• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks

Re: Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. offi

Akula subs are very good and very quiet. But I've never heard about us struggling to detect them. And now this unofficial source pops in out of nowhere. I'm with wiseone. I find this report suspicious.
 
Re: Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. offi

If it is not true, it won't be the first time someone was wrong on the internet. If it is true, then I guess we'll have to go back to making movies that show how horrible the Russians are. A remake of the movie Red Don is suppose to come out in November, so I guess we already have that taken care of. That is unless wiki is lying. I know its not considered credible, but this research really isn't all that important.

Red Dawn (2012 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. offi

The story isn't about whether they have a right to be there, it's about whether we can detect them or not.

Does it bother you at that there's nothing at all to even back up the claim that it was there in the first place?

Are we going to have an argument about why the US military can't detect submarines that don't even exist now?
 
What if it turns out to be true? What if Russia decides to invade?
Russia isnt going to attack. I DO think that Putin isnt above flexing and poking and even making overtures towards reestablishing 'Soviet' Russia...but he is not at all stupid.
 
armed with long-range cruise missiles

there is the first clue that this might be bogus....how do we know what the sub is armed with? Just because it is capable of carrying and launching the missles does not mean that the ship has them on board.
Certainly the fast attack sub I served on didn't advertise what kind of warheads we have on our ship.
I am not familiar with current submarines, but the fast attack is designed to take out boomers, as stated, so why cruise missles? those are long range missles, I would expect a torpedo or a shorter range missle to be used against a boomer, one that carries a torpedo that detaches from the missle after landing in the water....
All kinds of stink on this story, maybe someone still in the USN can answer this?
BTW, my last duty station in the Navy was at the Atlantic hub of the undersea surveillance system..in Norfolk... Last I heard the system was obsolete, even if still in place. I thought satellite surveillance was all we used now....any current sailors care to speak up?
 
armed with long-range cruise missiles

there is the first clue that this might be bogus....how do we know what the sub is armed with? Just because it is capable of carrying and launching the missles does not mean that the ship has them on board.
Certainly the fast attack sub I served on didn't advertise what kind of warheads we have on our ship.
I am not familiar with current submarines, but the fast attack is designed to take out boomers, as stated, so why cruise missles? those are long range missles, I would expect a torpedo or a shorter range missle to be used against a boomer, one that carries a torpedo that detaches from the missle after landing in the water....
All kinds of stink on this story, maybe someone still in the USN can answer this?
BTW, my last duty station in the Navy was at the Atlantic hub of the undersea surveillance system..in Norfolk... Last I heard the system was obsolete, even if still in place. I thought satellite surveillance was all we used now....any current sailors care to speak up?

Our attack subs can be, and sometimes are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles. These can be fired out of the torpedo tubes.

Akula subs have a similar capability as well.
All Akulas are armed with four 533 mm torpedo tubes which can use Type 53 torpedoes or the SS-N-15 Starfish missile, and four 650 mm torpedo tubes which can use Type 65 torpedoes or the SS-N-16 Stallion missile.
Akula class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Can someone reproduce this story in a more conventional publication? We generally observe Russian vessels as they leave port and have had the advantage of narrow exit routes from Murmansk and the Baltic which makes it much easier to track than if we are following those from their Pacific Fleet. But its still a rough game to my knowledge and it wouldn't shock me if we lost track of one. Keeping an accurate eye on submarines (and on a related note sea mines) is still a fairly difficult thing to do.
 
Maybe I'm too skeptical but I tend to think these kinds of stories are fear mongering to keep or increase funding as a previous poster stated. Moreover, Russia is standing in the way of western aggressions in the middle east so this story really helps the political dialogue. Even if the story is true Yes military funding should be cut and cut dramatically at least 40% while we're at it abolish the CIA and Homeland Security. If you want safety quit dropping bombs on other countries and meddling in their affairs that will buy you more security than a 100 battleships.

