“Low magnetic steel that makes it harder for sonar arrays to detect them” Magnetism and sonar are unrelated. This type of steel is used to avoid magnetic sensors, it’s also used in mine counter-measure vessels to avoid triggering magnetically triggered mines.
They forgot to mention that when deployed a few months back, Russian fleet command announced that it was on its way. Krasnodar sailed on the surface most of the way, then it was announced that it was going to do a mission and with a US navy battlegroup watching it the Krasnodar disappeared. A few days later it fired cruise missiles near Syria and then headed home. The search group included almost every type of tracking equipment that NATO operates....
If you are able to track it, then you keep quiet and follow it. If you dont know were it is and cant track it then you send everything you have to find it. NATO actions are all the proof I need...
On any given day up to a hundred submarines operate in the worlds oceans. It would be impossible to have a carrier battle group searching for each of them.
One of the statements was misleading: One class of Soviet (now Russian) submarine used titanium in the hull to greatly reduce its MAGNETIC signature. Magnetic Anomaly Detection used the field change in local magnetic field to find steel-hulled boats. MAD has limited range/sensitivity... not even sure it's used now. Stainless steel also has a reduced signature. The video somehow linked an acoustic or sound response to the hull material. Ocean thermal and salinity layers are an important resource for hunted submarines as sonar will reflect off the interface... the sub can hide below. A senior petty officer suggested in the 1970's that on a perfect day - good water, good weather and equipment working well - the game was still 60/40 in favor of the submarines. Computer processing has advanced orders of magnitude so pulling a reliable signal out of background noise is vastly improved.... but it still works both ways. Carriers - the ship itself - does not hunt submarine but its helicopter group does. The Germans and Japanese have some of the "quietest" boats in that they've integrated fuel cell and advanced batteries into their designs.
Caden Suslick Wasn’t it a war-game with Swed Navy? where it would’ve been a successful hit against a U.S Destroyer. I don’t think it was a carrier though I might’ve missed another time this has happened?
@@matthewsonnen yes it was something like that, but I think it was a carrier not a destroyer, a swedish sub going past a carrier group then going under an American carrier
The Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo was specifically designed to counter deep diving submarines. You don't need the submarine to go deep to fight just the weapon.
In military exercises, they usually test what will happen if this or that happens, and put the test subject in very disadvantageous situations that may never happen in real combat. But they do that to test specific systems. And to test worst case scenarios that may never happen in real life. For example, they test the F-22 Stealth fighter in close-up dogfights to see how it performs in close combat. In real combat, that may never happen, because Stealth fighter pilots are trained not to get into close air combat. They are trained to use their stealth abilities and not give up that advantage. In real combat, Stealth fighters would maintain their distance, maintain their "invisibility" and kill their enemies from a distance. So wargames and training is not always the same as real combat. You can't draw conclusions based on wargames that often put the target, the test subject, in unusual or unrealistic situations and worst case scenarios. In a test against submarines, they may have had the Swedish submarine sit in wait, and made the carrier battle group sail by it to see if the submarine could be detected. They may have been just testing the acoustic sensors and the quietness of the submarine. The carrier battle group may not have been allowed to use other methods of detecting subs in this exercise, which was only meant to test their acoustic sensors against the quietness of the submarine. If they allowed the carrier battle group to use other sub detection methods, like active sonar, lidar, electromagnetic sensors, etc., the Swedish sub could have been detected. A very quiet sub isn't invisible to everything. A very quiet sub isn't very quiet when it has to chase down a carrier traveling at 20 knots or 30 knots. The rapid spinning of the sub's propellers, and the propeller blades aggressively cutting through the water will make a lot of noise and give away it's position and give away it's stealth. A very quiet sub isn't very quiet when it is traveling at 25 knots to chase down an aircraft carrier traveling at 20 knots. So the test scenario may have dictated that the sub would not have to chase down the carrier battle group in order to take a shot at it. They may have allowed the sub to sit in wait and had the carrier battle group sail past it, within range of the subs torpedos. So wargames and training is not always the same as real combat. You can't draw conclusions based on wargames that often put the target, the test subject, in unusual or unrealistic situations and worst case scenarios.
