Russian sub in Gulf undetected for weeks

[z1ggy]

I searched for "russian sub" in the off topic, and nothing came up looking like this, so.. I hope this isn't a repost.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markado...the-washington-free-beacons-latest-non-story/

“A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned…

The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years…

One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.

“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.

“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines…

The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.

Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.



The author basically says, "No biggie, so what, Russia was probably spying on us..No problems here, carry on." Ummm...Basically the point is, we may (or may have not) known about them being there, but basically did nothing. Basically this says, "Hey America, we got you." Not cool.

 

[jagec]

“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,”

Yeah, and our attack boats are also built for one reason only: To kill Russian ballistic missile submarines and their crews. And the Captain Obvious award goes to...

 

[sygyzy]

Good point jagec. I was going to say the same thing.

 

[clamum]

Putin can suck my mandick.

 

[pontifex]

how do we know it was there that long if we didn't find it until it left? lol

did the russians post on our facebook and say "gotcha!"?

 

[z1ggy]

“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,”

Yeah, and our attack boats are also built for one reason only: To kill Russian ballistic missile submarines and their crews. And the Captain Obvious award goes to...

You are partly true. They are meant for that but we use them for spying a lot, too.

 

[sdifox]

or the US Navy wants them to think they can.

 

[chusteczka]

“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,”

Yeah, and our attack boats are also built for one reason only: To kill Russian ballistic missile submarines and their crews. And the Captain Obvious award goes to...

Yes and no. Russian submarines were built for specific purposes; some for speed, some for depth, some for stealth, some for firepower. The Akula was built for depth and stealth.

The Akula is a very difficult submarine to track and it is alarming that it was operating undetected in the Gulf of Mexico.

or the US Navy wants them to think they can.

They often can, and it is not an issue of us letting them.

 

[z1ggy]

Also, I wanted to add, we detected a Russian Bomber off the coast of CA recently, too. I think Russia for some reason or another is trying to send us a message. Not sure why or what the cause is.

 

[darkewaffle]

I don't see the big deal. A boat was in the water somewhere, that's the extent of the story. If we didn't detect it, well then nothing happens. If we did detect it, I don't think there's any reason to make that known.

What were we supposed to do, blow it up just for being there? Yea that'd go over real well. Make a big deal over the fact that it is/was there? To what end?

 

[Phanuel]

Wolverineeeeeesssss!

 

[theknight571]

I saw this story and just wondered how many of our subs are off the coast of Russia now.

I don't see why this was a surprise to anyone. lol

 

[JTsyo]

The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews

Seems it would be pointless to have our Boomers near our shores. They would either be out in the ocean hidden or close to target sites to lower flight time for the missiles. Either way increasing our home anti-sub defense isn't going to slow their mission nor help our guys.

 

[uhohs]

The obvious and appropriate response is to nuke Moscow. twice.

 

[dr150]

Forbes.

Need I say more.

Sounds like a right wing anti-Obama agenda....just in time for elections. Yay!

BFD. We have our subs in their waters and vice-versa. Tech will be developed to spot the Akula or Yakuza or whatever....and the Russians will tweak their subs yet again.

In the end, it's a zero sum game. Any attack by either side ends the world. Even Putin isn't that stupid.
.
.
.
Get Google and Apple to develop a smart phone tracker app. Problem solved! :thumbsup:

 

[chusteczka]

There are many misconceptions in this thread and in that article. The author of that article is a twit with no real-world experience.

European Russia does not have a significant amount of shoreline. We easily watch and listen for their ships at geographic bottlenecks. Siberian Russia along the Northern Pacific is of much less importance.

There are two bottle-neck points of entry into our Gulf of Mexico; between Florida and Cuba, and between Cuba and Mexico. Somehow, they traveled through our Caribbean Sea without being detected. Both of these positions are going to have civilian trawlers patrolling with listening devices in addition to abundant stationary listening devices. That Russian sub should not have been able to gain undetected access to our closely guarded backyard like that. We were supposed to at least know the submarine was there. It is one thing to gain access to our Atlantic or Pacific coast but to gain access to the Gulf of Mexico is extremely alarming and shows unexpected weakness in our detection abilities.

Additionally, Russian submarines are tracked by the navies and civilian trawlers of several countries when they leave port. This Akula slipped away from the resources tracking it long enough to travel through the Caribbean Seas, successfully traverse geographic bottlenecks, and operate for weeks undetected in our heavily fortified backyard. This is why it is so alarming.

 

[techs]

Being a bit older than most on this forum I can safely assure you that whenever anyone threatens to reduce the military budget these kinds of stories appear.

Notice that Forbes is really using a story by the Washington Free Beacon, a right wing publication. And the Beacon does not give a source, on that "they have learned" this info.

