Russia’s newest Yasen class submarines: US carriers' biggest nemesis? 

What if 1940 Belgium was sent back to 1914.

Do vids about bout ESTONIA vs the WORLD do a entire big video vid About Bout A Much more powerful stronger and better armed ESTONIA VS THE WHOLE WORLD with equipments from 1800s 1900s 2000s 2010s and beyond like in 1880s ww1 ww2 cold war and etc equipments aswell as having more industries factories workforce forces more manpower and etc stuff id like to see if estonia could survive and take lands and tens hundreds thousands and millions worth of stocks of armaments and etc BASICALLY SUPER MEGA TOTAL SUPERIORITY MUCH MORE POWERFUL AND STRONGER ESTONIA Make a discord server

are you gonna do some analysis on Poland-Belarus or not?

Best Manscaped promotion I've ever seen. I didnt' realise I needed to see a frog puppet promote the product ROFL

Does the manscaper work on Felt? Or is the _fabric defuzzer lint remover_ sold separately?

You can't lose a carrier if you don't have any in the first place

You got a fren in me Mr hunter killer

Bro it's aircraft carrier not carier

That's.... Actually pretty meaningful

Booooooom

It’s brutally simple to kill a large ships. If a cavity forms, at the right point of the keel of the vessel, her weight will snap her. It’s just physics. Now, getting close enough to a modern carrier…

Actually, the mere threat of the submarine will force the enemy to significantly invest into carrier defences and contribute ships and aircraft and submarines to defend said carrier. Meaning additional expenses and lost mission capabilities. So a 2 billion dollar sub forces US assets worth 30 billion to defend a carrier.

Also there is that thing where they’re talking out of their ass, they have no idea if the subs can or can’t

@@H33t3Speaks you don't need to get close to a carrier now. There is missiles russia invented now that you can maneuver

The problem there is shear tonnage of the CVN. it takes a lot of firepower to do so Secondly you have remember the skill of the crew The HMS Sheffield was hit by single Exocet and sank days later The USS Stark by 2 Exocet but remained afloat. The difference was poor damage control by the Sheffield crew doomed the ship whereas excellent damage control by Stark crew saved the ship.

Dood, even a windoze shtbox can do supreme audio forensics ...contrary to what was said in the idiot post about armchair generals above.

Can you name one? What are you talking about???

@@MrFlatage damn, re check the Comment section again, you will see alot of armchair warriors..

@@grixjay8620 What the fudge? Dude who writes 'Comment' in the middle of a sentence? Any 1st grader with a 3 digit IQ knows better. And you are a 'armchair warrior'?? Official source proving that you are what you claim you are? I never heard of any such rank in any military, lmao!

@Dick Izzinya Haha so you went to some kinda 'Academy'? Come on they didn't even teach you how to end sentences. When I swore the oath in my lands of the free to my flag, the mighty red, white and blue? They didn't hand out any chairs. We had to pass a written test you know.

@@MrFlatage my jesus christ man, what's wrong with you? O was only referring to the 'Comment section' why are u so mad? I didn't even tried to criticize you, can't believe that you got so much butthurt over a single mistake.. jeez u gotta grow up man

Welcome to the Internet.

Except for the guys on the sub.

Should the US invest even more into it's military?

Do you call your dad Comrade Dad?

Good points, but if gtfo cant work anymore, it is hard to be sure of a naval strategy in which martyrdom plays a key role

That tactic doesn't work as well for nuclear submarines because their relatively noisy machinery can't easily be shut down and they may find it difficult to hide in the clutter from the seafloor due to their size and the risk of clogging up the vital seawater intakes with particulates. Then again, nukes are also generally much faster so the GTFO part works better for them Also, under ideal conditions it may be possible to make a torpedo attack without the launch being heard and giving away your position, in which case you could send the enemy escorts off on a wild goose chase by programming the torpedoes to come in from a different direction than your submarine, buying time for you to GTFO

OP, read this dude.

@@rocketchicken5421 ?

Always has been. :D

Well to be fair that is really your only option to get past potent air defences if you insist on using missiles

Agreed. I think there are some holes in Russian strategy (seem to still be using the Soviet technique of throwing bodies at the problem) but to treat them as if they would not be a capable adversary is foolish.