@@RedRider1600 a lot of what you're saying sounds plausible but is actually poor on real information. Detecting a quiet Submarine in the vast oceans is actually difficult. The exercise in 06 is still classified so we don't know how it was carried out and what the results were of each iteration so to conclusively imply that submarines cannot possibly do something is incredibly naive. It is highly plausible that the Submarine was actually at a disadvantage since the CV group and escorts would have been actively looking for it and been alert because of the preplanned nature of the exercise. If submarines were as pointless as you make them out to be then most of the navies in the world are wasting their time, and the Gotland should not have scored a kill at all. The fact is that submarines are actually very stealthy. Propellers don't inherently make large amounts of noise, it is something called cavitation that occurs when the propeller creates a low pressure wake behind it that reduces the boiling point if the water and creates bubbles of boiling water in that wake and along the surfaces of the propeller. To counter this, submarines have slow rotating propellers that are specially shaped and many-bladed to make them more efficient and silent. There are Sound silencing techniques such as natural circulation nuclear plants, machinery rafting and AIP (the latter of which the Gotland uses), that can reduce the internal noise of the submarine even more and so on and so forth. Even active sonar is no guarantee of detection with a submarine since the underwater environment is changing and heavily dependent on physical properties of the water which alters the speed of sound in water and creates a sort of obscuring terrain underwater (which is why this video says the Carrier has computers on board that calculate currents and velocities underwater to determine shadow zones and thermoclines where submarines may be hiding).
@@xmlthegreat You are making a bunch of straw man arguments. I didn't say subs were useless, but they have their limitations. Countries with navies around the world also produce frigates and corvettes and patrol boats. That doesn't mean they can easily attack a carrier battle group and sink an American super-carrier. Yes the oceans are vast. Finding a constantly moving carrier battle group without the aid of airborne radar is also very difficult. And even if the Gotland finds it, doesn't mean it can catch up to it without making a sound. That is an impossible thing to do for a slow sub to go even slower in order to maintain stealth and at the same time catch up with a fast carrier battle group. The Gotland can't do both at the same time. Even with a specially designed large propeller, it still needs to spin very rapidly in order to do maximum speed of 20 or 25 knots, which will create those bubbles. But just the blades cutting through the water at high speeds will also create noise. It's not just the bubbles. The larger the diameter of the propeller, the faster the tips of the propeller cuts through the water. A carrier battle group can travel at over 30 knots. The specially designed propellers help, but doesn't entirely solve the stealth and speed problem for the Gotland. Switching to it's quiet electric propulsion greatly reduces it's speed and range even further. The Gotland would have to be very lucky in order to get within torpedo range of a carrier, especially without being detected.
You dont hunt submarine, submarines hunt you, you only sometimes get lucky that you find out some submarine hunting you and can make an escape before it reaches you
Wow. Military lesson for children. Destroyers/submarines hunt submarines, not carriers. A US carrier taskforce have both destroyers and nuclear submarines(no need to surface) incorporated in them. What about the thermal layer? ...and MAD, Buoys, active/passive sonar, etc etc...
ThyMajesticOne lesson for you , imagine 10 krasnodars attacking in u-boat wolfpack formation from 100km away with kalbr nk supersonic anti ship, how's that work out ? U-boat still unbeaten till nazi got out of resources, and that was non stealthy & non cruise missile subs.
@@boiboiboi1419 Supersonic anti-ship missiles can be detected and shot down, or defeated with electronic countermeasures, jamming, and or decoys. From 100 km, how will the sub find or know where the carrier is? How will it track and target the carrier?
