At the same time, U.S. reconnaissance satellites are unable to detect submarines under thick ice floe in the Arctic,” he said............................ Its even tougher to salvage sunk submarines in that area. I’m sure our killer subs took notes.
I don’t know the source. Is RIA Novosti reliable?
One word: Fallujah I. Or Vietnam. etc.
Our forces are only as good as they are allowed to be.
I have no reason to suspect that our rules-of-engagement and wargames and cold-war tactics have not been scuttled into an incoherent fetal position in the same way our diplomatic positions now slobber at the feet of tyrants.
I, like justmythoughts, have more confidence in the claims of a Russian propaganda outlet than I do in our current Commander in Chief.
Yeah, right! I bet those Russian boomesr were completely oblivious to our 688s that were undoubtedly shadowing them the whole time.
This article sounds more impressive then it is. As always, the Russians are the masters of bluff and bluster.
First as I understood it, it was always Russian Navy strategy to keep their boomers under the ice in “boxes” of ocean. Protecting the boomer were attack subs, ASW task forces, and patrol planes whose job was to keep the 688s from entering the box. Maybe this strategy worked, and maybe it didn’t. Either way this maneuver is nothing new or unusual. Welcome to 1968.
Second, it has nothing to do with “outwitting” U.S. strategic defenses. I see nothing to indicate these launches would be any more effective then any other sub launched missile against the existing defenses, where applicable.
The seas are full of US sub sensors. They can send data back by VLF radio signals...very short bursts.
MAD still applies to sane states like Russia...so don’t worry too much our boomer force can kill Russia in less than an hour and they realize this.
Worry about terrorists getting small yield nukes.
I wouldn't want to be on one of those subs. Those liquid fuels can be highly toxic.
Takeaway from this: as far as the Russians know, we were unable to "detect the presence of" two subs in the Arctic. Only a handful of the crews of the 688s and a few people in the Naval Submarine command will know for sure if that is true or not. Maybe it is, or maybe the Russians simply failed to detect the hunters watching.
"The American radars certainly detected the missile launches but their location took them by surprise," the source said.
Wrong. By definition, if a radar is sweeping the area, probably means someone expected they might see something there. :-O Grin, think about it...
The source said that the launch area, covered by ice floe, was heavily patrolled by Russian attack submarines and the Americans were unable to detect the arrival of two strategic submarines before the launch.
Not smart on the Russian's part. With all those subs chasing around in a relatively small area... Lots of noise. Lots of opportunity for say a single US hunter to quietly monitor the whole thing. Undersea warfare is not a team sport. It works best when they get to hunt alone. There is no safety in numbers - only more noise and the need to coordinate tactically and avoid fratricide.
"At the same time, U.S. reconnaissance satellites are unable to detect submarines under thick ice floe in the Arctic," he said.
Probably true. Probably very little signature. Breaking through the ice to launch, that's going to leave a mark. I wonder if satellites can determine ice thickness? If so, that'd be great. They'd have an always up-to-date map of where it was even possible for a sub to come up to launch, and could concentrate on those areas in real-time... Grin, somebody call up Lockheed or Raytheon and ask them what their radars are capable of. ;-) (as if they'd tell us!)
The region around the North Pole is a perfect place for launches of ballistic missiles because it allows the submarines to arrive in a designated area undetected and to shorten the missile flight time to the target.
It is a good spot for the geometry of the flight. But as I understand it, it is a horrible place to operate a navy in. The idea of being undetected is iffy. Sure, sonar conditions aren't good, and once on station a boomer can simply drift along at bare steerage way... Anyone ever wonder why US subs and crews are outfitted and trained to say out significantly longer than their Russian counterparts? Could it be that maybe they sail over there, then trail the Russian SSBNs through their entire mission, then come home? I don't know, but just looking at capabilities, you have to ask yourself why? What would this be good for, how could I use this?
The Russians are formidable opponents to be sure, but they are not 10 ft tall...
Hah!
We didn’t fail to detect you, you failed to detect us.
ping
In the cold dense water of the Arctic we would have heard it from any number of subs we keep and patrol in the area constantly.
The Artic is the busiest sub patrol area of the world. The reason the Ruskies camp out there is that they need to stay close to port and, warmer water causes excessive corrosion and algae growth on their hulls because of cheap surface treatment. In the Arctic their subs can't hide near noisy surface ships. It's like listening to an orchestra, once you're tuned in you can hear every instrument. Imagine trying to hear the same orchestra with AC/DC in the background, that's the masking problem with coastal shipping.
We may have our problems with surface intel, but we rule underseas, especially in the Arctic regions.
Odd, one point folks seenmd have missed.
A russki boomer pops up and launches not one but 2 SLBMs - on our doorstep?
WIthout an annocement? Not hardley. $hit like that could start a war - you know - the old school one
Total Global Thermocnuler War.
Also, not a peep here in the news - folks in the AO talk and we (Alaska) do have a few radars (DEW line, ARS and the like)- not a peep from FAA, USAF, anyone.
My BS meter is pegged.