272
US destroyer shoots down drone flying toward it in the Red Sea, defending itself in uneasy waters
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
272 points (96.3% liked)
News
38036 readers
2052 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
Ok, I have no information of the leasing thing, which I don't doubt but I do doubt it was leased for the war game. Probably just for other testing if I had to guess.
Sweden is a NATO partner nation. While not a full member, they participate in NATO war games and other activities. It's stupid that fill membership is blocked though.
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.