So how would a US Carrier Group cope if a pack of seven of these

>>33774030
>take everything in this thread with a mount everest of salt
You think people on /k/ are really in the know on this stuff?

>>33774030
With only one or two escorting subs, the only option for the CSG would be to pick a gap or opening and run for it at high speed, using choppers to screen the way ahead and long range naval patrol craft to pick off any subs following at high speed (loud enough for long range sonobuoy detection and unable to spend much time moving slow enough for effective sonar use). They'd have to sustain 25 knots+ for a long endurance run. Better hope the Burkes and Tico are fueled up.

ASW helicopter, stupid.

>>33774030
>Aha! I've thought of a scenario the world's largest military in history with unparalleled logistics certainly never could have!

>>33774217
Well, it's not an unreasonable problem, considering tthat's exactly what the Soviets planned to do with their SSGNs and SSNs in case the big one popped off.

Lightweight torpedoes EVERYWHERE

but seriously tho, you really think /k/ knows this stuff? the people in the know won't tell for obvious reasons.

>>33774030
Just wait for the bongs driving them to run aground (or into each other).

>>33774118

>thinking a Us Carrier Strike Group would actually run from an adversary

KEK

>>33774030
Seven Astutes can kill an entire carrier group, retaliation is a bitch though.

>>33774217

You don't think if the US ever invaded Britain they would surge their Astutes? All 7 planned, I think 3-4 are still being built.

>>33774030

Last year i heard that a NK diesel-sub casually surfaced at 300 meters of a US carrier. That's how much quiet they are.

>>33774278
>mistaking the best tactical option and suicidal "bravery"

Moron. Must be Japanese.

>>33774296
Yeah, I'd love to see an actual source on that. Something other than in Fatty Kim's wet dreams, of course.

Here's a better, more realistic scenario
>all of North Korean air force and navy
vs
>Carl Vinson CSG

>>33774291
It would be impossible. Refit/refuel/deployment schedule would NEVER work out that way, and if it did you'd necessarily have a period where you'd only have one or even none deployed as they all stacked up waiting for refit.

>>33774319

It was chinese.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

>>33774296
>300 meters

LMFAO so a US Navy sailor just randomly saw a NK sub surface literally within touching distance of his carrier? LMFAO

>>33774358
>>33774296
What if they were only pretending not to detect it so as to not give away their true capabilities

>>33774358
That's a different story. That one, I'm sure, was being closely watched and tailed. A NORK boat would have been driven off with choppers dropping active buoys on top of it before it got anywhere near that close, considering the fact that you never really know what those retards are going to try to do.

>>33774238
That's the point. Not unreasonable means counter measures are planned. You're talking about the fucks who consider the threat from the boyscouts of America at least exploring retaliatory options for. Some crossdresser on /k/ isn't going to find the magic bullet suddenly.

>>33774441
>Some crossdresser on /k/ isn't going to find the magic bullet suddenly.
Not only are there active duty and retired USN anons on /k/, but there are many others who spend time looking through and learning about Cold War and current naval tactics and strategy.

No one's going to post a 90 page response tree with analysis and risk assessment, but I bet if the thread's up long enough someone gets relatively close to the broad strokes of several viable options.

For instance, depending on the intercept geometry and mission parameters for either side (are Astutes meant to kill CSG or drive it off? Does the CSG need to be on station or does it have sea room to work with?), >>33774118
is an absolutely valid and reasonable option.

File: sea king.jpg (67KB, 318x240px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 318x240px

>>33774030
has SOSUS been upgraded? what's the post-cold war state of underwater ISTAR?

>pic related, they're still flyin!

>>33775275
>has SOSUS been upgraded? what's the post-cold war state of underwater ISTAR?
That's one of the few things not even the Brits or JSDF have cut much. SSN/SSGN/SSBN deterrence will always bring in some funding.

If rumblings and whispers are to be believed, the basic tripwires like the GIUK gap system have been upgraded and expanded while new networks have been deployed just about everywhere. I was told last year that if the ECS and SCS networks were to float to the surface, you could practically start at Hokkaido and hopscotch all the way to Singapore without touching real land. Take with grain of salt, etc.

>>33774030
So noisy my deaf mom could hear them 100 miles away.

File: 1377652019296.jpg (121KB, 503x644px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 503x644px

>>33775344
>Hunt For Red October II: Diesel-Electric Boogaloo when?

>>33774030
I seriously doubt anyone has the technology to airdrop submarines

File: 1474821388946.png (91KB, 1733x507px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1733x507px

>>33776702
Let's start from pic related and see if there is a "more dakka" related answer to this important question.

>>33774030
They would have known even before the drunk submarine Captain requisitioned for toilet paper before sailing out. The US has eyes and ears and probably stooges in every nuclear sub den around the world. Plus they're monitoring all electronic coomuncations civillian and military. So, if a Vatnik, Chingchong, Kimball or Mehmed claims they managed to surprise a US carrier force at sea, take it with 10 kg of salt.

>>33774358
Ah yes clickbait that is short on detail to maintain the appearance of scandal.

>>33776702
>I seriously doubt anyone has the technology to airdrop submarines
You could drop small submarines with a cargo plane the same way we chuck MOABs out the back of a C-130. When it comes to the full sized stuff, with the amount of fuel that would take you're better off just throwing AShM spam from standoff bombers, and both the US and Russia have that capability.

>>33774030
If they
>>descend
on a carrier croup, there will be no escape. I mean, submarines are normally unable to fly, so, 9.8 m/s squared, 1.765 metric fucktonnes... Well, you know the outcome.

>>33774278

It's not running, it's just a tactical relocate

File: kim-jong-un-mans-a-soviet-submarine-thats-been-obsolete-since-1961-photos (1).jpg (454KB, 3106x2330px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 3106x2330px

Me Kim Jong
Me pray joke
Me surface sub by US Navy boat

Sairor on secret diesel sub get best dog ration in arr of DPRK

Oh shit, sairor that forget paint rust get half dog ration after beating and speciar relearning therapy tonight

>>33774030
well because they are submarines they would actually be ascending..

File: large-kapalselamkorut.gif (129KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 650x366px

Spend some time on an Independece class LCS or a DDG, acquaint yourself with some of the technology, and tell me you're still scared of this cock sucker

>>33778222
>dem dijeets

Also, is it just me or do Nork Navy uniforms look suspiciously like waiter uniforms at chinese restaurants? I mean, that guy on the squawk box is talking to someone
>uh hu, yeah, general tsao, yeah, mongorian beef, ok, sink ferry furr of peopre, yup, ok. Ready 7 minute, no be late to pickup.

>>33778244
>Spend some time on an Independece class LCS
AHAHAHAHA
Nice One

>>33775450
Mark my words: Even in the mighty US Navy there are lots of concerns about modern diesel-electric submarines and those with hydrogen propulsion. Especially in shallow waters they can be real trouble.

>>33778720
what is the risk? aren't those things noisy as hell?

>>33774296
Was years ago during an exercise, and it was a Chinese improved kilo. More likely than not we knew it was there

File: Nuclear_shaped_charge.jpg (54KB, 342x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 342x400px

>>33776715
YES

>>33778244
Is that a Romeo or a Whisky?

>>33778729
>aren't those things noisy as hell?

Take this with a grain of salt but

- If the diesel sub is running on batteries its virtually undetectable by passive sonar

- If the diesel sub is running on Diesel (a modern sub can last ~72 hours) its about as noisy as a nuke sub running on 75% power

That means the diesel sub can lay somewhere in a shallow spot with open ears and just wait. if nobody comes, they use the snorkel to load their batteries (which takes about eight hours giv or take) and repeat

They dont have the endurance of a nuke sub, but they are literally perfect to defend tight spots - such as the whole clusterfuck south and southwest of the japanese main land down to Australia in the south and India in the west.