I was liking this post, all the way until you said, "abolish the CIA and Homeland Security." Why should we do that? If we ablolish those two agencies, then we should just paint a huge poster saying, "Come foreign spies, come gaze at America."
 
are cruise missles a likely choice to attack boomers?

Of course not, but i expect that most attack subs will have a few if possible to allow them to attack other targets. You of course would have more knowledge of how they operate, but would not say having 20% of the arms as Cruise Missles not be a better thing from an operational aspect
 
Wasn't there some politician who did a speech if front of a classified submarine propeller in the 2008
election? Maybe they stole our technology?
I think the Navy could find a sub most any time they wanted to.
More hype if you ask me.
 
are cruise missles a likely choice to attack boomers?

No, they aren't. However, in modern submarine warfare it's not unusual for attack subs to carry cruise missiles so they may participate in long range strikes as part of an overall attack plan. During attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, some of the Tomahawks launched were launched from attack subs. Russia was slow to catch on to this new approach, but with the Akula they adopted it.

It used to be that Russian subs were almost comically easy to detect. The Alphas were by far the worst. Alphas were the fastest and the deepest diving of all subs at the time, but also the most likely destroyed in sub vs. sub combat. Things all changed when Japan sold advanced milling machines to Russia. Shortly afterward, we see the Akula.

What I'd asked for was a nuclear submarine propeller, better known in the Navy as a screw. It is so secret that when a sub comes in from patrol its propeller is shrouded with a large covering, and if a sub is drydocked for any length of time, it is commonly removed and stored away from the ship for servicing and prying eyes. It is what drives a submarine quickly and quietly through the water, and it is absolutely critical to a submarine's stealth. It is an extremely high-tech piece of equipment, resulting from extensive Navy research and development, and until recently our propeller technology exceeded the Soviet Union's by a considerable margin. As a result of this and other factors, Soviet submarines of the Cold War were noisier, and therefore easier to detect than our own. Within the context of national security and defense, as well as our nuclear deterrence policy, it is easy to see why propeller research and design have been so carefully guarded. The propellers of USS Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine, are an exception. Essentially World War II submarine propellers, they—along with the rest of the sub—are on display at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut, near where she was built in 1955.

But something happened to change all that. Back in the mid-1980s, the Japanese company Toshiba sold propeller milling machinery to the Soviets through the Norwegian Kongsberg firm; this and other submarine intelligence furnished by the Walker spy ring resulted in significantly quieter Soviet subs by the later part of the decade. As writer Neal Stevens wrote about the Akula-class Soviet boats, "The combined results generated a steep drop in broadband acoustic noise profiles."
The Taming of the Screw (Page 2)
 
Wasn't there some politician who did a speech if front of a classified submarine propeller in the 2008
election? Maybe they stole our technology?
I think the Navy could find a sub most any time they wanted to.
More hype if you ask me.

they didn't have to steal it, the Japanese bought the technology and machinery from us, then sold it to them, after agreeing to NOT sell it to anyone else
 
they didn't have to steal it, the Japanese bought the technology and machinery from us, then sold it to them, after agreeing to NOT sell it to anyone else

There was a fellow named Ames (currently in the joint for life) who "sold" the information about the sub propellers (among numerous other secrets) to the commies long before any of this other stuff. The Ruskies have known about it for decades.

A L
 
As a submariner, I must say there is a lot of misinformation and outright lack of knowledge in this thread.
 
I'm sure that some folks will just luv my source. :cool:

U.S. Denies That Russian Sub Operated Near Its Coast

The U.S. Defense Department on Thursday denied the Beacon report, which said a Russian Akula-class submarine capable of carrying long-range ballistic missiles had spent a month in restricted U.S. waters in June and July.

“I don't know what that information was based on, but it was not correct," spokeswoman Wendy Snyder said, according to Interfax. The Pentagon did not respond to telephoned and e-mailed requests for further comment.
 

