I guarantee Iran is using these chuckle-fucks to gauge our ships’ defenses.
Good luck, if you’ve seen ciws and rfm going full blast you can understand it’s unlikely for much to get through.
Warning mind numbing brrrrrrrrtttt. https://youtu.be/BnrSTkidXa8?si=AdRjdaduurQfIkbZ
Warning very loud but no brrrrttttt just cute covers popping off and missiles exploding. https://youtu.be/vxy8XcE1VjE?si=Mw94GY3Qxi0fwI1P
Ed: Three spread out over 2ish km https://youtu.be/XceGKHATcYE?si=ptUSXyFS2rNCPXuf
A Nimitz has 4 in less than a km with 2 rfm in a carrier strike group with 2 cruisers with 2 ciws each, 7 destroyers with 1ciws each and various surface support ships often with at least one ciws. That’s at least 15 of these bad boys with converging areas of coverage and a carrier airwing that can act with impunity while ciws blankets the sky in lead and sweet music.
Yeah, I’m guessing most of the crew on these ships are just excited to see the guns go off instead of being actually worried about an attack. It takes a lot to bring down a US warship.
That said, I don’t recommend anyone try. Even if you do manage to take one out, the rest of the fleet will be coming after you. A US warship is rarely alone.
It takes a ton of fucking balls or abject stupidity to even try. Legit the last time someone did actual damage to one of ours resulted in the entire Iraqi navy getting sunk in 8 hours and most of their naval infrastructure was destroyed.
You don’t fuck about with the navy, any navy for that matter they’re home country will absolutely slap back.
I don’t recall that as part of the USS Cole bombing. Or the USS Liberty strafings? Which attack are you referring to?
There is a real nice animated version of Iran’s navy getting their shit pushed in as well.
We didn’t have drones in 88 like the Cole, in which all but iirc two of those involved were hit with missiles by drones. Calling it a liberty ship is a bit misleading, sure that’s it’s class but that particular one was a spy vessel and we have an active policy of not firing back from sigint ships, instead of they come under attack they burn break or blow up anything sensitive and then essentially surrender.
War changed this year. With a limited number of anti ship missiles, this was a solid defense. Now with a hug raft of drones to shoot down and anti ship missiles and submersible drones, brrrrrrrrr isn’t what it used to be.
Russias navy and specifically their naval losses are not remotely comparable to the us navy given russias navy has always been lackluster anyway, and the us navy is leaps and bounds more advanced in damn near every way.
watch a couple drone target videos or pacfire and remember thats usually one single ship.
This ship is almost certainly doing sigint which is why its alone in hostile waters, they arent worried about it because they dont particularly need to.
It’s about technology designed to shoot down a few incoming targets, being challenged by a thousand incoming targets.
doubtful, they know that ships have multiple ways to shut down their drones. It’s just to be a fly buzzing around the the metaphorical head of the ship
If I wanted to know more about my enemy I’d send flies at his head
Hasn’t anyone learned? From the founding of America until present day, don’t fuck with our boats. We will issue a ‘proportional’ response.
You joke but something like half the wars we fought in the 1800s at least tangentially involved “FUCK YOU OUR BOATS CAN GO WHEREVER THE FUCK THEY WANT TO GO AND YOU CAN CRY ABOUT IT IF YOU CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT IT!”
Although it probably was inevitable given just how important sea faring was to keep trade with the outside world open.
The Navy was founded because pirates were fucking with our boats.
You wouldn’t download an aircraft carrier
Pretty sure the Marines too
“Temper, temper”
Swede here. Please tell us more about “Fucking with US boats”.
In 2005, USS Ronald Reagan, a newly constructed $6.2 billion dollar aircraft carrier, sank after being hit by multiple torpedoes.
Yet despite making multiple attacks runs on the Reagan, the Gotland was never detected.
This outcome was replicated time and time again over two years of war games, with opposing destroyers and nuclear attack submarines succumbing to the stealthy Swedish sub.
You realize that was a simulation right? It says so in the very top of the article. It was an exercise, military training for everyone involved.
No, Sweden did not sink a US Aircraft Carrier lmfao.
Just accept the fact that the only reason the US didn’t lose an aircraft carrier was not because superiority…
It was because Sweden was playing.
This was a war game between allies to find potential gaps in their stragety. Everyone learned something from two years of experience. So everyone involved wins.
During war games against the US, they handicap pretty heavily. If you read about the F-35 being intercepted by 70’s/80’s era jets, it’s because they HEAVILY handicapped themselves. Done for two reasons. Improve improvisation during actual combat and not show exactly what the equipment can do.
Doing reading outside your source, the USS Regan wasn’t ‘sunk’ During the games. If the real torpedoes had hit, somehow getting past the torpedo defenses, it would have still been afloat and towed/escorted for repairs.