MODERN diesel suby of course

And if you take into account that hydrogen boats like the german's 212 class can stay submerged for 3 weeks with the same noise level as a diesel sub on batteries, you see how big of a threat they can be.

>>33778763
why not just put a bunch of ASW helicopters near tight spots before the carrier comes through?

>>33778763
>- If the diesel sub is running on Diesel (a modern sub can last ~72 hours) its about as noisy as a nuke sub running on 75% power
Nope. Take two boats roughly equivalent (in time anyway) in generations, the 688 and Kilo classes. A Kilo snorkeling is louder than a 688 running at flank speed under the thermocline (so little to no cavitation), flow noise and all. Furthermore, the output frequencies are even more problematic - it's sending out a LOT more low frequency than a nuke boat, which carries especially far. As it is by definition shallow while snorkeling, it doesn't even get help from the thermocline so even bow arrays on surface ships get a bearing on it.

As this happens every 8-72 hours depending on the boat and energy draw of the boat's activities, it doesn't take long to localize them. They're slow on battery power, which means long sprints to clear the area both kill the batteries and don't get them very far. This allows ASW to pin them to an area.

Yes, they are devilishly difficult to run down on batteries, but if you get good cross bearings on them while they're snorting, you can use rotary assets to drop a shit ton of active sonobuoys on top of them after they kick over to batteries, get track and then keep dropping passives close enough to maintain track.

The key to dealing with SSKs is to move slowly once you're in their AO, and localize them as they snort. Pin down all the boats naval intelligence thinks are in your AO and keep an eye on them. Also, in places like the SCS, ECS and around the Korean Peninsula, US and allied sea floor sonar networks (like SOSUS) do an excellent job keeping track of them. The second they snort, they've got them and can supply areas where they might be once they kick over to juice based on time and location of last snort.

>>33775344
I'd like to add, over the past 20 years the real advances have been in signal processing not detection, so SOSUS upgrades focused on shoreside hardware would be very beneficial, inexpensive, and hard to evaluate.

>>33778793
>SOSUS
how effective is this system, anyway?

>>33778793
AIP changes things to an extent. While it's nowhere near the endurance of a nuke, silent running to the same level as on batteries without snorkeling means that once you go silent you can move quite a way, so unless your opponent has VERY persistent ASW assets parked on your ass, you have a chance of a clean getaway.

File: convergence zone.jpg (13KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 259x194px

>>33778808
Depends on where it is, how deep it is (especially above or below the thermocline), local seafloor terrain and composition (for instance, metamorphic rock reflects sound, deep silt absorbs it), what they're listening for (frequency range, which has varying transmission efficiencies through water), how loud/dense biologics are in the area (one pretty rough thing about the SCS/ECS), how much traffic there is masking quieter sources, etc.

As far as pure sensitivity and processing power, US sonar networks routinely pick up even moderate earthquakes from several thousand miles away. Depending on local conditions and convergence zones, they might pick up a surface warship or SSN at flank speed from 100+miles away (pic related).

>>33778820
It does, but AIP is not nearly as quiet as batteries. It can be tracked passively at distance, especially when those boats are in transit. You also are much more speed limited and you still have a very steep endurance and energy/propulsion budget compared to SSNs.

>>33778808
The station in the Bahamas claims it could pick up the sounds of the Alfa class being tested in the Arctic.

>>33778832
could the network pick up, say, a plane crashing into the pacific?

>>33778845
If it was very lucky, very close (less than 10nmi), the sensors were in shallow water (above the thermocline) and the sea state was glass or very close to glass, maybe but probably not. At longer ranges it might pick up vary faint crush pops as the plane sank.

Sonar mostly works best on sustained noises, and processing does best identifying sounds over time, like running machinery in ships or flow noise over hulls or sustained cavitation from screws. You don't get what are called transients (one time, quick events) from further away than the first convergence zone. They just get lost in the background noise, and the ocean surface especially produces a lot of white noise. For instance, even earthquakes are duration events - even before they start and after they finish, the crust is still sending out strong, low frequency sound as it grinds together.

