• Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s about technology designed to shoot down a few incoming targets, being challenged by a thousand incoming targets.

    • vimdiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • at_an_angle@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hasn’t anyone learned? From the founding of America until present day, don’t fuck with our boats. We will issue a ‘proportional’ response.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • at_an_angle@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hell, at that point in time, the USA probably didn’t think they were gonna be a country for much longer. Lol

    • mindlight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sunk-how-sweden-sent-americas-uss-ronald-reagan-bottom-sea-126707

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine

      • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • mindlight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • at_an_angle@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • mindlight@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think it was leased. It was a NATO wargame. It was volunteered, as Sweden is a part of NATO.

                • mindlight@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                • Rakonat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sweden isn’t part of NATO, Norway and Finland are. Turkey keeps vetoing their admission for political reasons.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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”

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • SirStumps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a Veteran this information is interesting indeed. It’s always nice to see little knowledge nuggets. Thank you.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • sebinspace@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.