• Psionicsickness@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    US Sailor here. Iran is actually pretty scary. They have diesel submarines. They can sit silently in that sea and kill a carrier faster than any battle group could respond.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Diesel-electric. They cruise around just under the surface on diesel, with snorkels to bring in air and expel exhaust. But, then they can shut down those diesel engines, fully submerge, and maneuver on batteries for a few days and maybe a hundred miles.

        While they are on diesel engines, they are loud, and stuck to the surface. While they are on batteries, they are silent. For the few days that they are submerged, they are quieter than our nuclear subs.

        Yeah, they pose a potential threat to a carrier group, but the “proportional response” to attacking a carrier would be the destruction of every naval facility they have, so not exactly a serious threat.

        • hihellobyeoh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Seeing as the proportional response to damaging a cruiser was deleting 1/2 their navy in 8 hrs… yeah

      • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Worth noting nuclear submarines have a sort of minimum-practical-size determined by the need for a functional nuclear reactor on board. Combined with the plain expense of nuclear reactors means that states can build way more ssk’s than ssn’s for a given budget. It’s often better to have three 25% chances of sinking the other guy than one 50% chance.

        • zarp86@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s often better to have three 25% chances of sinking the other guy than one 50% chance.

          Three 25% of sinking is the same as three 75% chance of not sinking. Which is (3/4) * (3/4) * (3/4) chance of not sinking, which is approximately a 42% chance of not sinking, which is a 58% chance of sinking. 58% > 50%, the math checks out.

  • arymandias@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks for countries with real armies. They are an outdated technology in the age of satellites, drones, and guided missiles.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      What country has a “real army”?

      Satellites, drones, and guided missiles all rely on radio emissions for command and guidance. Every ship in the carrier group, plus many dedicated aircraft have SIGINT and ELINT roles specifically dedicated to countering such threats.

      While drones and guided missiles do pose a threat to a carrier, the carrier poses a much greater threat to anyone operating such drones and missiles.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      You’re actually totally correct… for a carrier on its own. But that’s why carrier groups exist to defendbthe carrier against things like guided misses and drones.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah tell that to the Iron Meme system.

        For the cost of one guided rocket you can throw enough cheap trash to empty the entire carrier defense systems.