@@boiboiboi1419 Surface based radar has a range of only about 25 miles. Satellites have great difficulty locating a carrier without knowing where it is first. The oceans are vast. Satellites can also be shot down with missiles, or destroyed, or blinded by lasers. I highly doubt Sweden even has that capability with their tiny military budget and limited technology. Radar signals can be detected. The source of the radar signal can be located and destroyed by missiles or fighters and attack aircraft or jammed electronically. That includes radar from drones. Large radar carrying drones can be easily shot down. Very few countries even have that capability, or those types of very expensive drones. Sweden is not a major military power with a significant military, or with significant military capabilities. IR has a very short range of only about 10 miles for detecting something that doesn't give off a lot of heat, like a ship, especially a nuclear powered ship. GPS is useless against a moving target. GPS is not a sensor and can't locate or detect anything. A submarine far out at sea is not going to have help from land based assets. A submarine does not have large radar capable drones. Radar used on subs are weak and low to the surface and have an even shorter range than 25 miles. Radar cannot see below the horizon. Are you living in fantasy land?
Why would the USA say they can track this sub. It makes more sense to not say a word on if you can track them or not. None of answering here on UA-cam will have a clue if the USA can or can’t track this sub. Anyone that comes here and says they know is just an out right liar. I find it interesting after all these year Russia finally is capable of making a sub this quite. We will see. If the USA tracked this sub from the middle of the Atlantic until it’s missile launch the USA will not say a word.
There are sonar detection systems available in the US Navy arsenal that can easily find a hidden sub. Russian or any other country .Not as hard as article shows!
@@loudnessclarity9273 part of the theory why no one has found mh370 is because it would unveil technology no one has claimed yet. Its not worth it..given the military crisis today it could be true that the U.S. has hunted every sub down and has them locked on just in case they try something. Giving away how we found them would compromise everything
Certainly a concern for aircraft carriers and battleships of the U.S. ... but I have a sneaky feeling there is some type of technology that average joe isn't privy to. Not that the U.S. are incapable of receiving severe military destruction...... but would you tell your opponent that you have an ace up your sleeve on either side/sides for a UA-cam video or propaganda? I think not. We are well behind current military technologies. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
No, you were able to do that to the end of seventies. In mid seventies KGB obtained NATO documents about soviet subs and soviets realized that their subs are noisy and ordinary tracked by NATO, which lead to horendous work on supression of their submarines. In 1979 they developed project 971RTM submarines which were literally undetectable for US Navy. In 1985 and 1987 (operation Aport and Atrina) units of 33th "predators" submarine division of russian Northern fleet repeatedly penetrate NATO ASW forces in Atlantic ocean and almost one and half month tracked US ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers CBGs.
You will never find them , they are swarthy and invisible . I'm sure Putin told you . I'll give a hint , take along a dog for the hunt , it has the hearing to hear the bayingof a husky underwater . You only have to estimate correctly when the dog can is opened and husky goes hip .
Russian submarines of 3-4 generations are very quiet, the 4th generation is virtually inaudible against the background of the ocean. The United States does not now detect submarines by noise, this is impossible. They use other technologies, such as changing the temperature of the water and the wake of waves from a moving submarine.
Why can't we use underwater miniature unmanned submarines built out of fiberglass or carbon fiber and other non magnetic properties and then install a magnetometer so they can scan areas
Russia should have taken up K-278 «Komsomolets», then they would be real heroes. And than build a new silent modern type of it. And it should dive just as deep, 1027 meters on it's most, but it was built for dive down to 1250 meters, and with a crush depth of 1500 meters. Sadly it ley on the bottom on the Barents sea, on about 1700 meters, and the submarine is emitting radiation at levels 800,000 times normal, so Putin, please take it up for the future generations who shall eat fish from the Barents sea
While the US is maintaining a large extremely expensive carrier fleet, Russia and China are simply taking or creating land masses to put military assets on. Has the carrier strike force found it's match?