Also, if you follow the link and read the Forbes article its all about how completely unprepared Russia is for an attack on the US and how overwhelming our forces are. It also goes on to explain that Russian actions have clearly demonstrated they are not looking for a confrontation, and in fact have no hostile intent against the US. In fact, that is what the story is about.

Rest assured we have the best military by a huge amount over even the next three biggest militaries in the world. Two of which are our allies.

 

[crownjules]

Shit guys. We better throw another few hundred billion at the military now. $500B/yr is clearly not enough. This aggression will not stand.

 

[sdifox]

Shit guys. We better throw another few hundred billion at the military now. $500B/yr is clearly not enough. This aggression will not stand.

wiki says you guys spend 700B a year on military expenditure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Either China is not reporting their number fully or they are buying cheap Made in PRC shit.

 

[z1ggy]

Being a bit older than most on this forum I can safely assure you that whenever anyone threatens to reduce the military budget these kinds of stories appear.

Notice that Forbes is really using a story by the Washington Free Beacon, a right wing publication. And the Beacon does not give a source, on that "they have learned" this info.

Also, if you follow the link and read the Forbes article its all about how completely unprepared Russia is for an attack on the US and how overwhelming our forces are. It also goes on to explain that Russian actions have clearly demonstrated they are not looking for a confrontation, and in fact have no hostile intent against the US. In fact, that is what the story is about.

Rest assured we have the best military by a huge amount over even the next three biggest militaries in the world. Two of which are our allies.

I have a Navy buddy I just talked to about this. He was a CO on a boomer. He said most likely we didn't know about them being there and that Russia may have just told us about it after the fact. He said we don't really send too many boats on patrols in that area. Only other thing I could think of is that we did know about it and did nothing, then the classified info got leaked to the press somehow, and like Techs says, came up because of the military spending cuts, etc.

Either way, we are 100% spying on China, Russia and NK almost 365 days a year with our boats. However it is somewhat alarming they went so long undetected, not just there presence alone.

 

[chusteczka]

Being a bit older than most on this forum I can safely assure you that whenever anyone threatens to reduce the military budget these kinds of stories appear.

That is a good point. Such news is typically not made public.

I do not care about the political aspect to this article but that submarine should have been tracked the whole time it was near our shores.

I have a Navy buddy I just talked to about this. He was a CO on a boomer. He said most likely we didn't know about them being there and that Russia may have just told us about it after the fact. He said we don't really send too many boats on patrols in that area. Only other thing I could think of is that we did know about it and did nothing, then the classified info got leaked to the press somehow, and like Techs says, came up because of the military spending cuts, etc.

It is true that we do not typically patrol that area with our submarines but we do have civilian resources and aircraft that patrol the region.

If that submarine was known about, and it should have been, and the news was leaked that it was not known, then the leaker is spreading FUD.

 

[Sentrosi2121]

Thread has gone this far without the obligatory reference
Provided for your viewing.

 

[gevorg]

BFD. We have our subs in their waters and vice-versa. Tech will be developed to spot the Akula or Yakuza or whatever....and the Russians will tweak their subs yet again.

In the end, it's a zero sum game. Any attack by either side ends the world.

this

 

[Crusty]

There are many misconceptions in this thread and in that article. The author of that article is a twit with no real-world experience.

European Russia does not have a significant amount of shoreline. We easily watch and listen for their ships at geographic bottlenecks. Siberian Russia along the Northern Pacific is of much less importance.

There are two bottle-neck points of entry into our Gulf of Mexico; between Florida and Cuba, and between Cuba and Mexico. Somehow, they traveled through our Caribbean Sea without being detected. Both of these positions are going to have civilian trawlers patrolling with listening devices in addition to abundant stationary listening devices. That Russian sub should not have been able to gain undetected access to our closely guarded backyard like that. We were supposed to at least know the submarine was there. It is one thing to gain access to our Atlantic or Pacific coast but to gain access to the Gulf of Mexico is extremely alarming and shows unexpected weakness in our detection abilities.

Additionally, Russian submarines are tracked by the navies and civilian trawlers of several countries when they leave port. This Akula slipped away from the resources tracking it long enough to travel through the Caribbean Seas, successfully traverse geographic bottlenecks, and operate for weeks undetected in our heavily fortified backyard. This is why it is so alarming.

I doubt we would publicize the fact that we could actually detect them, better to keep that information secret and surprise them when they think they are invisible. We know they aren't going to do anything other than swim around for a bit, so let them have their joy ride 'undetected'.

 

[kranky]

I doubt we would publicize the fact that we could actually detect them, better to keep that information secret and surprise them when they think they are invisible. We know they aren't going to do anything other than swim around for a bit, so let them have their joy ride 'undetected'.

Makes a lot of sense. They all play mind games with each other. One time they say they can't defend against something when they can. Another time they say they can defend against something when they can't. Disinformation is a cornerstone tactic.

So when they say they couldn't detect the sub, was it that they REALLY couldn't detect it, or they are just saying that because they actually can? Who knows.