>>33778845
Only if it was crashed on purpose, with no survivors.

>>33774030
It takes only one sub to sink a carrier group, it happened during an international exercise not so long ago, they were a bit shocked and tried to cover it up.

>>33778864
>>33778864
>>33778864
>>33778864
i was aiming along the lines of "could they have picked up MH370 if it went east instead of south?", but i knew after i posted that someone would take it as a meme.

>>33778855
>Sonar mostly works best on sustained noises, and processing does best identifying sounds over time, like running machinery in ships or flow noise over hulls or sustained cavitation from screws.
can sonar even tell different ships apart? say, if a CSG is running along and a sonar network picks it up, does the network just classify it as a CSG or can it tell the aircraft carrier apart from one of the supports and so on?

>>33778872
>can sonar even tell different ships apart?
Absolutely. USN SSNs spent most of the Cold War trailing every single new build military ship and sub out of the Soviet barn to build complete sound emissions profiles on them. Most of the subs could be told apart individually from respectable difference, thanks to the USN advantage in sonar hardware and processing plus their own quieter boats (quieter platform makes for better ears).

As for SOSUS and networks like it, that depends on target distance and aspect (moving abeam so engineering/reactor is better heard or directly away where screw noise masks machinery noise, etc.) as to whether or not it could identify individual boats, but boat/ship class is much easier to identify. If the source is too distant or they only have it for a short period of time, even class ID becomes more difficult. You have a floor threshold for two things: strength of signal and duration. You have to hear it loud enough and long enough.

>>33778902
>from respectable difference
*distance
my bad

>>33778867
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162488/how-a-30_year-old-french-sub-sank-a-us-carrier-group.html

>>33778872
>>33778902
>>33778909
For instance, you can quickly tell if your contact has one screw or two or more, if it is running submerged, whether it is approaching or receding (Doppler effects) and how many turns that screw is making (just that narrows down what class of ship you're looking at significantly). Turns and change of bearing over time plus estimated distance gets you speed and course of the contact (often refined by changing your own position to get some triangulation). Next level would be how many blades per screw. Next level would be identifying propulsion plant noises, number of turbines/reactors, etc. Next step would be identifying individual quirks to each boat, ship or overall class (a whistle from a poorly repaired rudder, a rhythmic swish from a dinged screw, a loud/strange sounding pump in the reactor coolant loop, hydraulic whine or electrical hum, etc.).

>>33778902
>USN SSNs spent most of the Cold War trailing every single new build military ship and sub out of the Soviet barn to build complete sound emissions profiles on them.
how does this work? do they just follow the thing around, maybe do a few loops around it, keep track of where they are in relation to the sub and build up a map of sound emissions?

>>33778945
is this all automatic? because if a computer on a submarine can tell me what exact submarine is making that faint bubbling noise 80 km away just by listening to it, that is fucking awesome!

>>33778949
>how does this work? do they just follow the thing around, maybe do a few loops around it, keep track of where they are in relation to the sub and build up a map of sound emissions?
They literally sit a couple hundred yards behind it and record everything. Many skippers even got close enough to snap pictures with periscope cameras underwater of screws and hull.

Directly behind any boat is an area called the baffles, where their screws and propulsion machinery are making so much noise they can't really hear what's going on back there. Unless they're trailing their towed sonar array at that moment, they won't know if they've got another boat up their ass until they make a significant turn to bring their bow and side sonar arrays to bear on the area, and a boat following closely enough can just turn with them and keep sitting in their baffles. The danger is running your boat up their ass and hitting them if they change course, drop speed or pull a crazy Ivan (aggressive 180 degree turn followed by another one). These boats are several thousand tons displacement, and they don't stop or turn on a dime, especially when you're trying to stay quiet and can't put enough torque into your screw to cavitate.

