How a Single Swedish Submarine Defeated the US Navy

[newb3e]

interesting!

 

[500]

Stirling is actually quite noisy compare to other AIPs.

 

[gambit]

It is 'interesting' only to the gullible.

A submarine is called an 'ambush' predator, meaning it has to wait until a prey is at the ideal conditions before it can attack.

A submarine cannot chase or stalk a ship, especially if it is a warship. At this time, a surface vessel, even a large aircraft carrier, can outrun a submarine any time.

So how often do ideal conditions occurs in war time?

 

[TruthHurtz]

swedistan can only defeat itself with the sheer amount of estrogen flowing through that cuntry.

 

[Dante80]

It is 'interesting' only to the gullible.

A submarine is called an 'ambush' predator, meaning it has to wait until a prey is at the ideal conditions before it can attack.

A submarine cannot chase or stalk a ship, especially if it is a warship. At this time, a surface vessel, even a large aircraft carrier, can outrun a submarine any time.

So how often do ideal conditions occurs in war time?

AIP submarines are not utilized to "chase" after surface combatants. They are used mainly to screen, patrol and cover marine choke-points, relying in distributed intelligence for positioning and tactics. Since they are by far the quietest sub-surface combatants, their job against ASuW targets relies in careful positioning, penetration of ASW screens and stealth. The ability of modern AIP SSBs to also field a pretty considerable amount of modern sub-surface launched ASuW weapons has added a notable amount of value on their capabilities in this aspect of warfare.

AIP submarines are a priori not designed for blue water scenarios, and their efficacy in said theaters is greatly diminished, due to objective endurance and speed deficiencies.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The propellers are also an important key to the stealth of the Gotland class.
The manufacturer, Kockums, sued Australia over the plans to hand over the propellers for inspection by the US Navy.
The Stirling Engine is primarily used to recharge the batteries, and any attack would be made using electric power. This allows the submarine to be submerged for weeks.
The Gotland makes 20 knots on electric power.
The torpedoes used will classify the potential targets, and select the appropriate one based on its instructions, and avoid others, even if they are in between the torpedo and the intended target.

If a submarine is in the path of a task force, it can launch a torpedo which will initially run towards the task force at low speed = very silent, and then accelerate when the target is close, making it much more difficult to counter the threat.

 

[Dante80]

If a submarine is in the path of a task force, it can launch a torpedo which will initially run towards the task force at low speed = very silent, and then accelerate when the target is close, making it much more difficult to counter the threat.

Yes. This is the way we also train our Type 214 SSBs too. Those use a PEB AIP system, and are extremely competent for brown water/littoral environment operations.

Btw, every year the USN together with the Peruvian Navy hold SIFOREX, (Silent Force Exercise) in Peru. This is an advanced ASW exercise that provides a ton of training and expertise to USN crews and commanders, pitting them against experienced SSB "aggressors" in choke-point and transit scenarios.

 

[gambit]

AIP submarines are not utilized to "chase" after surface combatants.

Am not saying that. Never have.

The problem with these articles is that they never give the readers the proper background information, such as speed. Most of the public do not know that surface vessels can easily outrun subs. Absent these crucial facts, the readers produced the perception that somehow subs spells the end of at least the dominance of the seas by surface vessels when the opposite is true, that if you want to rule the seas, the submarine is NOT the way to achieve that goal.

 

[randomradio]

A conventional submarine cannot maintain top speed for more than a few hours. It's impossible for them to defeat surface ships in a mano a mano. For a conventional submarine to paint a carrier, it can only be accomplished in very specific situations, particularly when the CBG is being pressed in other sectors.

This is more interesting.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-most-feared-submarines-killed-american-19262

 

[surya kiran]

Am not saying that. Never have.

The problem with these articles is that they never give the readers the proper background information, such as speed. Most of the public do not know that surface vessels can easily outrun subs. Absent these crucial facts, the readers produced the perception that somehow subs spells the end of at least the dominance of the seas by surface vessels when the opposite is true, that if you want to rule the seas, the submarine is NOT the way to achieve that goal.

Was interested in know the following

1. With the advent of high speed torpedoes, does the speed of the surface warship help?
2. Does the USN conduct exercises with friendly forces where there is no handicap?
3. Does the submarine have access to the SOSUS or similar network when it is underwater as part of its integrated system?

 

[gambit]

1. With the advent of high speed torpedoes, does the speed of the surface warship help?

Actually, it does.

Now...Do not jump to the conclusion that I said or even implies that the surface vessel can outrun the torpedo. I understand that most people on this forum have this tendency when their arguments are challenged.

To start, a torpedo has limited fuel, so if the sub has to launch a torpedo at certain ranges, the ship could outrun the torpedo if the ship has enough speed. This is why firing a torpedo in real life is nothing like the movies does it. The sub captain has to balance the possible the surface vessel's speed, distance from his sub, how fast can his torpedo run, and how quick can he disappear after the shot.

Next, the faster the surface vessel can accelerate and maintain speed, the more countermeasures it can deploy over a wider area that can help defeat the torpedo.

Next, if the torpedo is 'wake homing', this is the seek pattern of the torpedo...

The ship's speed can help it to outlast the torpedo as the torpedo has to travel such a pattern longer.

The bottom line is that speed is never a bad thing, whether in the air or on the sea.

2. Does the USN conduct exercises with friendly forces where there is no handicap?

Am sure the USN does.

3. Does the submarine have access to the SOSUS or similar network when it is underwater as part of its integrated system?