Decent is still only 5ft tall man

The difference is nearly 200k american soldiers in Afghanistan would’ve kept the taliban out of power meanwhile nearly 200k Russians can barely make pushes due to terrible logistics among many other problems

Also one more thing to keep in mind only a few thousand Americans died in Afghanistan over the course of YEARS! Russia has more then tripled that number in less then a few months

@@xsad7250 Good points. I must, however disagree a little bit (but only a bit). The quality of the Ukrainian military should not be ignored. I don't think it's too controversial to state that the Ukrainians are infinitely better fighters than the Taliban ever were. In my view the Russians' failure in Ukraine has far more to do with extremely poor intelligence (that is to say they didn't bother to understand that Ukraine in 2022 is not the same Ukraine as in 2014) than with any material defects that the Russian army may be suffering. Also, the Russians went for a high risk high reward strategy: They went straight towards Kyiv, ignoring logistic constraints, poor road quality etc with the hope of deposing the Ukrainian government. Once this strategy failed, the Russians were basically screwed. I don't think Russia has any realistic hope of winning the war now. The best they may manage is capturing Donbas and then suing for peace.

Defending yourself from European and anglosphere imperialism is unacceptable

@@destroyerarmor2846 What about defending from Russian and Chinese Imperialism? :D

They wont and their navy is a joke

I agree, too bad they burned lots of dollars with the worthless littoral combat ship program.

@@abc64pan It didn't turn out completely worthless, but they should have done a tech demonstrator for the whole next generation of ships instead of diving right into production. Currently, they have a design that works and will be produced, but they are a niche ship for the US Navy and are basically a replacement for light frigates. The tech in them, now that it has been ironed out, is actually pretty good and results in less crew, more function, and more flexibility. The branch that really won out on the littoral ships is the US Coast Guard. They needed a new class of ships and these will work nicely for them, especially since they use less crew. BTW, the crew quarters modular units for them are damn spacious for a military vessel. The enlisted have bigger quarters than most officers on other ships.

Great tech and stuff but limited quantities as usual for Russian military stuff lol. They always brag and never can mass produce lol.

@@joserodriguezjr.6422 They already built 4 out of a class of 10, on top of this a successor is already in design. Do you just pull things from your ass and hope for it to be true?

@@arandomcrusader-9355 that's a first....besides nukes, vodkas, and AKs...😆

@@joserodriguezjr.6422 Agree, coz Zumwalt, LCS, Seawolf, such hitech, much produced, wow

Was any new weapon system ever delivered on time outside a war?

Airstrips are useless if you can't fly far enough to reach target and back. Carriers project power by transporting Air superiority anywhere it is needed.

@@vectorvictor6181 For Russia the main concern is Moscow second Saint Petersburg. A carrier would have to operate either close to Crimea or in the Baltic to reliably threaten those. The North is expendable in russian eyes. So a carrier is not as big an issue for them when NATO has plenty of airfields reasonably close to them or which can be converted to military use.

I see your point, BUT, carriers are just very big city ships after all, so they often ARE the transport ships that carry extra soldiers/equipment (like tanks) smaller gear usually gets flown over in those Galaxy planes, they can carry lots of personnel on top of light armored vehicles etc there is reason people mostly use the short name of those ships: "CARRIERS" not aircraft carriers, but just carriers, as they can carry lots of equipment, not only planes

@@Vanyali Galaxy C5 can fly tanks too, but it's up to 2 M1 Abrams, AFAIR.

@@vectorvictor6181 On the other side, carriers can't fly strategic bombers. And airstrips are somewhat easier to protect: there are no underground subs (not that it matters a lot nowadays)

The country to watch is India !! 🇮🇳

What u mean? This is youtube comment section. Everyone is an expert here. I have never seen so many former submarine commanders and admirals before in one place. :D

Kaliber should be relatively easy to shoot down with Aegis and with last ditch Phalanx, unless a very large number are incoming. Zircon would be a different story - if it works as well as advertised.