>keep track of where they are in relation to the sub and build up a map of sound emissions?
If they're close enough, they're hearing all the sounds that boat is putting out unless they're very, very close and right behind the screw. Remember, water transmits sound very, very efficiently.

>is this all automatic?
Still requires very skilled and highly trained operators to understand and interpret what the data is saying, and processing of course requires a human directing it for identification. A great sonar tech is half engineer, half scientist and all artist.

CONT

>>33778949
>>33778987
>because if a computer on a submarine can tell me what exact submarine is making that faint bubbling noise 80 km away just by listening to it, that is fucking awesome!
Hey, if you get real lucky with convergence zones, have your towed array out, are doing steerageway and the other boat is doing more than 10 or 15 knots, well, yeah. But you still need that sonar tech in the loop. The processing isn't just spitting out course, speed and individual boat ID every time you pick up a contact. It takes time and love from a sonar tech to refine that shit.

Put it this way: your computer can run MATLAB just fine, but you still have to know what you're doing when your setting up the model you want it to run. Same with any complex processing or modelling system.

Nothing because the Royal Navy works for USA. Dumb question.

>>33778987
>pull a crazy Ivan (aggressive 180 degree turn followed by another one)
i'm guessing this is named after some batshit crazy soviet sub captain?

>If they're close enough, they're hearing all the sounds that boat is putting out unless they're very, very close and right behind the screw.
so submarines have omnidirectional sound distribution?

how do submarines try to minimize sound transmission anyway? are the crew any concern, or is it just the machinery in the sub that's the problem?

>A great sonar tech is half engineer, half scientist and all artist.
>It takes time and love from a sonar tech to refine that shit.
haha, you almost sucked me in mr navy recruiter!

>>33779073
>i'm guessing this is named after some batshit crazy soviet sub captain?
It was a standard Soviet Navy tactic to clear their baffles. They all did it regularly. See, they had to operate through the entire cold war at a disadvantage in sonar efficiency and in louder boats. They knew we regularly tracked and followed them, especially their boomers (SSBN missile boats), but they rarely got the drop on us though the did manage a few notable coups. It made them paranoid and aggressive boat drivers, and they also tended to use their only advantages where possible - their boats were generally faster and deeper diving, especially from about 1968 onward. Still, quiet boats and great ears are what, more than anything, wins the day in the bubblehead world.

>so submarines have omnidirectional sound distribution?
well, aspect matters to some degree. If you're right behind the screw and all the noise its putting out, it's hard to hear much else on that bearing. A little to the side or below, though, and you're still in the baffles but you can hear machinery, reactor and other noises much more clearly. At the end of the day, it's a huge metal tube in a highly sound conductive medium. Metal conducts sound even better than water, after all.

>how do submarines try to minimize sound transmission anyway?
You isolate sound radiators. When you mount them to the deck, you use sound-deadening insulation. You try to baffle (build sound-shaping mufflers) intakes and outputs for reactor coolant and other openings. You spend millions of hours on supercomputers with your smartest hydrodynamic mathematicians running simulations to design your hulls and screws. Stuff like that.

CONT

>>33779073
>>33779132
>are the crew any concern, or is it just the machinery in the sub that's the problem?
Less so than a hollywood movie might suggest. Remember that background noise in the ocean from wind, weather, rain, other traffic and biologics can be anywhere from 55dB to 95dB depending on conditions and specific frequencies, and human conversation is usually around 50dB. That's not to say you want to run around banging on shit with a ball peen hammer, though.

>haha, you almost sucked me in mr navy recruiter!
I never worked the sonar shack, but I had respect for those guys. If anyone is a wizard on a boat, it's those crazy fuckers.

