$6,000,000,000 Nuclear Navy Aircraft Carrier ‘Sunk’ by $100,000,000 Diesel Submarine

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points: In a shocking display of asymmetric warfare, Sweden’s HSwMS Gotland submarine “sank” the USS Ronald Reagan in repeated simulated war games, exposing vulnerabilities in U.S. aircraft carrier defenses.

-The $100 million diesel-electric sub, powered by advanced air-independent propulsion, evaded the U.S. Navy’s anti-submarine defenses to deliver simulated torpedo strikes.

-This raised alarms about how a low-cost platform could defeat a $6 billion aircraft carrier.

-With China’s growing submarine and shore-based missile capabilities, the incident underscores the urgency of enhanced anti-submarine warfare tactics and training.

-Losing a carrier in conflict could have catastrophic strategic and public relations consequences for the U.S.

Sweden’s Submarine Sinks USS Reagan in War Games: A $6 Billion Lesson

You have likely heard of asymmetric warfare when the weak take on the strong – and win. This time, a relatively affordable submarine “sank” a hugely expensive aircraft carrier – winning a series of complex war games with ease. The actions were difficult to believe, and the U.S. Navy must have had a collective nightmare when the $100 million Swedish sub won simulated battles against the $6 billion-plus USS Ronald Reagan, one of the most vaunted flat-tops in the fleet. Sure, it was just a “virtual” sinking, but the simulated catastrophe showed that American carriers are not as invincible as once thought.

The Gotland Submarine Had the Right Stuff

In 2005, Sweden’s HSwMS Gotland was just another diesel-electric boat trying to make a name for itself. The crew was expert, but they operated a quiet, somewhat low-tech sub that was not known for being that advanced. 

But during a war game that year, the Americans didn’t understand that the Gotland was very stealthy and could move under the sea undetected. It was always ready to fire deadly simulated torpedoes in battle drills. 

This time, Gotland was going to show that it had the right stuff.

Ask the Swedes If They Want to Participate In a Simulated Battle

The U.S. Navy at the time had an idea. Why not lease the Gotland from Sweden and use it for a series of wargames to see if a small, maneuverable diesel-electric boat could perform well against a U.S. carrier strike group? The war games happened off the coast of California. The Americans were confident their layered anti-submarine defenses would spot the Swedish boat and eliminate it from the drills.

Down Goes the Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagan in a Simulation 

But the Swedes had other ideas. The Gotland was speedy and silent as it evaded destroyers, anti-submarine helicopters, and airplanes. This shouldn’t have happened, as the U.S. Navy had what it thought were the most advanced 21st-century tools to sniff out enemy submarines and destroy them with ease. The Swedes were unimpressed and managed to “hit” and “sink” the Reagan with torpedoes. Then, they repeated the feat over and over, during exercises over two years. The Gotland thus showed it was no fluke.

This worried U.S. Navy brass. The Gotland had a great crew, and if the Russians and Chinese could replicate hits on American aircraft carriers, this would be a huge problem for future conflict. The Americans, at first, were not sure exactly how a bargain-basement sub could avoid the best undersea defenses in the world and reign victorious.

Quieter Than Advertised

One problem was that the U.S. Navy was overconfident. They thought the Gotland had unimpressive technology, but the Swedes had an ace to play. The Swedish sub’s propulsion system was first-class. Known as the Diesel-Electric and Air-independent propulsion, it was the epitome of stealth.

According to Popular Mechanics, “these exceedingly quiet engines are used to charge batteries which in turn can directly run the engines. The result is a sub that’s quieter than any other diesel, and even quieter than its nuclear cousins which require a constant churn of coolant that can give away their position.”

The Gotland was thus better than your run-of-the-mill diesel-electric sub. The competition still flummoxed the American sailors. Did this mean that the Americans could lose a carrier in battle? Now, the Navy brass had more to worry about. China has an extreme amount of shore-based anti-ship missiles, and those were a threat to aircraft carriers too. The Chinese could execute an attack from two aspects of naval warfare – torpedoes and missiles – to deadly effect.

China Can Conduct Naval Asymmetric Warfare

Plus, it was thought that the Reagan had excellent speed at over 30 knots, enabling it to survive against the best enemy battle plans. The Gotland showed that the Americans were going to have problems someday and could become the victim of asymmetric warfare in which a $6 billion aircraft carrier would die from a fatal torpedo from a $100 million small, diesel-electric sub.

While the U.S. Navy adjusted its undersea warfare tactics, techniques, and procedures to ensure a sub like the Gotland would not score hits again, the war games showed dangerous vulnerabilities. The Navy should realize that it could someday lose a carrier in a shooting war with China. 

If the worst happened, this would be disastrous and could weaken the Americans’ position at the negotiating table for a cease-fire. Most ordinary citizens in the United States would be appalled, and it would be a huge public relations win and morale boost for Beijing. How could the Department of Defense spend so much on a carrier only to see a much cheaper sub win in a naval battle?

This means that American personnel who operate anti-submarine airplanes and helicopters must always be at the top of their games. No matter how quiet the adversarial sub is, the Americans must conduct their jobs to the utmost of their ability and kill the enemy subs before pulling off dangerous strikes. 

New sailors who join the fleet must be trained to know that if they fail at their jobs, they could die on a warship attacked by Chinese missiles, airplanes, ships, and submarines. Battle drills must be realistic, and even simulated hits are unacceptable, or else the U.S. Navy could fail in a real sea battle and lose a carrier – a disaster that few can imagine.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: A Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.