@@myke5696 a barrage of both

Brave man, to speak confidently of any Russian weapon actually functioning against a first world adversary. They can't get most of their missiles through to hit targets in Ukraine, a nation slaughtering the Russians with mostly tech from the eighties. The bulk of the weapons in use are not, actually, modern NATO weapons, but the same old obsolete soviet stuff. And Russias vaunted modern miotary supertech is falling flat on it's face. Also, Carriers are protected by a far more effective thing. The USA has announced that US carriers are to be regarded as 'American soil', meaning they will treat an attack upon a carrier the same as they would treat an attack on an American town or city. Imagie what will happen to the nation that lands a 'missile barrage' on 1/12 of the American carrier fleet? The phrase 'apocalyptic overkill retaliation' comes to mind. What protects carriers more than anything else is that you can't kill them all, and the ones you don't get are coming for you. Along with a whole lot more, and all of it determined to ensure that since some moron was dumb enough to 'fuck around', they will now 'find out' in ways that people will speak of in hushed tones for generations.

@@charlesparr1611 dream on if you think the URAINIANS ARE KILLING 1000S of Russians it is propaganda Ukraine has lost 110,000 dead there have not been that many Russian troops in Ukraine until last month,Doug mac Gregor knows more than u plus i have mates on the ground both former special forces killing nazis in Ukraine they know more than u

@@jasonbrittain3316 Sure. We all believe you. Run along, I think I heard your mum calling you.

I don't think anything was sunk during the cold war, it wouldn't have been a cold war if there were sinking's

@@Vanyali that is literally my point.

Dont worry!..just one of them armed with tsirkon hipersonic is enough to wipe off an entire US Naval battle group included the air carrier....

They've built 2 so far, are building 5 and plan 3 more before 2030. They planned 10 in all. That's more than enough man...economics doesn't matter when it's national security. They have the money if they want to, they're just going thru a stagnation

Russia can't challenge us, only react and keep them spending because we don't have enough money to build carrier strike groups, but we have enough to destroy them. As a russian citizen.

That sent our Navy into meltdown mode with that exercise Lol

That wasn't out in an oceanic scenario, the Baltic is a shooting gallery with a lot of clutter, in the blue water things are very, very different and a diesel sub is largely a sitter. Also America completely owns LEO above any of it's battle groups, it'll be hard dangerous work getting an accurate shot off on a air group steaming around at 70 kmph, or more.

Yup good point. Hopefully we've learned from that, and one tactic I've thought about is get expendable unmanned drones and have them go active sonar in a threatening environment. I think active sonar would allow trianguation onto diesel subs.

The infantry men and tanker have a similar fate with loitering ammunition flying around waiting to suicide bomb you.

Tbh I can't wait for androids to take over

Not actually

Well that already exists and isn't a drone... The US Navy had the CAPTOR mine, basically a single shot torpedo launcher that can be deployed, and then fire at a noise source passing by, weather that be a ship or submarine. Of course, all of these fall under mine agreements, and so I would guess would be the same for any modern drone developments.

sunk by carriers?

Carriers are seating ducks but they are no where near useless thats why you allways see a task force accomponying the carrier

i think the US rented it from norway or whoever uses them to learn how to get better at avoiding them

That's a good point. Maybe the US will adapt by having more expendable drone platforms that can use active sonar at times of threat. Probably active sonar would find those deisel subs.

You understand that those exercises don't actually show that Sweden holds the carrier's life in their hands right? Those simulations and exercises have very specific setups designed to examine specific characteristics. The AIP subs are impressive, but they also had to nerf the carrier group and load artificial advantages on to the subs to get the scenarios they needed to test specific things. Yes, they are VERY quiet. They also have top speeds of 5-10 knots at most while being quiet. The boats did not have to penetrate a moving carrier group. Good thing, as that would be completely impossible. That carrier can do 45-50 knots when it wants to. An AIP sub cannot just steam up to a carrier and blow it out of the water, and that infamous event doesn't begin to claim it can. The only thing it showed was that AIP subs could be quieter than some people thought, and it was worth looking at. Otherwise, it has as much to do with actual naval capabilities and tactics as the famous gun-range dogfights between f22 and f35 and the f16 had to do with setting up tactics for modern air combat. Ie zero. Yes the f16 is a great dogfighter, and yes it made mincemeat out of the new expensive stealth fighters. This is not all that shocking, since they were designed to fight the battles they will actually see, and have already been seeing for a decade or more, and simply will not engage in a gunfight under any circumstances. Pilots kill each other from much further distances nowadays, and while the f16 still has utility, in the presence of modern BVR stealth platforms it is no longer a predator, but at best a missile truck. It's going to enjoy it's twilight years in a support role, hauling ordnace and firing it so the Lightnings (damnit, my sleek p38 gave it's name to the ugliest fighter I know of? Travesty!) can assume control of them in BVR combat. Carrying extra fuel for the new hotness, being sent on errands... it's the lot of the obsolete. I'm sure that, if they've been good, they will be allowed to go for a run and shoot down some second world legacy bogs once in a while, and yarn about the old days...