I have lived in the US for 71 years now. Born here 71 years ago. People with lower IQ only engage in name calling. They are lead around by their noses because they cannot think for themselves. I was in the Vietnam debacle and I saw for myself just how disgusting some of my fellow Americans can be. Many of us are just sadistic torturing imbeciles. Thankfully there are some of us who dare to think. Your remark indicates you do not belong to the latter.
So, to cut long story short. You cant catch her underwater... or so you say. If you could, would you tell us about it? Nope. Good ole inteligence counter inteligence game. All is good, until the big toys stay locked out from kindergarden.
Yea a helicopter that can detect a sub what a massive aircraft carriers couldn’t , and yea detect its antenna like the sub will be afloat !!! Further more a radar !!! An aircraft carriers have bigger radars , bigger sonars , this video is a non sense bulshit propaganda ,
“Low magnetic steel that makes it harder for sonar arrays to detect them” Magnetism and sonar are unrelated. This type of steel is used to avoid magnetic sensors, it’s also used in mine counter-measure vessels to avoid triggering magnetically triggered mines.
Correct. No other comment seems to have caught that mistake.
They forgot to mention that when deployed a few months back, Russian fleet command announced that it was on its way. Krasnodar sailed on the surface most of the way, then it was announced that it was going to do a mission and with a US navy battlegroup watching it the Krasnodar disappeared. A few days later it fired cruise missiles near Syria and then headed home. The search group included almost every type of tracking equipment that NATO operates....
Nikolay Grigoryev love this info
of course the US Navy is not gonna announce if it can track your sub. duh
If you are able to track it, then you keep quiet and follow it. If you dont know were it is and cant track it then you send everything you have to find it. NATO actions are all the proof I need...
Or you send everything you have to make them think you cant track it. You fell for their game
On any given day up to a hundred submarines operate in the worlds oceans. It would be impossible to have a carrier battle group searching for each of them.
One of the statements was misleading: One class of Soviet (now Russian) submarine used titanium in the hull to greatly reduce its MAGNETIC signature. Magnetic Anomaly Detection used the field change in local magnetic field to find steel-hulled boats. MAD has limited range/sensitivity... not even sure it's used now. Stainless steel also has a reduced signature. The video somehow linked an acoustic or sound response to the hull material. Ocean thermal and salinity layers are an important resource for hunted submarines as sonar will reflect off the interface... the sub can hide below. A senior petty officer suggested in the 1970's that on a perfect day - good water, good weather and equipment working well - the game was still 60/40 in favor of the submarines. Computer processing has advanced orders of magnitude so pulling a reliable signal out of background noise is vastly improved.... but it still works both ways. Carriers - the ship itself - does not hunt submarine but its helicopter group does.
The Germans and Japanese have some of the "quietest" boats in that they've integrated fuel cell and advanced batteries into their designs.
Very unbiased real world reporting from the WSJ. Interesting!
Now if they could just locate Argentine submarines! But that may be too much to ask for...
Located
They're in Argentina.
@@NiumeLTU So what hold them back from thorogh investigation and maybe even a wreck recovery? I think that the sub sailed to a buyer.
I think you'd have to find MH-370 1st before you can find a Russian sub 😊
Pawglovr 21 lol what did happen to it
Pawglovr 21 this how you fool yourself that Russia is super power😀😀😀
Sharbeck Thomas the name itself was created for the Russia , nuclear, military and human superpowers:DD
big ian 🤔 Ukraine did that we all know that
TrapBoiFuse561 probably that’s why nothing’s been said because they alight with America
Meanwhile the sweds defeated the entire US navy with one sub............
Entire US Navy ??? hahahahahhahahahahahaha
@@alphaandomega1275 exactly, everyone says destroyed the entire us navy while they didnt even touch anything, all they did was go underneath a carrier
@@TheGreaterGoodCS , those are IMBECILES who do not read .
Caden Suslick Wasn’t it a war-game with Swed Navy? where it would’ve been a successful hit against a U.S Destroyer. I don’t think it was a carrier though I might’ve missed another time this has happened?
