Was just watching Jack Ryan Season 3 and seeing the display of force and their movements causes some interesting dissonance given what we know now.
Was just watching Jack Ryan Season 3 and seeing the display of force and their movements causes some interesting dissonance given what we know now.
North Korea has the largest submarine fleet of any nation. Of course most of those are old diesel subs, but the point still stands.
We’ve seen what the Russian military has been like in Ukraine, if you think most of those subs aren’t rusting piles of garbage then you’re probably drinking that tankie Kool aid. They’ve probably had to cannibalize the majority of them just to keep what few they have running, because it’s not like they just idly make parts for 1950’s era subs, especially not for a country that barely has enough money to feed themselves and spends most of that on their nuclear program.
Also they’re loud ass diesel subs, every modern navy will know exactly where they are and how many they have easily, and it’s not like 1950’s weaponry is going to make up the difference.
This being said, Russia also isn’t as weak as we like to think. Given how the war has ground to a standstill, it’s not unlikely it’ll become yet another frozen conflict. And that’s after arming the Ukrainians with large amounts of advanced weaponry.
We’ve become so used to the idea we’d have air supremacy in any potential war, we thought the Ukrainians would be able to push their way through the front, forgetting that the Ukrainians aren’t able to take out artillery or mines beforehand.
The Russians have also adapted quite quickly. At the beginning of the war, the Ukrainians were having huge successes with drones. Now the Russians are downing 10,000 drones a month:
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-losing-10000-drones-month-russia-electronic-warfare-rusi-report-2023-5?op=1&r=US&IR=T
To be clear, Russia is an existential threat to Europe. If they turn this conflict into a stalemate, they will have won territory that doesn’t belong to them and it’s almost certain they’ll rebuild, rearm and do it again. Just like happened with Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine in 2014.
But underestimating the Russians is not in NATO members’ interests. No one ever won a war underestimating the enemy, better to give Ukraine more than they need, than just barely enough to make incremental advances under the assumption Russia won’t do a second wave of conscription and/or doesn’t have (or isn’t building up) reserves for a (counter) counter-offensive.
And given how Ukraine has struggled, even with advanced weaponry, it’s clearly high time for Europe to re-arm so that Russia doesn’t mistakenly think we’re weak.
Russia is in a standstill, after losing major ground constantly for a year, against a country 1/3 Ruzzia’s population, Ukraine also had next to no standing army prior to the invasion, meaning they had next to no professional soldiers prior to their being invaded by Ruzzia, and Ruzzia is invading them in conjunction with two of their allied powers, Belarus and Chechnya, all while the west slow rolls the supply and training of Ukraine, think about that for a sec.
Also this enemy that they’re in a standstill with has been so effective that one of Ruzzia’s key armies, Wagner, chose to rebel over continuing to get fed to the meat grinder. Ruzzia is literally down to recruiting 16 and 60 yr olds right now.
All of the propaganda by both Ruzzia and the West all made it seem like Ruzzia should have easily rolled over Ukraine prior to the realities of this war. However this war exposed Ruzzia as a broken down, corrupt paper tiger with a delusional dictator at the helm.
Incorrect.
After Russia invaded in 2014, Ukraine heavily invested in its military. NATO has also been helping them train for years now. Wall Street Journal
This is also why Russia faced far stiffer resistance in 2022 than they did in 2014.
Belarus’s involvement is very limited. They’re mainly allowing the Russians to fire missiles from their territory. Wikipedia
Chechnya isn’t a country or ‘power’. It’s the Russian equivalent of Alabama.
It would be a mistake to think people like Prigozhin want to end the war. Russian ultra-nationalists want to intensify and escalate the war, not stop it.
18-30. The Guardian
An actual world super power would have rolled over Ukraine in a week. The fact that they’ve beat the Russians back for an entire year is not only totally bad-ass and heroic, but it also exposed the Russian Army for the weakling it is. The only reason Russia is still considered a world super power is because of their stockpile of Soviet era nukes. If Russia can’t take Ukraine, they have zero chance against countries like China or the US, and especially not the combined forces of the United Nations?