My dog can defend against a 'multiple missile attack'. So pretty easy really. He's a good boy. He bites people who edit and do not stand for their word like men too.

getting those planes and helicopters in deck damaged is good benefit for attacker

"I thought I knew something about military, but I'm gonna resign now" - that one chief analyst from the Pentagon reading this comment section

Nope, Indian Navy which operates Russian Made Submarine killed an US Aircraft Carrier in Naval Excercise in 2019....... Not literally killed, it was shell torpedo (without warhead)

Yes, russia knows there are too many destroyers squadrons searching the norweigan sea along with nuclear attacks subs, they keep their subs in the barents/ artic seas

Hard to claim the Russian naval doctrine as defensive when any conflict would have been instigated by them. I don't think it qualifies as a defensive strategy when it's predicated on aggressive actions.

What the popcorn is for, you get extra content in the comments!

Really? Because so far I've only seen the Russian Patriots and Anti-Americans. You must be reading a different comment section

@@chaosXP3RT I personally enjoy the ones that think Russia has God weapons. Same with China. These missiles make carriers obsolete! Proceeds to start building their own carrier capabilities.

@@chaosXP3RT LOL! Look harder boy. There's a legion of "USA Strong" fanboys in here.

@@icecold9511 Exactly. I dont get the nonsense either. IF they are dead then why "copy" and build them? It's not like the USA if we lose a carrier is just gonna throw its hands in the air and say "You got us." and give up. We have plenty of alternative options and the money to wield them. If USA loses a carrier then Russia and China can rest assured they will lose a lot more tonnage for its lose.

That the biggest problem in American military when their solders have a difficult in choosing the right bathroom to use or trying to figure out if they are a male or female.

Not really....For one,their role against a Super Power like USSR were of no real importance since 70s and Regan found out that when his military advisors told him of how little use they were in such conflict.But that was all out conflict.In side conflicts and proxy wars it was and is of great importance.Smaller military powers of medium ones that are lacking in modern military systems needed to counter them are still prey for it.

These are subs that have already reached obsolescence. Their detection is plain simple with the new tech.

@@szt1980 Yasen class reaching obsolescence? Ahaha,nice joke. Considering US and NATO Has hard time tracing even Varshavyanka subs.

So did the Soviet Union

Afghanistan is known as "the graveyard of empires" for a reason.

Hard to fight an enemy that looks exactly like the people you're there to help

@@Kurena storm 333

@@Kurena But wasn't the soviet union poor? The USA is super filthy rich with $800 billion annual defence budget. Still got its cheeks clapped.

Wait really? I thought it could carry 7, one in the middle and 6 around it in each VLS cell.

Wait Virginia BLK 3?

How would Russia launch any of it's long-range bombers with at least 5 Carriers, 60 planes on each within 500km of it's borders? It almost feels like the next war has begun. I just hope the Russian trolls on here think for themselves. Russia 🇷🇺 is not a superpower and constantly overestimate its abilities. While nato countries keep their secret. Biggest question is why are Russians so much poorer than pretty much any developed country? there is a reason they have the most alcoholics in the world.

@Alien Reject So why are Russians so much poorer? Is Russia a super power? Your thoughts?

The US military needs to start winning wars against illiterate peasants and stop letting them win. Oh, and the real enemies are domestic, that's why America is politically and ideologically divided.

@@abc64pan Okay, Schizo.

May wanna look up the Gotland.

