U.S warship sunk by Australian navy sub. (war games) 2005

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
This is not a U.S bash. I read alot of horrah on ats about the U.S defence force and about them being the best in the world.

Well lets have a look at this exercise called silent fury.

War game scenario.

HMAS Rankin goes up against the U.S . The U.S has 2 Destroyers, 2 Frigates a nuclear sub and a search aircraft. who's job it is to find HMAS Rankin.

Rankins mission is to not be detected and to pass through a channel between two islands. Then take a photo of one of the U.S Destroyers. The Australian sub start out noisy on purpose then the game is on.

Not only does the U.S navy not stick to the original scenerio of the exercise and cheats. It still loses.


www.youtube.com...




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
hahaha i love the victory song


pack of noisy bloody Aussies
cracks me up


aussie aussie aussie


love and harmony
whateva
edit on 8/1/12 by Whateva69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
lmao Australia sucks in every & all aspects. The US isn't much better, but AU would lose badly in the overall picture, very very badly.

I feel bad for every & all Australians.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Modern submarine technology was/is the most powerful and devastating type of weapon available due to it's stealth surprise capabilities and weapon armament options.

That's actually what I would consider a typical isolated engagement between a small surface fleet and a modern attack submarine.

There are many ways to search for subs, but each one requires great strategy of employment and each one suffers it's own limitations and weaknesses. Logistics becomes the primary issue in detection. How many sensors do you have, how many are used properly according to good strategy, etc?

To hunt submarines effectively you need a comprehensive strategy, tons of detection options, logistical capability, etc.

Fighting against a significant submarine fleet is not easy. It would be very costly, and thus explains the theory behind the Soviet era naval doctrine which focused on submarines rather than surface fleets.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Fighting against a significant submarine fleet is not easy. It would be very costly, and thus explains the theory behind the Soviet era naval doctrine which focused on submarines rather than surface fleets.


It was one sub.
What are you saying
edit on 8-1-2012 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Also in WW2 the Nazis utilized the submarine strategy to exert naval power.

The solution to that (to protect trade routes), was to employ significant numbers of escort ships, aircraft, blimps, etc.

It's a battle between not only strategy but also between logistics. Modern subs still require a ton of investment to counter.

Also notice the immense investment required in building, maintaining, and operating modern submarines.
One modern sub can cost as much as a small fleet of modern surface vessels.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadys321
 


Hate to be ignorant wouldn't you?



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadys321
lmao Australia sucks in every & all aspects. The US isn't much better, but AU would lose badly in the overall picture, very very badly.

I feel bad for every & all Australians.


Denial. The greatest weapon in the U.S arsenal.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Fighting against a significant submarine fleet is not easy. It would be very costly, and thus explains the theory behind the Soviet era naval doctrine which focused on submarines rather than surface fleets.


It was one sub.
What are you saying
edit on 8-1-2012 by steveknows because: (no reason given)


That one sub equals an small fleet of surface vessels and aircraft to counter effectively without taking heavy losses.
That is if the sub commander knows what he's doing.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Fighting against a significant submarine fleet is not easy. It would be very costly, and thus explains the theory behind the Soviet era naval doctrine which focused on submarines rather than surface fleets.


It was one sub.
What are you saying
edit on 8-1-2012 by steveknows because: (no reason given)


That one sub equals an small fleet of surface vessels and aircraft to counter effectively without taking heavy losses.
That is if the sub commander knows what he's doing.
I wonder if the sailors on board the sunk U.S warship exercised as much damage control as you are.
edit on 8-1-2012 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Well done and
to the Australian commander and crew.

I suppose Australia and US will compare notes later to figure out why the US failed to detect the sub and update both their strategy guides



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
Well done and
to the Australian commander and crew.

I suppose Australia and US will compare notes later to figure out why the US failed to detect the sub and update both their strategy guides


Yep they do. I think alot on ats won't understand the point of allied war games.
edit on 8-1-2012 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows
I wonder if the sailors on board the sunk U.S warship exercised as much damage control as you are.



I now understand the point of your thread. That's to create a nationalistic Aus vs US bickering match.
You didn't actually want to discuss the issue and determine "why" it happened. You just wanted to troll for hate.

I just pointed out exactly why it makes sense in modern warfare for one sub to sink a ship and then escape detection. I pointed out the cost benefit analysis aspect of one sub equaling a small surface fleet.

A Collins class sub cost over 800 million dollars just to acquire, not counting the upgrades invested into it.

Most destroyers and frigates are far cheaper to build and allow for more options of what types of missions they can handle.
edit on 8-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadys321
lmao Australia sucks in every & all aspects. The US isn't much better, but AU would lose badly in the overall picture, very very badly.

I feel bad for every & all Australians.


man, why say that?? seriously some of us are from there



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 


People say things like that because they lack self-confidence, self-worth, and self-acceptance.

Instead, they lash out at others to boost their flailing ego.

On topic, great video!



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
You didn't care to talk to persons which seek explanations of things rationally and objectively.

You wanted to "get payback" on all of those "pro war Americans" who chant " USA # 1" all the time.
Well I find both the local pseudo-patriots and the foreign ones as both immature. I can't stand them honestly. It only creates hate and false justification for militarization on both sides.

I am sure you hate hearing that crap about USA #1 all the time too, so why are you emulating and repeating it?

Had I known this thread was football game I wouldn't have joined in the discussion.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

What? You're a fool. And you're coming across as a person who has actually offended by the OP and trying to make excuses as to why the mighty U.S navy lots a war game.. I guess the only people on ats allowed to own something are americans. You're not going to drag me into a crap fight. Fool. I guess you're just going to have to suck it up Bye bye.


Aha proof that you are indeed approaching this from a nationalistic viewpoint.

I wasn't offended at all, I wasn't even surprised by the outcome of the war game. I don't care who wins or loses I have no investment in this 'game'.

I only merely tried to explain basic naval doctrine and how strategy works in a real world warfare situation.

But you only wanted to make this a US vs Aus pride match.
By the way neither nation actually exists, we just pretend they do (Just like in football!).



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You didn't care to talk to persons which seek explanations of things rationally and objectively.

You wanted to "get payback" on all of those "pro war Americans" who chant " USA # 1" all the time.
Well I find both the local pseudo-patriots and the foreign ones as both immature. I can't stand them honestly. It only creates hate and false justification for militarization on both sides.

I am sure you hate hearing that crap about USA #1 all the time too, so why are you emulating and repeating it?

Had I known this thread was football game I wouldn't have joined in the discussion.


I actually posted it because it's avery interesting video. You think it's payback because that's your mindset. My God you are actually offended by it. Thin skinned. Be gone with I'm not going to respond to anymore.

TROLL ALERT
edit on 8-1-2012 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well the reason why it happened is quite clear.

The CO had a game plan from the get go, he used the environment around him to his advantage and he was patient.

The fact that the US didn't turn their sonars off at the start and they were still able to avoid them speaks volumes too.

That's a massive disadvantage right there and one most submarines in combat have the luxury, at least initially, of avoiding.

edit on 8/1/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join