odds that the Gotland could not only sink the carrier but also get away without itself being destroyed. So, to pull off in real life what it pulled off in the games, the Gotland's captain would have to be willing to accept odds of dying of perhaps three out of four. In real life, most people won't accept such bad odds.

@jelliott4 Жыл бұрын

What? No meaningful discussion of the Stirling engine AIP? That’s the whole reason this sub is so stealthy, and the whole reason people likely clicked on this video. But instead this video implies that it’s relying on the diesel in these situations, which is misleading.

@kenknudsen675 Жыл бұрын

No, he speaks authoritatively, like he knows how things work, but his story about running the diesel engines underwater was a fairy tale. It makes you wonder how much research goes into these videos when they don't even bother to read the Wikipedia article. Also: what class of US submarine were they trying to represent at the 1:50 mark?

@Desire123ification Жыл бұрын

During training, the Gotland sub repeatedly sank the Ronald Reagan without ever being discovered.

@Samson373 6 ай бұрын

When it comes to the story of Sweden's Gotland sub, few people tell the whole story. As it is typically told, the story makes people think that American carriers are more vulnerable than they are in real life. One exception is the Australian youtuber Hypohysterical. According to his more complete telling, the war games rules subjected the carrier various artificial limitations that made things much easier for the Gotland. For example, the carrier could use neither its sonar buoys nor its anti-torpedo torpedos (simulated of course). There were other limitations that I can't recall, but I do recall that they would make a difference in real life. The youtuber didn't mention it but I'm guessing the war games also circumscribed the aid that the carrier could get from its escort group, which typically comprises four ships three of which focus on anti-submarine. The escort group also includes one or two attack submarines which of course also focus on anti-submarine. The upshot is that the odds that in real life combat the Gotland could have hit the carrier are lower -- probably much lower -- than the odds suggested by the incomplete version of the Gotland story. The real life odds that the Gotland could've not only torpedo the carrier but also SUNK it are even lower, much lower. Much much lower are the real life odds that the Gotland could not only sink the carrier but also get away without itself being destroyed. So, to pull off in real life what it pulled off in the games, the Gotland's captain would have to be willing to accept odds of dying of perhaps three out of four. In real life, most people won't accept such bad odds.

@phyr-4g 3 ай бұрын

@@Samson373 The carrier was not alone and none of the US ships or subs was able to detect Gotland.

@Iamabot4708 2 ай бұрын

@@phyr-4g we only know of the restrictions put on one ship not on the rest of the carrier strike group.

@petternilsson4393 3 ай бұрын

The swedish submarines is and owerwelming threath for and enemy trying to attack Sweden by sea.The swedish torpedos is also very ( secret ) advanced.

@jp6869 28 күн бұрын

Despite this impressive demonstration, the US Navy hasn't acquired diesel-electric submarines.

@Samson373 6 ай бұрын

When it comes to the story of Sweden's Gotland sub, few people tell the whole story. As it is typically told, the story makes people think that American carriers are more vulnerable than they are in real life. One exception is the Australian youtuber Hypohysterical. According to his more complete telling, the war games rules subjected the carrier various artificial limitations that made things much easier for the Gotland. For example, the carrier could use neither its sonar buoys nor its anti-torpedo torpedos (simulated of course). There were other limitations that I can't recall, but I do recall that they would make a difference in real life. The youtuber didn't mention it but I'm guessing the war games also circumscribed the aid that the carrier could get from its escort group, which typically comprises four ships three of which focus on anti-submarine. The escort group also includes one or two attack submarines which of course also focus on anti-submarine. The upshot is that the odds that in real life combat the Gotland could have hit the carrier are lower -- probably much lower -- than the odds suggested by the incomplete version of the Gotland story. The real life odds that the Gotland could've not only torpedo the carrier but also SUNK it are even lower, much lower. Much much lower are the real life odds that the Gotland could not only sink the carrier but also get away without itself being destroyed. So, to pull off in real life what it pulled off in the games, the Gotland's captain would have to be willing to accept super high odds of death, like maybe a 3 in 4 chance, maybe worse. In real life, most people won't accept such terrible odds of imminent death.

@Samson373 Жыл бұрын

Few people tell the Tale of the Gotland in its entirety. As a rule, they leave out crucial facts. One exception to this rule is the Australian youtuber Hypohysterical. As he tells the Tale, artificial limitations were imposed on the US carrier as part of the war game to give the sub a better shot at succeeding. Unfortunately, I can remember only one the limitations he recited (which is that the carrier couldn't use its sonar buoys). I do recall, however, that the limitations would make all the difference in real life. That is, the real life odds that the Gotland could have torpedoed the carrier are far lower than the odds implied by the Tale as it's usually told. The real life odds that the Gotland could've not only hit but also SUNK the carrier are even lower, a lot lower. Furthermore, the real life odds that the Gotland could've not only sunk the carrier but also gotten away without being destroyed are lower still. In short, the standard version of the Tale makes people think US carriers are far more vulnerable than they actually are.

@jasonwestwood7092 10 ай бұрын

1 hyper sonic missile.😂

@ymg200 10 ай бұрын

Thumb down for this video. Despite the catchy title it failed to explain how exactly the sub came close while staying undetected.

@gibmebalut Ай бұрын

It can get so close simply because its quiet. Modern electric drive subs are nearly undetectable; even to nuke boats. The first indication a nuclear sub has that a hostile electric sub is engaging them, is their detection of a torpedo coming their way.

@MyMikey88 Жыл бұрын

mini-submarine>>good for shallow waters//I like more the Grippen aircraft/Submarines are the most effective weapons today but the technollogy is not much different from old 1940 U-boots.Any submarine is vulnerable to destroyer attacks so there is nothing as a "perfect vessel" until you use modern day technollogy.The main improvement would be to evade torpedoes from another submarine.Usually aircraft carrier is never alone they have escort ships,so in the real life its not so easy to get close to it

@jg5875 Жыл бұрын

Downvote for not answering the question in the title

@mashelalnaar Жыл бұрын

Sounds like an update of what the HMS Swiftsure in 1977. 😆

@Svenne-man-1880 2 ай бұрын

The Gotland class is overhyped joke compared to any actual blue water subs as in comparison the Gotlands are slow have weak torpedoes are short ranged an if they try to keep up wit a carrier or any blue water ship the overhyped toy will run out of power before they get into any form of attack position, so please stop hyping up the crap swedish gear and realize that the only military that maters these days is the US armed forces.