Even if I do know the answer to this question, I would not say it here. You can search for any public information on that and take it for what is worth, but it is one of those 'cannot confirm nor deny the existence of'.

 

[newb3e]

Am not saying that. Never have.

The problem with these articles is that they never give the readers the proper background information, such as speed. Most of the public do not know that surface vessels can easily outrun subs. Absent these crucial facts, the readers produced the perception that somehow subs spells the end of at least the dominance of the seas by surface vessels when the opposite is true, that if you want to rule the seas, the submarine is NOT the way to achieve that goal.

i am no expert or have any knowledge on this topic and i was also skeptical about it...how can a submarine sink something as protected as an aircraft carrier.

 

[gambit]

i am no expert or have any knowledge on this topic and i was also skeptical about it...how can a submarine sink something as protected as an aircraft carrier.

Back in WW II, aircraft carriers were converted hulls, meaning the hull designs were for cruisers or even oilers, then during construction, the plans changed to make the hulls into aircraft carriers.

Take the USS Langley, for example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Langley_(CV-1)

After WW II, the full impact of naval airpower was indisputable, so the aircraft carrier became a distinct hull design. Naval airpower became so critical that not only does the hull design must be different, the ship itself has to be made as difficult as possible for any enemy to sink it. Internally, the ship is highly compartmentalize to prevent water from running all over.

To see how difficult it is to actually sink an aircraft carrier, look at the USS Oriskany...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oriskany_(CV-34)

The ship was gutted and explosives placed internally. Still, it took nearly 40 minutes for the ship to sink under cooperative conditions.

An aircraft carrier under general quarters will not be so cooperative. Everything and everyone will be prepared at their assigned duty stations. The Oriskany was a WW II designed hull. The modern US aircraft carriers like the Enterprise or Nimitz are completely different in everything except the flat decks they shares with their WW II ancestors.

Even with the most generous speculation, no one believes it would be possible to sink an aircraft carrier with one torpedo, even if the ship just sit there and take the hit.

This...

...Is NOT how an aircraft carrier strike group normally arrays its ships. This is a public relations (PR) formation for photographic purposes.

To give you a real world perspective, we have to use a map...

In battle formation, the entire fleet would array its ships to span several US states in sea surface area.

All these articles that said how a sub from this country or that country managed to 'defeat' a US carrier fleet are essentially sensationalizing an event that has limitations on the carrier itself.

So if a US aircraft carrier fleet is really after the Swedes, the fleet would be so far off at sea that this Swedish littoral sub would not make it to the area, let alone lay silent and long enough under water to escape detection. All this time, the carrier would be conducting air operations to attack the Swedes.

Can a sub fire enough torpedoes to actually sink a modern aircraft carrier? Hypothetically -- yes.

But no one have the guts to declare war on US and try to test the hypothesis into solid theory.

 

[Dante80]

With regards to compartmentalization, have in mind that it is not unique as a defensive measure to modern ships. WWII Carriers (and especially those converted from military hulls, or built from the start as such) had a lot of compartments too (sometimes more than modern CVNs). Many carriers back then also sported a torpedo armor belt, something that modern designs lack.

Akitsu Maru , Chuyo , Shinano , Shinyo , Shōkaku , Taihō , Unryū , Unyō , Ark Royal , Audacity , Avenger , Courageous , Eagle Block Island , Liscome Bay and Wasp
are pretty convincing examples (especially the fleet carriers) that it is possible to destroy a Carrier with a submarine. What has changed now is not the passive survivability of the Carrier (which would in any case fare much worse considering, due to the perfected sensors that modern torps use for under keel non contact detonation, and the fact that modern subs are faster, while carriers retain the same cruise speed).

What has changed is the ASW technology, as well as the modern carrier battle group doctrine that utilizes it to protect itself.

In the end, it goes like this. The notion that a modern carrier is completely immune against submarine attacks is as ludicrous as the notion that a modern carrier embedded in a competent battle group is easily dispatched by a lone submarine. In truth, both doctrines have never been put to the test of real battle in the last 70 years. While navies around the world vigorously and professionally test their SW and ASW capabilities, it is simply impossible to properly simulate something like this.

And I hope we never really get to learn in the future..

 

[gambit]

...the fact that modern subs are faster, while carriers retain the same cruise speed).

Another major problem with these sensationalist articles is that they take a single major strength of one and pit it against the weakness of the other. That skews the perceptions of the readers and in my opinion, the deed is deliberate because of the author's bias.

Yes, it maybe true that the modern sub has increase its speed capability, but the country that fields the aircraft carrier is not going to send it to war alone.

The Gotland class submarine, the version that scored a simulated 'kill' against the American aircraft carrier, supposedly has a mission endurance of 14 days and top speed submerged of 20 kts which mean the American carrier can outlast and outrun it. In combat, the carrier is not static. The carrier sails into the wind to conduct aircraft launch operations.

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network...-aircraft-carriers-are-super-dangerous#page-2

During flight operations an aircraft carrier has to keep about 30 kts (34 mph) of wind across the deck to help provide a boost to the aircraft taking off.

If we go by public information...

https://www.naval-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-deadliest-torpedoes-4286162/

Fifty km seems to be the operational limit of deployed torpedoes out there. Absolutely a sub can chase a carrier fleet without making any sound, took a few pictures in lieu of launching torpedoes, and gave the US some embarrassment.

So in order to make people feel good about seeing a part of the US military under some kind of vulnerability, these articles are routinely devoid of details such as the war game's rules of engagement (ROE) or even the goal of the war game or exercise itself.