>>33774030
>nuclear submarine within carrier strike group
>ship borne ASW helicopters
>long lange P-8
>SOSUS

>>33778780
>'What is the LCS program for $500 Alex'

>>33778686
>>Spend some time on an Independece class LCS
>AHAHAHAHA
>Nice One

That was only half a joke! Every new ship program has teething problems, especially radical tech like these and the DDG1K Zummwalt class. With the SSC/Frigate/Flight 1 whatever you wanna call it and the new surface weaponry which is gonna get rolled out sooner than later we have some wild capabilities over the horizon. Dont believe everything the media says, the ASW capabilities are there

I like to think of them as the BBB, or Badass Beer-can Boat

>>33778757
Looks like a romeo missing most of her ears off the tower>>33778757

>>33778244
I'm afraid of being aboard a Little Crappy Ship.

>>33778808
Very.

>>33775344
I know they were planning to do that shit in the SCS, and China was too.
At the same time I heard that the nets they want to build there will never be as good as the East Pacific or Atlantic system, just because of the insane amount of commercial shipping. You know it's bad when the NE Atlantic system gets less noise pollution.

File: ambush.jpg (199KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1600x900px

>>33774030
brace for impact

>>33780559
I'm afraid of being aboard a Little Crappy Ship

Yeah I wouldn't particularly want to serve on one either, I can sit here and extoll it's virtues, not likely to be a popular opinion. The survivability is supposed to improve with the upgrade, but I don't think they were ever meant to stand and fight so much as avoid that kind of situation and orderly abandon in the case of a hard hit

>>33774296

it was Chinese and has happened a few times.

>but muh superior U.S tech

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/chinese-submarine-appeared-in-the-middle-of-a-carrier-battle-group.html

>>33774386

It was undetected and was only detected once it surfaced right next to the carrier, it then submerged and disappeared.

>>33774418

I doubt U.S ships would have detected, just their track record for detecting diesel subs is 0-2

>>33780490
Don't believe the press releases, the LCS project is shit.

>>33780672
So, paper tigers?

>>33780720
You would prefer the submarine getting sunk in peacetime?

>>33780731
Impressive.

Chinese subs are of superior ability to follow US carriers undetected. US subs have yet to surprise any Chinese or korean carrier battle groups.

File: Astute with SBS dock.jpg (306KB, 1600x1018px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1600x1018px

>>33780652
This used to happen all the time in the cold war.

Subs would hit other subs, ships or ice.

The most dangerous manoeuvre was something called "taking a look" where the submarine would follow an enemy warship by placing the sub directly underneath the ship. They then raise the periscope without having it breach the surface and take photos/video of the warship's propeller.

When the cold war ended US subs stopped performing such risky moves, looks like the UK keeps it up. 'The Perisher' gives you balls of steel.

>>33780874
or brits are just incompetent

>>33780928
Read some of the books written by submariners from the cold war.

Submarine warfare is what the RN did.

>>33780928
>>33780965

"Hunter Killers: The Dramatic Untold Story of the Royal Navy's Most Secret Service"

Is a very good place to start.

File: hanjeet.jpg (160KB, 897x503px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 897x503px

>>33780965
t. Britcuck

don't see anyone else ramming shit, incompetent desu

File: 0871115.jpg (416KB, 2500x1977px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 2500x1977px

>>33780985
>>>>>>>

>>33780985

the US and russia have submarine repair facilities that are not on the mainland, its easy to hide.

Many of the subsurface impacts were hidden by their respective navies so that the oposition could not figure out what ships were involved.

The most severe collisions involving UK SSN's rolling completely over are still kept secret, we only know about them because of crew reports.

File: shushwhitey.webm (2MB, 794x494px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 794x494px

>>33781014
fake news

>>33780742
I'm going off over 10,000 hours onboard the even hull # ships. I can't account for your knowledge, but I know a lot of things Wikipedia and the John McCain/MSNBC brigade don't. I take our boys safety very seriously.

Yes the press releases are fluff, but the bulk of the bad press is centered around GAO whilst the cuck in chief reigned

>>33774030
Throw some tea overboard to replenish the fuel of the bong metal fish, they can then scout ahead, to kill things for the CBG.
>you will never look to starboard to see an astute offering you and the rest of the crew a freshly torpedoed whale to eat

>>33774030
God the yanks are in full eagle mode,

There was a documentary a couple of years ago set aboard Royal navy perisher test (manned by trainees) and the objective was to sink a US carrier, which they succeeded in.

My memory is sketchy but i' not even sure if it was an astute class, as at the time they were just being rolled out s hush hush stuff, so may have been a Trafalgar or Even a swift sure.

Any salts on here you're gonna loose this weekend on the ruggers.

>>33780672
I wouldn't want to be on a sub with a hostile LCS dragging a variable depth sonar nearby.

>>33782228
I wonder how much of this thread you actually read.

>>33774030
ASW helicopters, torpedoes, depth charges, backup from the CSG's own escort subs and as a last ditch resort just outrun the damn thing. US carriers are much faster than the vast majority of modern subs.

>>33774030
>air power vs submarines

>>33782228
The fuck is a ruggers?

File: ROKS_Cheonan_sinking.png (27KB, 325x517px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 325x517px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

File: Cheonan.jpg (47KB, 660x371px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 660x371px

>>33783772

File: 3-26_cheoneon_sinking_2.jpg (17KB, 460x288px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 460x288px

>>33783785

>>33780731
>just their track record for detecting diesel subs is 0-2
How would you know how many they've detected over these exercises or driven out of/followed around the AO? It only makes the news when some tiny navy "sinks" a carrier and feels the need to wave their tiny dicks about it in public like the Indians after every single international air ex.

>>33781014
>WHO PUT THAT FUUUUUCKING SEAMOUNT THERE?
>DID I GIVE THEM GOD DAMN PERMISSION FOR THAT?
>DON'T THEY KNOW I'M FUCKING LORD AND MASTER HERE ONLY AFTER GOD?

>>33783681
>>air power vs submarines
Well, it is kind of a huge component of combined ASW operations, anon. It's also how we closed the mid-Atlantic gap against the wolfpack in WWII.

>>33778244
WOW, A floating museum piece!

>>33779139
Hey dude, thanks for all of that, that was fascinating

>>33783840
This. It only gets reported because it's such a rare, massive event.

It's like calling a counter-espionage agency complete shit because a spy ring was successful, without having any idea how many other threats they stopped.

>>33785055
Sure bud. If you want to learn more, start with Craven's The Silent War and Drew/Sontag's Blind Man's Bluff.

They're both fascinating looks at the US submarine service over time, with plenty of partially declassified secret squirrel/special projects boats shenanigans.

>>33780842
Considering doing that can be deemed an act of aggression and could get you shot at the US probably isn't interested in playing that game. I don't think anyone wants deaths due to a US sub commander waiving his dick.

>>33774300
The Japanese did plenty of running themselves. Only idiots think saving assets is cowardice.

>P-3/P-8 picks up sub approaching a CSG, 200nm out
>friendly Virginia sub shadows it
>sub comes closer to CSG
>cant really sink it because bad publicity
>oh well, might as well say hi when they decide to surface (lol diesel)
>they get closer to carrier
>haha, I bet they're trying to scare us
>sub surfaces
>"o-oh no! You so scared us! We had no idea you were here!"

It could be that we truly were sneaked up on.

But think of it like this. If our enemies think they can sneak up on our CSGs, then who has the advantage?

Either way, we win.
>the sub actually did sneak up on us
>we modify our policies, work on figuring out how to plug the gaps

>knew the sub was there the whole time
>hostiles think their subs can sneak past us, and get complacent

>>33774296
>NK diesel-sub casually surfaced at 300 meters of a US carrier. That's how much quiet they are.

That was Chinese, Nork subs are antiquity, look them up.

>>33787494
WW2 subs and biplanes...
The next Korean war is going to be like WW1 for the norks, old tactics and mixed tech.. Until they get fucking steamrolled by shit they can't even see.
A part of me kinda wants them to attempt to nuke the CBG, but I'm pretty sure they won't.

>>33778945
What does a Turbine sound compared to an RCP?

>>33779139
Stay classy