Well, it’s because it was a war game. It’s a diesel electric sub, which are particularly small and cheap and easy to stealth, but very limited range. They’re great for coastal defence, but that’s also their only use. The carrier was in a position it shouldn’t have been, which is why this was allowed to happen. It’s a good thing to war game because it allows you to identify flaws and create strategies to avoid them. In a real war, it likely wouldn’t happen. Even if it did, one carrier isn’t the entire US Navy. The response would be deafening.
Anyway, carriers are probably a thing of the past if I had to guess. With modern drone warfare, I’m expecting much smaller more agile vehicles to make a comeback. Carriers are too much of sitting ducks. They’re giant slow targets. That’s why they’re always in a fleet with a bunch of other vessels required to defend it. We’ll see though.
It’s ok to claim that the US spent millions of dollars leasing a submarine to train on a situation that would never happen. I’m pretty sure there might be some not so insignificant people disagreeing with you though.
I don’t think it was leased. It was a NATO wargame. It was volunteered, as Sweden is a part of NATO.
Sweden isn’t part of NATO, Norway and Finland are. Turkey keeps vetoing their admission for political reasons.
I know some people who served on Gotland. I know for a fact that it was leased. Twice. The lease was renewed partly because of the US Navy having the problems they had. However, the exercise was never about Swedish submarines.
It was all about Chinese submarines.
Edit: “as Sweden is a part of NATO”… You’re kidding, right? NATO is not letting us to become a member. Our application has been blocked by Turkey for like a year now.
Removed by mod
A) that’s a simulation, the Ronald Reagan is still very much afloat
B) you totally missed the point … which wasn’t “my boat is bigger (read better) than your boat” but “if you touch my boat, we gonna have a problem… and you ain’t gonna like the outcome”
While I think that was a good exercise that helped highlight weaknesses and vulnerabilities in US doctrine and equipment, it’s important to note that in nearly all wargames and exercises, the US operates in worst possible conditions to better bring potential problems to the surface, such as a carrier operating without it’s usual extended support and only utilizing assets in the carrier group proper. The Gotland and other AIP submarines were very good, but this was nearly 20 years ago and new techniques and equipment have been developed to aid in detecting and chasing them away.
This is the same song second verse of F-22s being shot down in wargames over the last 20 years, with the F-22 being limited by rules of the wargame such as keeping their fuel tanks equipped and use of certain equipment and features barred, putting the F-22 in a situation it could only find itself in if the operator defied every aspect of their doctrine they had spent the last 4+ years training under.
Not to discredit the exercise, the US learned the assets they had at hand were not up to snuff in dealing with potential threats being developed, and some assumptions proven wrong about what the last line of defenses they did have could deal with.
this and what op said are cool info, thanks
As a Veteran this information is interesting indeed. It’s always nice to see little knowledge nuggets. Thank you.
deleted by creator
This is at least the third incident in the last month. In the last two, Yemen shot missiles at US and Israeli assets. Yemen needs to calm the fuck down.
Yemen is a puppet of Iran.
Yeah, they don’t like us much.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement
Yeah man Yemen
We’ve been supporting war in Yemen for a bit now. I think since 2014, so nearly a decade. This is the natural result of such. Maybe we need to just stay out of middle eastern blood feuds if we don’t want to have our ships attacked?
Damn, guess we should go back to our own borders
So you don’t believe in free trade? Without navy ships the global trade market is destroyed and the world quickly falls in a World War.
Evel Knievel couldn’t have made that leap…
Not for anyone who has a basic understanding of geopolitics. Do you want rogue nations hoarding resources? Do you want Superpowers to act as the British Empire did and enslave entire nations and exploit them at the point of a gun? The massive zerg rush to resources would instantly cause a world war. Right now you have a system where the world trades for goods and everyone profits that is a part of that trade. Take that away and you have trouble.
Rogue Nations pillaging oil and land… you’re talking about the USA?
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but it is possible to want part of the game to work differently without also wanting the complete collapse of the game proper.
I want a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean it is never moderately possible.
The US Navy is the global security provider of free trade on the sea. It is one of their core functions. To ‘just go back to our own borders’ would be to completely remove the only naval force cable of providing security for free trade on the sea and thus remove huge portions of safe, navigable waters for said trade.
Who else has the navy to make it happen? China’s navy has no range, France and England’s navies have the range but aren’t large enough. Everyone else’s navy is too small and can’t deploy at range.
We don’t have pirate fleets anymore and any pirate group that obtains a ship big enough to really be a danger would be eradicated as soon as they showed their hand.
There most certainly are pirates operating in the 21st Century.
It in any meaningful way to world trade though
Because Navy ships patrol those routes. Remove that, and the pirates would be able to expand.
Eradicated by who?
Jewish Space Lasers.
The significantly smaller fleets that aren’t spending their time doing laps but are waiting for the call to splash some pirates
Apart from piracy still being in a thing, there are many states that will illegally seize and impound other nations’ vessels if given the chance.
The USA commits tons of piracy.
The boats can’t go on land sadly
Dry docking.
Good thing we can operate on several fronts.