The really advanced US tanks and jets haven’t entered the fight yet, and we’ve seen big gains in the last week with Russia losing 3 towns in the south, all the gains they made in the north over the last month taken back, and more groups crossing the Dnipro river. It’s been a slow acceleration wearing through Russian reserves, but there’s still a way to go before winter slows things down.
The real advanced weapons enter the fight next spring.
Hey there!
Looks like you had a moderate, down to earth take on the Russia-Ukraine war.
That’s a down vote.
But seriously thanks for not attending to the feedback loop of propaganda and childish dick stroking.
I do get it though. Most of us want Ukraine to win. We ignore the information that we don’t like. It’s human.
But it’s not helpful, especially when the reality sinks in that this war isn’t easy, and thousands of young men are dying.
99% of what I see regarding this topic is either straight up war propaganda or people who are unabashedly unafraid to let others know that they are totally ignorant of post WW2 geo politics.
Anything other than “DAE just love Ukraine and that charismatic Zelensky! 😍😍” gets down voted to oblivion. Its classic Red Scare 1980’s bullshit lol. Even now I’m sure most who read this are scrambling for the down vote button because they think I’m some sort of Russian shill/supporter simply based off the fact that I’m not fellating the West’s efforts.
You’re not wrong but you’re not a victim either. People disagree on message boards, people are dumbasses, that’s what we get for hanging out here.
I’m not sure what led you to believe that I think I’m a victim of anything other than western propaganda, something I have in common with 99.9% of Americans.
According to the documentary Down Periscope, a nuclear sub is no match for a diesel sub with a misfit crew.
The US Navy wouldn’t last a week
What a terrible demotion for Kelsey Grammer, from Starfleet to submarines.
Few old diesel shitters that will be suppressed immediately. Quality over quantity, especially after a military superpower like the US
Old diesel subs? Sure.
But back in 2005 a now thirty year old Gotland-class diesel sub embarassed the USS Reagan in war games.
Since then, plenty of countries have designed newer and better diesel subs, and battery tech has obviously improved.
There’s a massive difference between an acoustically-optimized, AIP-capable Swedish submarine built thirty years ago, and what the North Koreans have which is basically none of those.
Also, while the Reagan itself was pretty new at the time, the Nimitz class was already a 30-year old design when that war game happened, and is now almost 60 years old as a class.
Diesel subs have some advantages over others, some distinct disadvantages too, but a few advantages
What advantages? If memory serves correctly, they’d need a captain with a penis tattoo that says “welcome aboard” and a radar guy who can imitate whales. I’m not sure that’s so common.
At least as recently as 2005, diesel subs were the quieter option. There was that somewhat notorious story of the Swedish one that beat an American carrier group in a wargame because the Americans just couldn’t find it. I’m sure there have been developments in the equipment and methods since then - it was 18 years ago, after all - but it’s still notable enough that the Americans leased the sub from Sweden for a couple of years to practice against it.
That said, the Swedish sub in question was packed with cutting-edge (at the time) stealth features. I suspect North Korea’s fleet is not.
Lol people hold on to that wargame so tightly as some Pinnacle of triumph over western armed forces, but the reality of the situation was that the sub commander in question went rogue and did something they weren’t supposed to do in order to win. Also at the end of the day it’s a fucking wargame, it’s practice, and nobody really cares how well you do in practice because it’s all about how you perform in the big game.
Also as you noted the Americans did what we always do when situations like this happen, we game planned for never letting it happen again, this was an embarrassment for the US Navy, and you can bet it’s something they’re constantly working on never letting happen again, these are serious professionals who’s lives revolve around continuously planning ways to win against any situation while losing as few of their people as possible.
It sounds like the wargame did exactly what it was supposed to, people learned. All this talk of “embarrassment” is silly.
You do realize that’s almost 20 years ago. That’s like saying “well you realize in 1985…” Back in 2005.
(The 2000s have been a blur for me time wise too)
I did specifically say “it was 18 years ago after all”
If I’m not mistaken, that was a Gotland Class. Built in the early 90s, so over 30 years old.
France has at least one diesel submarine that’s decades more modern.
Thanks for the serious answer even when I was making a stupid joke/reference.
As I replied to someone else, that is very interesting.
My thoughts: It does seem extremely limited for its advantage though. The electric mode is basically a stealth option, but once they fire or do anything else then should be findable and that electric mode probably won’t last THAT long if they were being hunted actively.
Range is infinitesimal comparatively. A nuclear submarine can operate continuously under water for 6 months. An old diesel sub needs to resurface after something like 12-18 hours.
Thanks for answering seriously even when I didn’t.
Interesting that they are quieter! I never would’ve guessed that. Thanks for sharing.
I think the old ones are loud, but newer ones can be really quiet. IRC Sweden had one that did well in war games. Gotland class. France also has really modern ones.
Basically they chugachugachugachuga, then go into battery mode and dissappear off sonar. Range is low obviously. Batteries don’t last that long.
Don’t think the Russians have those though. Their navy has been a joke for over a century.
Name one advantage that diesel subs have over modern nuclear subs? Lol
Diesel subs are loud AF from my understanding, and loud subs are dead subs according to my understanding of modern day submersible warfare.
They are loud when they recharge, they are slow compared to nuclear subs and they carry much less armaments.
On the other hand, when they are on battery power modern diesels can be much quieter than nuclear subs, they are much cheaper and smaller so ideal for operations in coastal waters. Which is why many (also western countries) rely on them for coastal defense.
Economics wise: You can trade 3 diesel subs against a nuclear subs or a large warship and still come out ahead cost/effort wise.
How long do you think 1950’s era batteries last? Like in what world do you think “a 1950’s diesel on battery power surely outclasses a modem nuclear sub”? GTFO with that bullshit, lol.
A sub on battery power is essentially in free fall depending on their ballast situation, they’re not going anywhere because they would have to turn their loud ass engines on to go somewhere, which would then alert the entire modern navy they would be up against.
No the countries that still use those just don’t have enough money to maintain a nuclear sub fleet for what’s essentially their coast guard, it’s cost efficiency not “better”.
All of your points are just deep stretches in vain attempts to be the “well ackschully!” Guy, or to be the contrarian throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
IRC the French have at least one diesel sub, the SMX-Ocean Range 30,000km.
They also have modern battery tech, the money and the tech to maintain/build nuclear subs. They have existing nuclear subs. The SMX-Ocean is actually quite modern. 2017 I think. Certainly more modern than most existing nuclear subs.
Here’s an article which explains why modern diesel subs can be quieter than nuclear subs:
https://navalpost.com/nuclear-submarines-diesel-electric-submarines-noise-level/
I googled. 20 knots for the SMX-Ocean. 25 for France’s nuclear subs. Not a huge difference.
Wait so you honestly think they’re going 30,000 km on battery power?
Do you not get that submarine combustion engines are just like car combustion engines? You generate power through the engines and that power is stored on battery to power the electrical systems and serve as a backup, battery power is not going to power the whole entire sub and magically move the sub quietly through the water, that’s not how these things work, that’s how nuclear subs work.
My point is, you’re not going to be able to move your sub at all on battery power, at some point you will have to turn on those loud ass engines in order to move your sub, which will absolutely alert every modern sub to your location.
Obviously not, as the article I linked to mentions the range is limited in electric mode.
It will, but the range is limited. Electricity and batteries aren’t magic. We also use them to move cars.
You should read the article I linked to above. Current nuclear submarines often aren’t perfectly silent. In fact, they can be louder than a modern diesel sub running in battery only mode.
Which is likely why the French, who do have nuclear subs, chose to build a diesel sub anyway while simultaneously also working on quieter nuclear subs.
From your article:
Batteries are one of the easiest components to swap out…
Dude, if someone here is “well akshually” that is surely you. When people talk about people on the internet that are annoying to meet - that’s you.
But apart from that. You are simply mistaken in a lot of things or are projecting so hard you may as well have an HDMI input.
Nobody said 50s era or even modern diesel subs or their other non nuclear equivalents are “better” than a nuclear sub in all ways but in some situations, e.g. coastal defense and operation sin shallow water, they may be better suited to the mission than a nuclear sub that is 4 times as large.
In addition there are economical considerations. If I can buy 4 diesels for the price of a nuke sub it may be better for me to have 4 diesels who can lie in wait at 4 places at once.
The question is mission fit of the asset. A ship will sink all the same whether it was sunk by a 2 billion USD Nuke sub or by a diesel on the way to the wrecker that had a really really lucky day.