@@matthewsonnen yes it was something like that, but I think it was a carrier not a destroyer, a swedish sub going past a carrier group then going under an American carrier
The Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo was specifically designed to counter deep diving submarines. You don't need the submarine to go deep to fight just the weapon.
The Russians had nuclear tipped cavatating torpedos 40 years ago.
@@mac6899 and they can't guide them after launch, make a lot of noise, very short range.
Think the Swedish Navy managed to out-hunt the US submarines in some naval games....
it sunk a nimitz class i think
In military exercises, they usually test what will happen if this or that happens, and put the test subject in very disadvantageous situations that may never happen in real combat. But they do that to test specific systems. And to test worst case scenarios that may never happen in real life.
For example, they test the F-22 Stealth fighter in close-up dogfights to see how it performs in close combat. In real combat, that may never happen, because Stealth fighter pilots are trained not to get into close air combat. They are trained to use their stealth abilities and not give up that advantage.
In real combat, Stealth fighters would maintain their distance, maintain their "invisibility" and kill their enemies from a distance. So wargames and training is not always the same as real combat. You can't draw conclusions based on wargames that often put the target, the test subject, in unusual or unrealistic situations and worst case scenarios.
In a test against submarines, they may have had the Swedish submarine sit in wait, and made the carrier battle group sail by it to see if the submarine could be detected. They may have been just testing the acoustic sensors and the quietness of the submarine. The carrier battle group may not have been allowed to use other methods of detecting subs in this exercise, which was only meant to test their acoustic sensors against the quietness of the submarine.
If they allowed the carrier battle group to use other sub detection methods, like active sonar, lidar, electromagnetic sensors, etc., the Swedish sub could have been detected. A very quiet sub isn't invisible to everything.
A very quiet sub isn't very quiet when it has to chase down a carrier traveling at 20 knots or 30 knots. The rapid spinning of the sub's propellers, and the propeller blades aggressively cutting through the water will make a lot of noise and give away it's position and give away it's stealth. A very quiet sub isn't very quiet when it is traveling at 25 knots to chase down an aircraft carrier traveling at 20 knots.
So the test scenario may have dictated that the sub would not have to chase down the carrier battle group in order to take a shot at it. They may have allowed the sub to sit in wait and had the carrier battle group sail past it, within range of the subs torpedos.
So wargames and training is not always the same as real combat. You can't draw conclusions based on wargames that often put the target, the test subject, in unusual or unrealistic situations and worst case scenarios.
@@RedRider1600 a lot of what you're saying sounds plausible but is actually poor on real information. Detecting a quiet Submarine in the vast oceans is actually difficult. The exercise in 06 is still classified so we don't know how it was carried out and what the results were of each iteration so to conclusively imply that submarines cannot possibly do something is incredibly naive. It is highly plausible that the Submarine was actually at a disadvantage since the CV group and escorts would have been actively looking for it and been alert because of the preplanned nature of the exercise. If submarines were as pointless as you make them out to be then most of the navies in the world are wasting their time, and the Gotland should not have scored a kill at all. The fact is that submarines are actually very stealthy. Propellers don't inherently make large amounts of noise, it is something called cavitation that occurs when the propeller creates a low pressure wake behind it that reduces the boiling point if the water and creates bubbles of boiling water in that wake and along the surfaces of the propeller. To counter this, submarines have slow rotating propellers that are specially shaped and many-bladed to make them more efficient and silent. There are Sound silencing techniques such as natural circulation nuclear plants, machinery rafting and AIP (the latter of which the Gotland uses), that can reduce the internal noise of the submarine even more and so on and so forth. Even active sonar is no guarantee of detection with a submarine since the underwater environment is changing and heavily dependent on physical properties of the water which alters the speed of sound in water and creates a sort of obscuring terrain underwater (which is why this video says the Carrier has computers on board that calculate currents and velocities underwater to determine shadow zones and thermoclines where submarines may be hiding).
