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 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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod