What kind of offense/defense does the us military have against modern enemy submarines?

>modern enemy submarines?
Well mostly realizing they don't exist.

Submariner here. The best defense against enemy ASUW forces are still our own submarines. Although MPAs and helicopters are still absolutely terrifying. The new P-8s are fucking ridiculous.

Attached: 1528159711887.png (700x700, 61K)

nukes

Attached: 1439693116206.gif (320x454, 1.93M)

Attached: 5173C7C9-6610-428E-A7B0-DAC8B75EFFF3-1155-00000156506F19A9.jpg (900x582, 106K)

Fucking ridiculous? How so? Ridiculously bad? Or ridiculously good? I am genuinely curious to hear from a submariner

I'm not able to say anything other than they do their job and they do it great.

Detect or track? As in can you attack the enemy sub once detected by your classified technology?

Subs are rarely used for anti sub warfare. Turning on your sonar means every other sub acquires your position.

>What is Passive Sonar

I've been here too long...especially when my first thought is "girl in pic probably has a dick"

Attached: 1495732000835.jpg (500x361, 51K)

>I work at a Navy affiliated R&D lab

But does your dad work at nintendo?

>Subs are rarely used for anti sub warfare.
which is why they are the centerpiece for CSGs ASW element?

Attached: 6749279f30.jpg (480x451, 19K)

What the heck is that pod on the tail of the Sierra II?

Towed array

Ahh... that would've been my 2nd guess. I thought it might be an ELF antenna. Thanks.

Is there anything more aesthetic than the Typhoon?

Actually, not a lot.

Where a enemy submarine is there is a big area denial zone.

Attached: 212ecvn71.jpg (638x424, 50K)

Honestly that is the answer I was looking for. I like hearing honest opinions about this stuff without the fluff and propaganda

Russian naval nuclear subs are very reliable today.

It just took a shitton of blood to get them there.

>detect enemy subs tremendously further than the effective range of the subs
lol

Who has "modern" submarines? Every potential adversary of the US is decades behind. Same old shit works regardless. Torpedoes and depth charges.

Ivan pls
your Subs are not modern

i found the child

No you're just a faggot

thanks for revealing classified info, expect the door knock shortly.

OPSEC my nigga

Active SONAR, passive SONAR, SONAR bouys, dipped SONAR arrays, visual confirmation in shallower waters, and if you just want to flush them out, air drop torpedoes where you think they are.

>Can use sats to see if they're 10 feet below water
Hate to break it to you,but sub pens and average depth make things a little harder.

desuarchive.org/_/search/boards/a.aco.an.c.co.d.fit.gif.his.int.k.m.mlp.q.qa.r9k.tg.trash.vr.wsg/filename/ 1520621458498/

kek because true

I'd like to know more

Attached: 1526524709485.jpg (223x225, 14K)

taking picture 15 miles away is not the same as sinking it

Actually, it is. In fact a submarine wouldn't even need to be that close.

Russian subs have historically been the most accident prone, dozens of catastrophic failures where everyone dies. Last major one was the Kursk in 2000 and that was an Oscar 2 class. Here's a link of dead Russian subs, just look at the ones after 1950 with a cross on them, others are decommissioned or kia in ww2.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_Russian_or_Soviet_submarines?wprov=sfla1

your claim is vague and doubtful. If you are talking about missiles, what is CIWS or AIM-7. If torpedoes, what is torpedo warning system and anti-torpedo torpedo

cheersM8

Land

Are you stupid?

>He doesn't know
Fucking Swedes built a diesel powered sub so silent and stealthy, that during a coordinated excercize with the US fleet it managed to "sink" the Reagan carrier
Meet the Gotland class

Attached: saab-gotland-class-submarine.jpg (1920x1075, 164K)

The Soviet sub force suffered from a plethora of problems that saw its effectiveness significantly diminished. Many issues surrounded their crews which both suffered from an inexperienced enlisted core and a culture among officers that prided appearances over performance. The navy used the conscription system that was designed for the army and it made building a core of experienced enlisted personnel extremely difficult, and while they tried to overcome this by using higher levels of automation aboard their vessels it clearly wasn't working if the many devastating, yet preventable accidents are any indication.

In terms of the subs themselves they were not being adequately maintained resulting in serious performance issues, most notably quieting was the key issue. This stemmed from the fact that the Soviet Navy had over shot the capacity of its maintenance facilities and the sheer variety of sub classes made keeping them maintained both complicated and expensive. In the end maintenance schedules seriously hampered deployments and resulted in the sub force being far more noisy and accident prone than any of its NATO contemporaries.

Attached: Refit.jpg (1920x831, 487K)

Exercises don’t mean shit

If they're unable to detect it during an exercise they're unable to detect it during warfare, it's not like they pull out "serious tech for when the shit hits the fan"

Attached: 1451080492084.jpg (228x210, 9K)

Assuming they were actually unable to detect it, and didn’t just let it slide for morale purposes. Plus, there’s ROE to consider as well as actual objectives.

Or are you one of those people that think MC2002 is the be-all, end-all of exercises? Or do I need to bring up the India thing?

I think he means that exercises are limited due to the rules and what event really happened.

Respawn rules have given some weird results in many exercises. Some limited performance due to the rules can also affect the results, for example with India at Red Flag that asked for everyone to fight them with ridiculous handicaps then claimed being really great.

In our case, I heard the sub happened to be on the trajectory of the carrier and just had to stay there and not move.

Shitty and short range. It's what SOSUS is for.

It was an excerise for US navy to learn to detect smaller submarines built for other purposes then most Russian ones.

The Swedish submarines where in San Diego for two years, working along US Navy and drawing experience from one another about operating in different environments.

The US Navy's undersea capabilities are largely classified. The "silent service" is the most secretive macro branch of US military. You won't hear about 99% of their capabilities.

Because they aren't. They're complemented by towed sonar on surface combatants and ASW helicopters. And SOSUS to tell them if subs are close. With their sonars on they're potent ASW but it's like a stealth fighter turning on their radar.

>you won't hear about their capabilities
Heheh

Every country does this. It means nothing.

youve been here too long when you want her to have one.

active sonar =/= passive sonar

Active is what gives you away, like turning on a flashlight in a cave, which is why %95 of the time subs use passive listening

>lying on the internet

very interesting, especially the organizational aspect. any sources to recommend?

Passive sonar would never be effective. Two nuclear subs grazed each other because they were so quiet. Both had passive on. And both were nuclear not diesel.

Are you out of rebuttals? Refute with facts or git

Attached: 1522543465905.jpg (640x473, 55K)

rebut what?

Source? I find that very hard to believe

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision

I’m pretty sure that’s true. But it’s irrelevant.
Active sonar, even on ships and helicopters is, by it’s very nature, shorter ranged than passive. Which combined with the fact that the ocean is @ big place, plus actively pinging puts a big fucking sign saying “HERE I AM, I AM THE BAD GUY. I HOPE NO SILLY SUBMARINES ARE AROUND TO SHOOT AT ME” means that they are fundamentally useless for finding a submarine that you have no idea if they are even there.

Attached: IMG_20180606_102954.jpg (1791x1015, 179K)

Wot
Active sonar range depends on its power
Do you mean because the active sonar has to reach the sub and come back so it's shorter range?

my claim that a modern US carrier has enough countermeasures to invalidate a claim that taking a picture of one from a periscope from 15 miles away is as good as sinking it, pay attention

>In our case, I heard the sub happened to be on the trajectory of the carrier and just had to stay there and not move.
So quite literally what diesel subs are supposed to do. People that scream "It's just an exercise DUDE" are even dumber than "Diesel-electric sunk your obsolete carrier, murica" tards. This fucking board and its retarded refusal to acknowledge issues and weaknesses/strengths of military equipment is embarrassing.

>8000 yds
>7.3 km

>DM2A4
>50kn
>92.6 km/h

Would reach the target in less than 5min.

>that's not close enough!!!

The joke is that "this was just an excercise" helps the carrier group because they actually know that somewhere is a submarine which is trying to fuck them in a specific time frame.

>Passive sonar would never be effective
WHAT? The main method of finding other boats are two things:

The passive low frequency bow array. Literally made for finding submarines but has short(er) range.
The main method that is used for all TMA feeding, the Towed Array. Both thin and fat line are passive. The downside is the fact that it needs to be streamed and has dual/shadow contacts.

Anything active sonar will announce your position to the enemy because Active Intercept is a very important thing that is used in order to track Surface ships that use active sonar in order to find submarines. The claim that "passive sonar would never be effective" is incredibly ignorant and essentially like saying Radar Warning receivers on a plane are not effective.

Attached: 1403052917321.jpg (185x180, 6K)

>he doesn't know about the weirdass sonars using hilbert spaces and quantum bullshit
gotta look into those out there papers that get snapped up by the DoD my man

>I don't know what the limiting lines of approach are
>I don't understand that for safety, CBGs don't run full out during exercises
>I failed geometry so I don't understand why a 30 knot carrier group is almost impossible to engage with diesel subs protected by nuke subs and SH-60s.

Apples to nipple rings dude.

Go home Tom Clancy. You're drunk. And dead.

>somehow results of excercises are making me butthurt

>Anyone who confronts me on my ignorance is butthurt.

Quit trying so hard dude. You're making yourself look pathetic.

Americans

>tfw you will never travel the 7 seas on a submarine with kitschy 80s fake wood everywhere, a pool, garden, and smoking room.

>Shitty and short ranged

Passive works based in sound emmitted, so it theoretically has infinite range, the sand just has to get there. I recall the limeys being able to detecr belgeano 120km out. Modern subs will be quieter, but even a stationary sub makes a little noise.

>thinking one is enough to sink an aircraft carrier
oof

Attached: well_memed_my_friend.png (341x372, 20K)

Nathan Polmar's book is a good start. Its called Cold War Submarines, its a good overall look at sub development between both the USN and Soviet Navy.

Attached: Picket.jpg (1920x1261, 491K)

Actually, it would. In fact the heavier the ship the more effective is such a torpedo.

Even ignoring that submarines can fire more than one torpedo at the same time.

Loling at this entire thread

Attached: 1526961681182.jpg (540x350, 34K)

Torpedoes for offense obviously. Defense involves decoys mostly while carriers also have anti-torpedo torpedoes. The US also operates SOSUS systems.

There's undoubtedly spooky shit out there like wake detection etc. DARPA is invested in unconventional submarine detection for instance. There's also some patents around for shit involving the Debye effect.

Anyway, we'll never know the real scope of things. Everything underwater is classified to hell.

Attached: 1520645652181.jpg (1080x1080, 286K)

>he doesn't know about our anti-anti-torpedo torpedo torpedoes

Lets be honest, watertight integrity would leave it afloat.

I'd take that underwater and declassify it, if you catch my drift.

As long as you have the right clearance, user.

Attached: 1520646640216.jpg (1080x1350, 160K)

> tfw no qt3.14 gf

Attached: 28d.jpg (680x793, 57K)

It had that too

>submarine launched mega-torpedo that launches mini-torpedos at the anti-torpedos clearing the way for the mega-torpedo to torpedo the target vessel.

DARPA, I expect my money by next Monday.