1 or 2 subs, and its not sufficient mostly, the best asw defence ships have are asw heli and TAS etc. 1 or 2 Subs cant cover the fleet and the cover isnt necessarily sufficient for a sub waiting to hit an ac

@@hiteshadhikari Exept if a sub is quiet enough that doesn't matter now does it

@@rzu1474 tbh back when gotland hit the carrier in excercise it was time when american ASW was at its piss poor state, they had for years not invested in asw as soviet threat was no more. It taught america a lesson back then and they invested heavily on asw with p8 and what not but yeah, subs alone arent a big game changer

Against sub attacks on ac that is

Yes it may have been cool but as a submarine it was big slow and loud! Easy to find even easier to kill!

Even commercial ship lidars can "see" ~3km deep. Same submersible device mounted on a helo won't leave any chance for a sub. And it looks like aerial lidars now have enough power to "see" deep enough.

It just needs to get within 600km of the CSG to launch hypersonic Zircons which will overwhelm the battlegroups defenses. Also, ships moving at speed destroy any effectiveness of passive sonar. Present day nuclear subs could easily sneak up on a CSG and keep up with it.

@@Mercer1012 There are ways of detecting subs, which I'm not inclined to describe. I realize that's a cheap answer which isn't debate friendly, and I apologize for that. Certain russian subs are ideal for evading what i'm talking about (suggesting that Russia knows what I'm talking about), but this model isn't one of them.

@@kathrynck I am aware of the common and theoretical ways there are to detect submarines, perhaps an updated Russian wake tracking SOKS, and other more exotic ones that are probably *only* theoretical such as tracking heat signatures/radioactive differences/satellite wake tracking. The primary methods of tracking submarines aren't secret those being: active/passive sonar, MAD, etc. , just the specifics and capabilities of the systems are secret. I also significantly doubt the US has any wunderwaffen hiding in ASW, since it's been heavily neglected since the end of the Cold War. The days of 1950's-era super cool secret wunderwaffen has long since passed. I'd say pretty much all weapon systems under development are known at least to the level of what they are. I.e. NGAD, B-21, Chinese Nuclear Carriers, Russian S-550 and S-600 SAM's and so on. We know they are in development and what they are and that's about it. I have a good friend who serves on an Arleigh-Burke as a sonar operator. Without revealing characteristics, he stated that it's mostly impossible to detect newer Russian submarines for any stretch of time. He said if the DDG is moving slowly and he gets a fix, they might be able to dispatch a helicopter with dipping sonar and keep tabs on it, but usually not for more than a half an hour.

@@Mercer1012 Well, not so much wunderwaffen. And not so much super-secret, but just because some know, doesn't mean everyone does. Loose lips... Anyway, you can't field significant numbers of secret defense platforms, and have them be 'secret'. It just gets logistically impossible. And things get rather public as soon as a project is mature enough to drag in front of the SAC in congress for production funding. But there are still plenty of "off the books" capabilities for known platforms. You covered everything very thoroughly. And I don't disagree with anything in your post. Honestly I'm a little out of my depth (pun intended) on naval matters. My background is more in aerospace. Still... Anyway, Russia makes some really cool subs. And this is a cool sub.

@@kathrynck Oh of course, I would never argue we know all of the specifics of black projects. Not even close, but in general we are aware of the existence of most of them or possible existence. All I'm saying is it's quite easy to sneak up on a CSG, especially while it's in motion. But more to the point, they don't have to sneak up at close range and tail the carriers, they just have to get within 600km without being detected, which is child's play at this point. Modern Russian subs are just as stealthy as ours, and I'm very pessimistic about the "America fuck yeah" factor and how "amazing" our tech is and how "horrible" Russian and Chinese tech is. Pride goeth before the fall. Russia has us licked in hypersonics, for example. Dark Eagle is a meme and ARRW can't even detach from the wing. Meanwhile just today the Russian federation officially accepted the Zircon into service, and it's entered serial production. Ours barely exist outside of the drawing board, and we have no air-breathing hypersonic weapons like the Zircon anywhere near operational. And yes, the Russians make good looking subs.

The Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier; the USS America took 4 weeks of pounding by air-to-surface missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and torpedoes. There were no onboard crew to conduct damage control. They were unable to sink it, but they used the information and incorporated it into the design of the new Ford-class supercarriers to increase it's survivability.

@fuckyoutubepolicy staff I guess time will tell

Your source is the United State's Navy? A thought never came to your head that they could be lying? America is the strongest country in the world! Always ahead of the enemy! HOOOORAH! Now which bathroom do I use and how many microagressions have I committed on the oppressed today...

