Russian subs sailing off U.S. coastal waters

[Isgrimnur]

NY Times

A pair of nuclear-powered Russian attack submarines has been patrolling off the eastern seaboard of the United States over recent days, a rare mission that has raised concerns inside the Pentagon and intelligence agencies about a more assertive stance by the Russian military.

The episode has echoes of the cold war era, when the United States and the Soviet Union regularly parked submarines off each other’s coasts to steal military secrets, track the movements of their underwater fleets — and be poised for war.

But the collapse of the Soviet Union all but eliminated the ability of the Russian Navy to operate far from home ports, making the current submarine patrols thousands of miles from Russia even more surprising for military officials and defense policy experts.

“I don’t think they’ve put two first-line nuclear subs off the U.S. coast in about 15 years,” said Norman Polmar, a naval historian and expert on submarine warfare.

The submarines are of the Akula class, a counterpart to the Los Angeles class attack subs of the United States Navy, and not one of the larger submarines that can launch intercontinental nuclear missiles.

According to Defense Department officials, one of the Russian submarines remained in international waters on Tuesday about 200 miles off the coast of the United States. The second submarine traveled south in recent days to make a port call in Cuba, according to a senior Defense Department official.
...
One of the submarines is the newer Akula II, officials said, which is quieter than the older variant and the most advanced submarine in the Russian fleet. The Akula is capable of carrying torpedoes for attacking other submarines and surface vessels as well as missiles for striking targets on land and at sea.
...
The official said the Navy was able to track the submarines as they made their way through international waters off the American coastline. This can be done from aircraft, ships, underwater sensors or other submarines.

[Trappin]

Two years ago the Russians resumed overflights of Norwegian airspace using the cold war era Tupolev-95s.

"This is a message that Russia is back as a superpower," Norwegian Deputy Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide said. Norway did not see the increased activity as a threat, "but a signal that Russia wants to be taken seriously by the West," the defense minister told The Associated Press.

Back to the subs - Its hard to say why unnamed Pentagon officials leaked this information. It doesn't help nor harm Obama and I doubt the Russians were trying to keep the subs from being detected.

[The Preacher]

Coincidentally, I'm now re-reading Red Storm Rising. Frankly, the RSR scenario doesn't sound all the more implausible today than it did then.

Now you'll excuse me so I can download 688(i)...

[Arcanis]

I think there needs to be an answer to this from the White House. While it is the Russians just posturing ATM, it has the potential to become more. We could ask them politely to leave, claiming it makes some older citizens have flash back to the cold war or some such BS. Or ask how long they plan on hanging around and invite them to participate in a war game of some kind if we can get it ready in time.

I think option 2 is the better one. We aren't being sissies or pricks about it and we can keep an eye on the subs with a whole lot of ships in the area to discourage them from doing anything we might not like. Plus it plays well into Obama's image of being a cool guy who just wants everyone to get along. Maybe invite the sub crews to hop on a carrier and play some basketball, probably end up as street rules anyway .

[Vorret]

Coincidentally, I'm now re-reading Red Storm Rising. Frankly, the RSR scenario doesn't sound all the more implausible today than it did then.

Now you'll excuse me so I can download 688(i)...

That book is awesome.
Epic, epic...

Prolly the only book I read where I did some fist pump.

[Rip]

No comment.

[gameoverman]

Not a big deal to me. In fact, as a friendly gesture, I'd basically allow them to do it, let them know that through back channels.

This way they get to act all badass again, as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Some day we might be able to use a Russia with some street cred in the world(such as a hedge against China).

[AWS260]

Spotted off the coast of Rhode Island:



(Now I've used that photo twice in one day. Putin -- the gift that keeps on giving.)

[Enough]

Well played AWS.

[Alefroth]

No comment.

Not true.

Ale

[Biyobi]

I really doubt the U.S. ever stopped monitoring the shores of Russia with our subs. As far as I know, barring a few new developments in sub tech from China, Russia is still our best ASW opponent. They probably got cranky and decided to drag their coattails up and down our coast in retaliation.

[Isgrimnur]

Yeah, note where the article says that we know one of the subs is the newer, "quieter" model. If the location of your new, quieter, super-secret, world-ending submarine is being bandied about in the New York Times, it may be time to go back to the drawing board. You can be damned sure that if Pravda were printing out daily maps of our sub fleet locations, the U.S. Navy would be buried under a pile of money to fix that shit so fast, it would make your head spin.

[Montag]

Talking heads on NPR stated this was a play more for the Russian audience than anyone else. It is a way for the Russian navy to say they are relevant and try to get a bigger budget.

[YellowKing]

I really doubt the U.S. ever stopped monitoring the shores of Russia with our subs.

We didn't. I've got a submariner buddy who did some monitoring off the coast of Russia as recently as 3-4 years ago.

[Vorret]

Are they well paid?
You'd have to pay me alot of money to be stuck in a metal tube down the ocean.