@@xmlthegreat
You are making a bunch of straw man arguments. I didn't say subs were useless, but they have their limitations. Countries with navies around the world also produce frigates and corvettes and patrol boats. That doesn't mean they can easily attack a carrier battle group and sink an American super-carrier.
Yes the oceans are vast. Finding a constantly moving carrier battle group without the aid of airborne radar is also very difficult. And even if the Gotland finds it, doesn't mean it can catch up to it without making a sound. That is an impossible thing to do for a slow sub to go even slower in order to maintain stealth and at the same time catch up with a fast carrier battle group. The Gotland can't do both at the same time.
Even with a specially designed large propeller, it still needs to spin very rapidly in order to do maximum speed of 20 or 25 knots, which will create those bubbles. But just the blades cutting through the water at high speeds will also create noise. It's not just the bubbles. The larger the diameter of the propeller, the faster the tips of the propeller cuts through the water.
A carrier battle group can travel at over 30 knots. The specially designed propellers help, but doesn't entirely solve the stealth and speed problem for the Gotland.
Switching to it's quiet electric propulsion greatly reduces it's speed and range even further. The Gotland would have to be very lucky in order to get within torpedo range of a carrier, especially without being detected.
The Swedish sub simulated a devastating attack on a carrier with would have sunk it.
That's reassuring
This sub humiliated nato
Love it! I used to play battleship and win.
You dont hunt submarine, submarines hunt you, you only sometimes get lucky that you find out some submarine hunting you and can make an escape before it reaches you
Helo 5 star general
This didn't explain anything...
Wish I had seen it was a Wall Street Journal upload before clicking....
This is my clickbait.
it presented the Russians as the 'enemy', and that was all the purpose....
@@silveriorebelo8045 pretty much, if politicians dont have the public in their side, they cant go to stupid wars, like Iraq.
Apparently subs are hunted by aircraft carriers
Nice video! They forgot to mention MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector), it uses any variation in Earth's Magnetic field to locate Submarines!
And the electromagnetic hydraulic propulsion. And not many new subs will be made of metal anymore.
And US navy failed to detect Russian sub. Russians also making nuclear drone kamikaze sleepers subs. Think aboot et!
Yes the Status 6 atonomus nuclear torpedo/drone with a 100MT warhead, a fearsome weapon.
Wow. Military lesson for children.
Destroyers/submarines hunt submarines, not carriers. A US carrier taskforce have both destroyers and nuclear submarines(no need to surface) incorporated in them.
What about the thermal layer?
...and MAD, Buoys, active/passive sonar, etc etc...
ThyMajesticOne lesson for you , imagine 10 krasnodars attacking in u-boat wolfpack formation from 100km away with kalbr nk supersonic anti ship, how's that work out ? U-boat still unbeaten till nazi got out of resources, and that was non stealthy & non cruise missile subs.
@@boiboiboi1419
Supersonic anti-ship missiles can be detected and shot down, or defeated with electronic countermeasures, jamming, and or decoys.
From 100 km, how will the sub find or know where the carrier is? How will it track and target the carrier?
@@RedRider1600 satelites & air or sea drones,
missiles can be radar guided, gps guided , or IR tracking
what are you like living in 18th century?
@@boiboiboi1419
Surface based radar has a range of only about 25 miles. Satellites have great difficulty locating a carrier without knowing where it is first. The oceans are vast. Satellites can also be shot down with missiles, or destroyed, or blinded by lasers. I highly doubt Sweden even has that capability with their tiny military budget and limited technology.
Radar signals can be detected. The source of the radar signal can be located and destroyed by missiles or fighters and attack aircraft or jammed electronically. That includes radar from drones.
Large radar carrying drones can be easily shot down. Very few countries even have that capability, or those types of very expensive drones. Sweden is not a major military power with a significant military, or with significant military capabilities.