@@useritiswhatitis4655 Who hurt you my dude?

@@229masterchief I was born the wrong shade and now I'm paying for my ancestorial crimes. Being an American with German ancestry... You know how many reparations I owe and to how many?...

@@useritiswhatitis4655 To top it all you can't eat spicy food lmao

@@229masterchief So true, that's why European countries colonized lands for more spice, they were just throwing it out because they can't handle it really makes me think why they even had wars over spice anyways since they can't eat it. Big think.

Touché, well played.

😆

Don't know about that. I do hear US subs play a mean game of chicken.

She had a good head, sorry to hear John. I hope you will both reunite one day

If this puppet has this info then Im sure the governments have better info.

Yep, Indian Navy which operates Russian Made Submarine killed an US Aircraft Carrier in Malabar Naval Excercise in 2019....... Not literally killed, it was shell torpedo (without warhead)

No, not really. Submarines have diminished as a threat steadily, due mainly to their inability to steam fast enough quietly enough to engage. There was a period in which the subs were a huge threat to warships, who were mostly pretty helpless, but those days have been gone for a long time. The oceans are a lot less murky than they were, essentially, it's harder for them to hide, and to belabour the point, subs are freaking slow as hell unless they are willing to be so loud as to be utterly unable to stay hidden. Coupled with really effective ASW techniques, and modern doctrine that tends to favour task groups designed to include effective threat management that creates multiple methods and layers of detection and a buffet of engagement methods? yeah, they aren't toothless, but the old saying about only two kinds of ships? Subs and targets? No longer operative. Now it's just one kind. Targets. They remain excellent platforms for nuclear deterrence, cruise missile and short to medium range ballistic missile attack, commerce destruction, and a ton of stealth, surveillance, espionage, and special operations battle taxi service. Subs are enormously valuable vessels, but they used to be the killer wolf packs of the sea, and well, not so much anymore. Their most crucial role, in my opinion, is as both sides of the most high stakes game of hide and seek that ever was: The shadowing of SSBN long range missile boats, and obviously of BEING SSBN long range missile boats. Because the boomers can get out to sea, and then if (big if there) they shake their inevitable attack sub tail, they can simply hide somewhere and stay quiet, they provide the most secure retaliation threat that is so essential to keep MAD working and keep all of us alive. The Boomer is what makes nuclear first strike impossible to 'win', while also being the best potential asset to launch a short range 'sneak attack' nuclear strike, as well. The attack subs are in turn their most effective potential counter, because if a sub doesn't have to go fast and make noise, it can be very very very good at simply vanishing, where it waits for a message that hopefully never comes. Because both boomers and attack boats exist in the same environment, under the same speed and noise conditions, they have evolved steadily to become more and more perfect matches for each other.

Read it too. Every military should read it. Try, The Downing of flight 007. CIA top level plan. Sick humor on flight designation: 007. Killed a congressman so things went bad in a lot of ways.

Always cracks me up the Stolen Valor losers who actually believe there is an 'American Army'. There is no such thing. No need to think. We know that is a crime under US Federal Law and a violation of the US Constitution.

@@MrFlatage gimme couple of links to read about it

@@thatdude3938 Haha nah you can namecall like a complete childish little boy who cannot end sentences? No one with a 3 digit IQ needs any link to the US Constitution, lmao!

@UCLcojN1WbYEqIVyGgGxb4Rw o.k. Einstein, whatever you say. Call it whatever you want, U.S. Army, American Army or Continental Army. It doesn’t make one bit of difference, the comment still stands and no I don’t believe for a second that you’re in any position to judge others on their military service, so piss off.

@@Dweller415 Hehe the comment went poof and does not stand. And while a real man takes the oath stands for his words? You edit them. So we cannot trust your words. Your own actions judge and condemn you. In my lands of the free where the great red, white and blue flag flies? We stand for our word like men. What s-hole nation are you from? I know China edits their propaganda. Russia does. North Korea, Iran ... Remember under US Federal Law you can call it one thing only. And what you call it? Is stated in the U.S Constitution. Since you do not uphold it? We know you are a total fake. I will stand with my oath to my flag and defend from foreign and domestic attacks from enemies.