>said China’s technology will be advanced enough that “any Australian submarine that attempts to do something in these waters, such as launch a tomahawk missile, will reveal its position and shortly thereafter be destroyed”.
IMPRESSIVE
It's actually a line that some homosexuals at the university of sydney are shilling: https://youtu.be/1HP6e0aGu6Q
He shills it all the time, basically that quantum gravity sensors and drones make submarines obsolete. He did it recently again, in the context of NPT: https://youtu.be/pF9jycOVYOo
The University of Sydney is absolutely compromised beyond belief. I've not read the article the chang had posted but I bet it comes out of this Sydney Uni think-tank.
>Obsolete
Lol, subs currently mog every surface combatant from carriers to destroyers, which will be proven to be as useless as battleships the moment a shooting war starts.
Not in air defense, missile defense, or VBSS operations. There are other aspects, but submarines cannot effectively use their stealth and destructive power to protect free trade on national waters, or operate as defensive nodes as they are now.
One side can drop detection equipment like sonar pods and torpedoes in the water without ever being able to be hit back by the underwater combatant. The other can only seethe with the fury of a thousand sneeds as it is shitting its pants.
Sending subs anywhere near properly equipped, organized and trained surface combatant fleets is suicide. What they excel at is the underwater silo and hunter-killer for tracking other underwater silos to kill them before they can launch.
Can they still hide and be the threat of planetwide thermonuclear winter? Then they're not obsolete. And I'm not telling a boat full of hysterical women with penises that emergency dive each other in the ass that also have nukes that they can frick off and come home. Leave the sea trannies under the sea.
I remember nasa saying that multispectral satellites will make the ocean transperant down to infinte depth. And the russians tracking subs by their wake using sats. But none of that panned out and people are still ordering subs.
>Are (Manned) submarines becoming obsolete?
No. What idiot would ever think that?
90% of what submarines do is serious spy stuff. They don't just swim out and hide for a few months, they go out and tap undersea cables, transport Special Forces troops for insertion into hostile territory, and so on. Go read "Blind Man's Bluff" and then come back and tell us what a dumb question you posted.
No active comms needed for control of sub makes it unfeasible for underwater ops as 1) it'd either need to be shallow running and near surface to catch any signal and 2) having a sub that can't go deeper underwater defeats the purpose. Additionally loitering munitions have been around since the days of seeking torpedoes
Ian Betteridge would like a word with you. > Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist who wrote about it in 2009, although the principle is much older. It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not.
>some experts
Who are these experts?
the article
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/05/will-all-submarines-even-nuclear-ones-be-obsolete-and-visible-by-2040
Your experts are hysterical girls who aren't mentally fit to be in society. At least find adults who pretend to be experts.
>The guardian
Yes a very reputable defence source
>said China’s technology will be advanced enough that “any Australian submarine that attempts to do something in these waters, such as launch a tomahawk missile, will reveal its position and shortly thereafter be destroyed”.
IMPRESSIVE
It's actually a line that some homosexuals at the university of sydney are shilling: https://youtu.be/1HP6e0aGu6Q
He shills it all the time, basically that quantum gravity sensors and drones make submarines obsolete. He did it recently again, in the context of NPT: https://youtu.be/pF9jycOVYOo
The University of Sydney is absolutely compromised beyond belief. I've not read the article the chang had posted but I bet it comes out of this Sydney Uni think-tank.
Me
Probably a chink, seething that they can't make a sub quieter than a drill
>Obsolete
Lol, subs currently mog every surface combatant from carriers to destroyers, which will be proven to be as useless as battleships the moment a shooting war starts.
Not in air defense, missile defense, or VBSS operations. There are other aspects, but submarines cannot effectively use their stealth and destructive power to protect free trade on national waters, or operate as defensive nodes as they are now.
>battleships
Which country is using battleships?
One side can drop detection equipment like sonar pods and torpedoes in the water without ever being able to be hit back by the underwater combatant. The other can only seethe with the fury of a thousand sneeds as it is shitting its pants.
Sending subs anywhere near properly equipped, organized and trained surface combatant fleets is suicide. What they excel at is the underwater silo and hunter-killer for tracking other underwater silos to kill them before they can launch.
obviously not
>How good are military submarine drones nowadays?
bretty good
Is that a fricking troony christening that thing?
unfortunately not. just a large woman with jacked arms. forgot who it was.
Dorothy Engelhardt
nah, that's a woman, no transmission in sight.
that a troony?
Can they still hide and be the threat of planetwide thermonuclear winter? Then they're not obsolete. And I'm not telling a boat full of hysterical women with penises that emergency dive each other in the ass that also have nukes that they can frick off and come home. Leave the sea trannies under the sea.
if regular ships being visible doesn't make them obsolete, why would it make subs obsolete?
>guardian article
into the trash it goes
I remember nasa saying that multispectral satellites will make the ocean transperant down to infinte depth. And the russians tracking subs by their wake using sats. But none of that panned out and people are still ordering subs.
New tech means anything with a reactor can be reliably tracked.
>Are (Manned) submarines becoming obsolete?
No. What idiot would ever think that?
90% of what submarines do is serious spy stuff. They don't just swim out and hide for a few months, they go out and tap undersea cables, transport Special Forces troops for insertion into hostile territory, and so on. Go read "Blind Man's Bluff" and then come back and tell us what a dumb question you posted.
>AUKUS will be what the F-35, F-111 and Collins Class Submarines were to the media
kek
No souce, chink tall point. I didn't think so chang.
No active comms needed for control of sub makes it unfeasible for underwater ops as 1) it'd either need to be shallow running and near surface to catch any signal and 2) having a sub that can't go deeper underwater defeats the purpose. Additionally loitering munitions have been around since the days of seeking torpedoes
Ian Betteridge would like a word with you.
> Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist who wrote about it in 2009, although the principle is much older. It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not.
Also know as click bait