IR has a very short range of only about 10 miles for detecting something that doesn't give off a lot of heat, like a ship, especially a nuclear powered ship.
GPS is useless against a moving target. GPS is not a sensor and can't locate or detect anything.
A submarine far out at sea is not going to have help from land based assets. A submarine does not have large radar capable drones. Radar used on subs are weak and low to the surface and have an even shorter range than 25 miles. Radar cannot see below the horizon.
Are you living in fantasy land?
It might be costly but maybe worth it. To establish sensors on the ocean floor near sensitive land areas.
10/10 got a navy recruitment ad on this video
All the time.
No mention of SOSUS, or tower sonar arrays, or the fact that aircraft carriers are not deigned to hunt subs etc etc etc.
Why would the USA say they can track this sub. It makes more sense to not say a word on if you can track them or not. None of answering here on UA-cam will have a clue if the USA can or can’t track this sub. Anyone that comes here and says they know is just an out right liar. I find it interesting after all these year Russia finally is capable of making a sub this quite. We will see. If the USA tracked this sub from the middle of the Atlantic until it’s missile launch the USA will not say a word.
David Christensen and the same thing applies to Russia's ability to track America's stealth planes.
David Christensen don't be coolish man.even US don't say it couldn'tn't change anything
Very secret system code name, Fishnet ......
Just drag a large magnet until you catch one.
There are sonar detection systems available in the US Navy arsenal that can easily find a hidden sub. Russian or any other country .Not as hard as article shows!
"easily" how can u find a submarine in a ocean of huge dimensions? Just to remind, we still haven't found the mh370...
@@loudnessclarity9273 part of the theory why no one has found mh370 is because it would unveil technology no one has claimed yet. Its not worth it..given the military crisis today it could be true that the U.S. has hunted every sub down and has them locked on just in case they try something. Giving away how we found them would compromise everything
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 idiot 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hypersonic missile is cheaper than sub and more effective 👍
I thought I heard the new Boeing Pegasis, converted B737 into an antisubmarine hunter, can detect submarines from an altitude of 41k feet.
That's if the Boeing 737 can make it to 41 thousand feet 🤣🤣🤣
This can be a bigdata application.
Raytheon already has this Tech.
But, we don't have S-3 Vikings or anything to replace them, or did we have something and I just missed it?
This is now in the bottom of the ocean.
No info here
Wrong info, even. A low magnetic hull does nothing to reduce a submarine's SONAR signature.
"It can run on batteries for extended periods of time practically silently..." Subs could do this 100 years ago.
Certainly a concern for aircraft carriers and battleships of the U.S. ... but I have a sneaky feeling there is some type of technology that average joe isn't privy to. Not that the U.S. are incapable of receiving severe military destruction...... but would you tell your opponent that you have an ace up your sleeve on either side/sides for a UA-cam video or propaganda? I think not. We are well behind current military technologies. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
We've been tracking Russian subs for over 80 yrs
You've been chasing girls for 40 years, but you still haven't scored.
Ovie Imoni lol 😂 😂 😂 😂
Thats what you think
No, you were able to do that to the end of seventies. In mid seventies KGB obtained NATO documents about soviet subs and soviets realized that their subs are noisy and ordinary tracked by NATO, which lead to horendous work on supression of their submarines. In 1979 they developed project 971RTM submarines which were literally undetectable for US Navy. In 1985 and 1987 (operation Aport and Atrina) units of 33th "predators" submarine division of russian Northern fleet repeatedly penetrate NATO ASW forces in Atlantic ocean and almost one and half month tracked US ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers CBGs.
Can US detect them or like Hollywood movies 3D playing.
so if russian just put decoy how to detect it
I didn't know carriers track subs but the ddg distroyer s are anti sub warfare
Air wing
Codder I think 🤔
You will never find them , they are swarthy and invisible . I'm sure Putin told you . I'll give a hint , take along a dog for the hunt , it has the hearing to hear the bayingof a husky underwater . You only have to estimate correctly when the dog can is opened and husky goes hip .