I'm sure that some folks will just luv my source. :cool:

I note that the Pentagon disagrees with these reports. I also note that Obama is "planning" cuts, which means they haven't already happened. So anti-submarine systems have NOT degraded at all, and thereby the cuts did NOT permit a Russian sub into US waters. This looks exactly like political gamesmanship to me.
 
Let's not let facts get in the way of a political rant during an election cycle...

All we need now is a former ASW warfare officer turned Congressman to claim many of the current crop of sub hunters say President Obama has 'gutted the navy'... ;)
 
Let's not let facts get in the way of a political rant during an election cycle...

All we need now is a former ASW warfare officer turned Congressman to claim many of the current crop of sub hunters say President Obama has 'gutted the navy'... ;)

Apparently you've seen this **** before.
 
I remember when they used to do this kind of thing all the time. It was sort of a cat and mouse game in the Cold War when they were testing our defenses and practicing attack runs on the United States.

It still is. Both sides actually benefit from the game, just as long as neither side fires on the other.
 
Let's not let facts get in the way of a political rant during an election cycle...

All we need now is a former ASW warfare officer turned Congressman to claim many of the current crop of sub hunters say President Obama has 'gutted the navy'... ;)

Some of us knew this was coming, we just didn't know who. And right on cue we have Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sending an open letter to the Chief of Naval Operations requesting more information and expressing concern that budget cuts would allow more of the same to happen and threaten "our national security". I call bull****.

My two cents says that Cornyn contacted the Chief of Naval Operations (or his people contacted their people) and said, "You all write the letter like you want it and I'll sign it." Cornyn then "writes" the open letter to prove what a stand-up real Amurican he is while at the same time supporting the navy in upcoming budget battles.

Who knew? :doh :lamo

From UPI:
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Sunday sent the letter to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert requesting more information on the purported incident.

"This submarine activity reportedly occurred in June and July, simultaneously with incursions by Russian strategic bombers into restricted U.S. airspace," Cornyn wrote.

"The submarine patrol, taken together with the air incursions, seems to represent a more aggressive and destabilizing Russian military stance that could pose risks to our national security," Cornyn said.

Part of Cornyn's letter:

“The submarine patrol, taken together with the air incursions, seems to represent a more aggressive and destabilizing Russian military stance that could pose risks to our national security.

“This is especially troubling given the drastic defense cuts sought by President Obama, which include reductions in funding for antisubmarine defense systems.”

I smell horse manure.
 
Last edited:
The report is not true and Pentagon has denied the report.
 
Back in the cold war we used to routinely send our subs near the old Soviet Union and survale them and test their defences. I would be surprised if we still didnt do that. If we do it why wouldnt they?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060796970 said:
So it appears Russia is showing their military might, and what they accomplished is quite disconcerting.

I have several initial questions after reading this story.

What exactly did Russia hope to accomplish by this and the incursions into US air space in the past couple of months?

Could the US no longer the "big dog" in military might around the world?

Should the US reduce military spending as the Obama administration proposes?

Is this a precursor to war?

I wouldn't be surprised in the least about Russia or anyone else being able to slip through. We are spread way too thin. We need to bring our ships and subs back home so that they can patrol our coast and territorial waters better.

IE: STOP GOING TO WAR AT THE DROP OF A PIN! It is no wonder that so many consider the US to be imperialistic considering the last 20 years alone.

War the US was involved in for the past 20 years alone....

Wars the US has been involved in...

Libyan civil war: 2011
Haitian coup d'etat: 2004
Second Liberian Civil War: 2003
War on Terror: Started in 2001 and is still ongoing
Kosovo War or Operation Allied Force or Operation Noble Anvil: 1999
Bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan or "Operation Infinite Reach: 1998
Operation Uphold Democracy: 1994
Bosnian War or Operation Deliberate Force: 1993
Somali Civil war or Operation Restore Hope: 1992

Wikipedia ~ List of wars involving the United States

Edit: Note that the "War on Terror" includes several areas and Wars with in it...like Iraqi War.
 
Back
Top Bottom