[Arcanis]

Are they well paid?
You'd have to pay me alot of money to be stuck in a metal tube down the ocean.

Probably not. Ask Rip when he gets back, he used to sit in a metal tube at a few hundred feet as a carrier.

[Scuzz]

I have never understood why people in the US go all angsty over something like this when we have had missles practically across the border from them for 40 years...........

[Arcanis]

I have never understood why people in the US go all angsty over something like this when we have had missles practically across the border from them for 40 years...........

that is easy. I don't care if we can make their whole country look like Tunguska, i still don't want there to be a chance I get a bomb dropped on me. Americans are selfish people we don't care about others as long as we are ok, its sad but true.

[Isgrimnur]

I'd agree with Arcanite, but I don't care what he thinks.

In the unlikely event of nuclear war, I was always one of the first casualties anyway. As a kid, we were stationed at Langley AFB, Bitburg Air Base, Nellis AFB, and Reese AFB. As an adult, I live in Dallas, down wind from NAS JRB Fort Worth and Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant. I even spent a year in college in the same city as Davis-Monthan AFB. My odds of survival in that event have pretty much always been zero.

[Little Raven]

Americans are selfish people we don't care about others as long as we are ok, its sad but true.

But we wouldn't be ok in the event of nuclear war, regardless of where Soviet subs are. There's no stopping the ICBMs.

This is all just silly posturing on all sides.

[Vorret]

Americans are selfish people we don't care about others as long as we are ok, its sad but true.

But we wouldn't be ok in the event of nuclear war, regardless of where Soviet subs are. There's no stopping the ICBMs.

This is all just silly posturing on all sides.

yeah... we'd all be fucked no matter where you live.

[noxiousdog]

I have never understood why people in the US go all angsty over something like this when we have had missles practically across the border from them for 40 years...........

Actively deployed submarines have a increased operational cost. Missiles do not. If Russia is now choosing to increase their operational costs, it's worth asking why.

[Smoove_B]

I have never understood why people in the US go all angsty over something like this when we have had missles practically across the border from them for 40 years...........

Well, the person watching Russia on your side of the country just resigned -- that's a major hole in our security, eh?

/You bet'cha.

[Arcanis]

Americans are selfish people we don't care about others as long as we are ok, its sad but true.

But we wouldn't be ok in the event of nuclear war, regardless of where Soviet subs are. There's no stopping the ICBMs.

This is all just silly posturing on all sides.

Unfortunately you give most Americans too much credit. While in general people on OO are pretty smart and well informed, the rest of the country doesn't know jack unless Oprah/Dr. Phil/ect... tells them. They don't think about the fact that there are ICBMs or that those subs could just be there because Vladamir wanted to go fishing. That requires and engaged mind which has been sadly lacking in this country.

[gameoverman]

I have never understood why people in the US go all angsty over something like this when we have had missles practically across the border from them for 40 years...........

Actively deployed submarines have a increased operational cost. Missiles do not. If Russia is now choosing to increase their operational costs, it's worth asking why.

You are making a big assumption that they(Russians) wanted to stop doing this and are now starting again.

That may be what is being reported, and even what our leaders are telling us, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

It could very well be a situation where Russia was spending X dollars in operational costs, money got tight and they cut back, and now they have the money again so it's back to business as usual.

In other words, maybe they aren't choosing to increase costs, maybe they were forced into decreasing costs previously.

[noxiousdog]

You are making a big assumption that they(Russians) wanted to stop doing this and are now starting again.

That may be what is being reported, and even what our leaders are telling us, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

It could very well be a situation where Russia was spending X dollars in operational costs, money got tight and they cut back, and now they have the money again so it's back to business as usual.

In other words, maybe they aren't choosing to increase costs, maybe they were forced into decreasing costs previously.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm just offering commentary on why a change in operations is noteworthy regardless of how many current missiles are already pointed at us.

In addition you're offering an economic fallacy. Marginal increases (or decreases) are independent of any previous decision making.

[Scuzz]

As I understand it this info was leaked out so maybe it is nothing new. Or maybe someone in the military thinks we need to be spending more money on some program that would counter/involve this info....

[pengo]

They are in international waters so they can do whatever the hell they want to, if its good for the goose its good for the gander or how ever the saying goes..

[Apollo]

It was a pretty clever move by the Obama administration to leak this information out. Letting the general public know that we are closely monitoring their submarines has to be considered an embarassing slap in the face for the Russians. After all, the location of your submarines (even non-ICBM carrying attack submarines) is one of the most closely guarded secrets a nation can have...

[Exodor]

that is easy. I don't care if we can make their whole country look like Tunguska, i still don't want there to be a chance I get a bomb dropped on me. Americans are selfish people we don't care about others as long as we are ok, its sad but true.

These are attack subs. They don't carry any nukes. Their job is to listen to shit and to blow up other submarines.

[The Preacher]

that is easy. I don't care if we can make their whole country look like Tunguska, i still don't want there to be a chance I get a bomb dropped on me. Americans are selfish people we don't care about others as long as we are ok, its sad but true.