You send a probe down there to find them .
big waste of 2:30 min of my life, yes add 6s for typing this. How can I get it back?
May be we need an array of other radiation detectors not just Sonic and radio waves
Is that what happened ?
Russian subs are not traditionally known for their quietness, ...... So i would take this info with a pinch of salt.
Russian submarines of 3-4 generations are very quiet, the 4th generation is virtually inaudible against the background of the ocean. The United States does not now detect submarines by noise, this is impossible. They use other technologies, such as changing the temperature of the water and the wake of waves from a moving submarine.
NATO should pass a law forbidding Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, from having submarines.
Why can't we use underwater miniature unmanned submarines built out of fiberglass or carbon fiber and other non magnetic properties and then install a magnetometer so they can scan areas
Satellites can find a ant there's no where to hide baby
You think the Russian's were the only one who have submarines?
Think about it.
Russia should have taken up K-278 «Komsomolets», then they would be real heroes. And than build a new silent modern type of it. And it should dive just as deep, 1027 meters on it's most, but it was built for dive down to 1250 meters, and with a crush depth of 1500 meters. Sadly it ley on the bottom on the Barents sea, on about 1700 meters, and the submarine is emitting radiation at levels 800,000 times normal, so Putin, please take it up for the future generations who shall eat fish from the Barents sea
While the US is maintaining a large extremely expensive carrier fleet, Russia and China are simply taking or creating land masses to put military assets on. Has the carrier strike force found it's match?
Brian Cullen no because the carrier strike group can move
Jeremiah Pagany well yes but you can't sink an island, derr
Carrier are for attacking 3rd world countries.
China and Russia humiliated them before.
So why cant the subs kill carrrier?
They can but they won't.
I hear Russia has them on the east and west coast ready to shoot nukes if America wants to go that route with them!
Russian subs can't be found. God Bless Russia.
US now also has the "Sumarine Hunter" autonomous sub to go after the Russian subs!
are you mad?!
It ant done with a carrier! Distroyers do anti sub war fare
So basically what your saying is that Russian subs are invisible
From what I am seeing from my own country, I am rooting for the Russians.
I have lived in the US for 71 years now. Born here 71 years ago. People with lower IQ only engage in name calling. They are lead around by their noses because they cannot think for themselves. I was in the Vietnam debacle and I saw for myself just how disgusting some of my fellow Americans can be. Many of us are just sadistic torturing imbeciles. Thankfully there are some of us who dare to think. Your remark indicates you do not belong to the latter.
So, to cut long story short. You cant catch her underwater... or so you say. If you could, would you tell us about it? Nope. Good ole inteligence counter inteligence game. All is good, until the big toys stay locked out from kindergarden.
Leave Russia & Russian people alone
What if he's trying to defect ??
From Russia? He could just migrate.
Still looking? 😉
yare you telling me that Usa is fucked up?
We used to harass Russia n dubs by dropping sonar bouys in front of the sonar
And....?
what's the point of this video/article?
Constantin point is, yanks failed.
This is not a business where the media need be involved. Just go away.
zion lobby wall stree5 j
swedish Sub deceived Uss Ronald Reagon back in 2005
Well that video was a complete waste of time...
Russia 1 US 0
i think i should work for the Russians
you should titled " THE HUNT OF HIGH TECH RUSSIAN SUBMARINES"... dont think so ?
Blow it the fk up
Well, that was a waste of time
US bots
The Russians have the technology that make them way for you.
Yea a helicopter that can detect a sub what a massive aircraft carriers couldn’t , and yea detect its antenna like the sub will be afloat !!! Further more a radar !!! An aircraft carriers have bigger radars , bigger sonars , this video is a non sense bulshit propaganda ,
Obviously the USA and UK haven't quite yet found out how to detect Russian submarines. Good Show Russia!
I’m sure the US subs are way better.
first comment
Second
First