Why Russia fears Sweden’s submarines
nationalinterest.org
nationalinterest.org
Since the end of the Great Northern War Russia's best ports are on the Baltic, and Russia has had a large strategic focus on the North - reference https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/156474/sundberg_... - but the Baltic is in a lousy strategic placement. If you were playing a military game you would want to expend a lot of manpower and economic might to get other ports that you could use, but they have never really managed this because unlike a military board game you can't just roll the dice a bunch of times and move your counters into Iran and solve your problems. I mean Russia won the war, but they didn't win the war enough to not be hemmed in by the Kattegat and better positions of Denmark and Sweden in the area.
Sweden's submarines are just the latest iteration of this long term problem.
It didn't "happen", it were Ukrainian BUKs captured by the rebels - June 29, almost 3 weeks before MH-17, "Now the Donetsk sky will be protected by BUKs" https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703 [the publication time is easily verifiable through Internet Archive] - a news that the rebels had captured Ukranian anti-aircraft installation armed with BUKs, second such installation in a few days. Both sides published that news at the time.
Similarly a submarine can be hijacked either in real life or, in near future, virtually. Though my bet here is on unmanned underwater drones impossible to identify after attack (and probably self-destruction).
Are you seriously think that somebody can hijack a submarine? What do you think it is? A bicycle?
Missiles can be "lost" because the BUK missile is basically a truck. You put diesel in it and you are good to go.
Where are you going to "park" the stolen submarine? Into your small private hidden port? Are you an evil super genius multi-billionaire that has secret ports.
Real life is not a James Bond movie.>Real life is not a James Bond movie.
True. For example James Bond's jetpack was much more inferior to that https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
a month before an oil tanker went down north of brazil, still zero clues which tanker it was, at all.
the sea is a very big place. we barrely hear all the weird stuff in the mainstream media. well, maybe not the baltic, that one is not so big and have too many eyes... i see your point.
Russia is a petrostate, so the most significant leverage we could have over them is electric vehicles and, ideally, appropriate carbon taxes. Nuclear power would probably be #2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21992958
Since those subs are defensive (defensive attack subs) and don’t need to roam the seven seas, nuclear power wouldn’t offer much. Moreover, diesel subs running electric are very quiet.
A diesel motor on the other hand can be shut off completely and on demand, and the submarine can run off their battery which is completely silent.
IIRC- and I don't have a source for this (might've been thedrive?)- Russia has radiation-detecting equipment onboard their subs that helps them in their hunt to find U.S. subs.
The reactor may be sub-critical but the fuel still experiences some nuclear decay and puts off quite a bit off heat in the process. You need to continually monitor this and run cooling equipment, otherwise Bad Things happen.
Interestingly this effect is used in the nuclear “batteries” in some space projects like the Mars rover, Curiosity.
The US Navy war gamed against these type of subs and did not win overwhelmingly - they then turned around and rented them from Sweden to develop new strategies. Of course staying away from the coast is a strategy.
That would be quite the understatement. If USS Ronald Reagan had been sunk in a real war the US would instantly have either lost all interest in further war or use the big red button.
There is also the big button that says "full conventional war". I believe that the US has way more options then retreat or full nuclear war.I think the reason that nuclear subs are hard to make quiet is that the reactor needs quite a lot of supporting machinery, which tends to make noise (pumps etc. for cooling), and these can't be quickly shut down. Hence diesel-electric subs can be a lot quieter (but of course can't win in endurance). But a silent sub can still do a lot , especially if it's targets really can't quiet themselves...
The problem with nuclear submarines is that they are massive and noisy. They need to be constantly cooled and thus require running coolant pumps, which emit audible noise. Also, steam turbines are noisy when running. They cant be cycled as rapidly to full stop and full power, as well as requiring complex gearing to go forwards and backwards. Their only advantage is their near infinite cruising range.
The US-ASW-Capabilities are laughable as of today. They are still fighting their soviet counterparts. They are as of now currently unable to find or fight modern diesel-electric submarines approaching their carriers in any form of exercise. Also, the USN relies heavy on Helicopters, which the russians were unable to counter during the cold war. Nowadays, there exist wire-guided Anti-Air-Missiles which can be launched submerged from torpedo-tubes.
Also, don't discount SSNs in terms of ASW. There's a reason that submariners say the best ASW is another sub.
I wouldn't say the USN relies heavily on helicopters for ASW. They don't really rely on anything since they've let these skills atrophy. About the only investment they've made is in the P8. They've shitcanned the S3, shitcanned SOSUS, and will be in a world of hurt if the PRC decides to get serious about subs.
I have instead finally crawled out of the rabbit hole that is international submarine comparison (think https://www.gsmarena.com/ or https://youtu.be/zIjngBAxTr4 (This could be a post on its own (Do you guys think the iPhone 1 with updated internals could outsell the newest iPhone? Is this actually the newest SE ?)).
What was most surprising to me is that there is a standardized way to become an international submarine dealer. What if I told you that a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University could land you such career. I don't know about you, but I was shocked!
I have a final question. How does Sweden's purchase choices on the submarine market explain Russia's fear of their submarines? Actually, after rereading the article, I'm not even sure what the author's whole point is?
I will now go to bed very confused about submarines :(
Let's discuss the topic now? (Or nothing. Nothing is always an option.)
It’s a military submarine.
Most people will understand implicitly it’s deadly.
Thus Russia fears it.
And no I won’t abide the forum rules.
Violating a TOS isn’t illegal and I don’t have to import your requirements in a society ruled by law
Make the forum private if you don’t like it
It’s not really discussing much of value anyway except the occasional github project, this stuff is all debated better elsewhere.
Stuck at home though and mind is wandering. Gonna go do something more interesting than go in circles online
What do you think it is that empowers the owners of this web site to do as they please with it?
You are a guest here, learn to be a better one.
The Russians aren’t concerned that Sweden are going to invade them anytime soon; they are concerned that, should the Russians get a bit carried away in their geopolitics-by-force games, the Swedes may be a heck of a nuisance.
Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines.
The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord.
Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting.
Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive.
The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period.
The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
The rest of the fleet is comprised of Kilos, Akulas, and Oscars. These would have been formidable in the 1980s, but they're outclassed by most NATO fleets (excluding Germany which has let their entire military collapse).
Your sub-launched ASMs are nice though. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, but since most of the SSGNs don't leave port, not really much of a threat.
So, just these four nations have combined economic power to match Russia: Russia can't afford a sustained war, though it may afford a quick act of aggression (a la Crimea) followed by everyone pointing fingers at everyone else. But it's a risky game because it will push their economy even further behind.
Headline criticisms are unsubstantive to begin with, but it's particularly unsubstantive to make up a different headline and criticize that instead.
Besides which, as mentioned ITT, when one reads TFA, the only mention of Russia is as a threat to Sweden: "simulating attacks", "infiltrating territorial waters", etc. There is no support in the text for any Russian fear of anything. Let us not go so far overboard in defending sensationalist headline-writing editors.
> stretching them out from forty-eight to sixty meters
It reaches a prodigious length.
> hull will also be unusually resilient to underwater explosions
It's hard.
> a special ‘multi-mission’ portal for deploying special forces
It's ready to unload high-quality seamen.
If they staged an invasion of America, when the tears of laughter finally subsided, we'd already be completely conquered.