These are attack subs. They don't carry any nukes. Their job is to listen to shit and to blow up other submarines.

They don't carry ICBM's. They can and likely do carry nuclear warheads for their cruise missiles.

Recall the cruise missile missions our sub force conducted on Iraq. Now picture them with nuclear warheads. Not saying that's what Putin has in mind but those subs are well enough equipped to drop nukes on coastal cities.

[jimbo]

When I was on a Trident out of King's Bay several years ago there were several times we were delayed either going out to sea or coming back to port because there was an Akula sitting off shore at the mouth of the St. Mary's River. They would come out every couple of years to try to find Tridents and have a port call in Havana. I heard that they stopped because they had no money left. Maybe they are starting again. I am quite certain though that we have submarines off their coast right now.

[cheeba]

They're trying to defect!

God I can't believe none of you mentioned that.

[$iljanus]

They're trying to defect!

God I can't believe none of you mentioned that.

Captain Ramius: We will pass through the American patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest city, and listen to their rock and roll... while we conduct missile drills.

[Rip]

When I was on a Trident out of King's Bay several years ago there were several times we were delayed either going out to sea or coming back to port because there was an Akula sitting off shore at the mouth of the St. Mary's River. They would come out every couple of years to try to find Tridents and have a port call in Havana. I heard that they stopped because they had no money left. Maybe they are starting again. I am quite certain though that we have submarines off their coast right now.

\

Egads! A boomer puke! Blue or Gold?

[Rip]

Sounds like there is going to be a lot less of that happening.

In March 2017, Russia’s new Yasen-class nuclear attack submarine Kazan launched at the northern port city of Severodvinsk. Perhaps the quietest Russian submarine ever, the event was further evidence the Kremlin can still build capable and lethal subs capable of a variety of missions, including cruise-missile attack.

But it won’t be enough. The Russian navy — already badly depleted since the collapse of the Soviet Union — can’t quickly replace most of its existing nuclear submarine fleet, which is approaching the end of its collective lifespan. The outcome will likely mean a shrinking of the Russian nuclear submarine force in the years ahead.

By 2030, the bulk of Russia’s nuclear-powered attack and cruise-missile submarines will be in their mid-thirties at least — with some pushing into their forties. For perspective, the three oldest active American attack submarines, the Los Angeles-class USS Dallas, Bremerton and Jacksonville, are all 36 years old and waiting to be decommissioned during the next three years.

Jacksonville was my first boat. I was on the commissioning crew.

https://warisboring.com/a-grim-future-f ... ine-fleet/

[Daehawk]

USS Dallas

I remember that from Red October

[Rip]

Instead of starting another thread I figured I would just drop this here.

In 1970, Halibut was again modified to accommodate the Navy’s deep water saturation divers. The following year, it went to sea again to participate in Ivy Bells, a secret operation to install taps on the underwater communications cables connecting the Soviet ballistic missile submarine base at Petropavlovsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula with Moscow’s Pacific Fleet headquarters at Vladivostok.

The taps, installed by divers and their ROVs, allowed Washington to listen in on message traffic to Soviet nuclear forces. Conducted at the bottom of the frigid Sea of Okhotsk, the Ivy Bells missions were conducted at the highest level of secrecy, as the Soviets would have quickly abandoned the use of underwater cables had they known they were compromised.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... sias-21894

[Max Peck]

Instead of starting another thread I figured I would just drop this here.

In 1970, Halibut was again modified to accommodate the Navy’s deep water saturation divers. The following year, it went to sea again to participate in Ivy Bells, a secret operation to install taps on the underwater communications cables connecting the Soviet ballistic missile submarine base at Petropavlovsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula with Moscow’s Pacific Fleet headquarters at Vladivostok.

The taps, installed by divers and their ROVs, allowed Washington to listen in on message traffic to Soviet nuclear forces. Conducted at the bottom of the frigid Sea of Okhotsk, the Ivy Bells missions were conducted at the highest level of secrecy, as the Soviets would have quickly abandoned the use of underwater cables had they known they were compromised.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... sias-21894

Actually, the Soviets did find out that the cables were tapped, and didn't quickly abandon use of them. They left the tap in place for a while, and then recovered it themselves.

So you went with Andrew Jackson? That's a double-down if I ever saw one.

[Sepiche]

Tangengially related, but there's an interesting article on War is Boring today about how the Russian Navy is much more of a hollow shell than it might seem:
https://warisboring.com/the-russian-nav ... th-spiral/

Over the past year, the Russian navy has undertaken several high visibility operations, most notably the deployment of the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov off the coast of Syria, and the launch of cruise missiles from ships based in the Caspian Sea. Russian submarine activity has also increased, although not quite to the level seen in the Cold War.

But Moscow might be best advised to heed Matthew 26:41 where maritime adventures are concerned; “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

The Russian navy is a mess, and it will probably become more of a mess in the future.