Why don't we just leave the Soviet boomers alone?

[Mr Quatro]

I've often thought that all the Russian's have to do is single up all lines and then depart the port their submarines are home ported.
Then just wait for orders to fire with a 5,600 mile range they already have most of North America in their sights.

In fact there is rumor that the first patrol of a Typhoon sub was just outside of it's port in a deep ridge bordered by shallow water and are you ready for this they even had a land line straight to Moscow (unverified)






Hey U.S. Navy—Maybe Leave Russia’s Nuclear Missile Submarines Alone

in the early 1970s, with the commissioning of the Soviet navy’s Delta-class boomers with their SS-N-8 nuclear-tipped rockets. The SS-N-8 could strike targets as far away as 5,600 miles, allowing the Deltas to conduct deterrence patrols in the the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean.

Sticking close to home placed the Soviet boomers within range of land-based patrol planes and short-range warships. The ships and planes could protect the boomers, preserving the Soviet Union’s “second-strike” capability—that is, its ability to return fire after an initial salvo of land-based nuclear missiles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...U#1003d6b84cf1

Why don't we just drop some submarine drones that sound like USN SSN's that can't be located without active sonar in the arctic. Would be fun to make them silent and then start up again. Controlled by patrol planes of course

[Kapitan]

I neither have the time or the crayons to explain it to David axe alot of his articles are at best humourous this one being no exception.

[Mr Quatro]

Okay on that fact I agree, but the best we can do is put an end to a war they start by being in the same ocean
(which is very large by the way)( but also very quite).

What about this rumor have you heard anything?

In fact there is rumor that the first patrol of a Typhoon sub was just outside of it's port in a deep ridge bordered by shallow water and are you ready for this they even had a land line straight to Moscow (unverified)

[Kapitan]

We need to be in the same ocean, and we are whats more the Russians have already copied and advanced a system similar to what we deploy currently and

It is widly known the russians do deploy a system of hydrophones on the sea bed in their waters and as far out as the EEZ, they can track us and we know that.

Considering the fact Severdvinsk the place that built the project 941 boats sits on the coast of the white sea and the white sea itself is a test area then yes plausable, but then the UK does this in the Irish sea which isnt deep its considered controlled waters.

The white sea is around 60 meters deep until you get to the mouth then its about 340/350 meters deep something like that.
These places are chosen for the tests because if anything goes wrong escape is possible.

As for a land line link to Moscow i dont see why they would put a link in there? the HQ of the submarine design station (CKB Rubin) is in St Petersburg, and in the 1980's the russians had satalite phones just like we did in the west.
Im not sure if he is getting confused with a submarine telephone which has been around since the 1940's

[Kapitan]

But this anti-bastion plan—a.k.a., “strategic anti-submarine warfare”—was a bad idea 40 years ago and it would be a bad idea today, according to one U.S. Navy veteran and political scientist.

So the USN RN French Canadian Dutch Norweigen Swedish Italian Spanish and just about everyone else in the west was wrong to track and trail soviet boats?
I honestly dont think that the collective navies on that scale got it wrong, on the contrary the Soviets also practiced similar tactics with us tracking and trailing our ships and submarines so both sides couldnt get it wrong could they?

“The United States should avoid threatening Russian SSBNs in almost all conceivable circumstances".

In total reality we do avoid threatening them however transiting in international waters and following another ship or submarine is no crime, the threat only comes when were inside their waters and their EEZ doing it.
The Russians have the same capability as us in the west to hunt down and find submarines.

I know many people wont like me saying this but since the early 2000's Russia has spent a lot more money on developing new systems sonars and non acoustic means of detecting vessels they have closed that gap quite dramatically and the new Yasen class is proof of that.

After all, threatening a country’s nuclear deterrent in any context short of civilization-ending warfare likely would trigger civilization-ending warfare.

Here is the concept of MAD nethier side threatens the other missiles are targeted out to sea and besides the concept of MAD is that you have to be vulnreble yourself.

“It can be said without qualification that executing the strategic-ASW mission today would be one of those rare cases in which failure would be far better than success,” Dismukes wrote

So in a shooting war failing to find the SSBN or even a SSGN would qualify as a success this to me says he clearly doesnt understand the fact the enemy will use the weapons against you if needed and if you dont destroy them first they will use them to destroy you.

The ships and planes could protect the boomers, preserving the Soviet Union’s “second-strike” capability—that is, its ability to return fire after an initial salvo of land-based nuclear missiles

The soviet thinking was fire the lot sea land and air get it over and done with and then crack on.
thus submarine missiles will be airbourne the same time as land based and air launched missiles.

When your enemy has a survivable second-strike force, there’s no way to win a nuclear war. Thus nuclear war becomes less appealing as a policy option

Thus in order to win a war you need to take out their second strike capability first if im not mistaken, this means you need SSN's to tag the opposing SSBN's .

But NATO planners worried that the Soviet Union might invade Norway and Sweden in order to safeguard the bastion’s borders. “It is a foregone conclusion that the Soviet Union will try to make the Baltic Sea a mare nostrum,'' Norwegian military analyst Kirsten Amundsen told The New York Times in 1986.

Sweden would likely have remained Neautral in a conflict whats more Sweden isnt part of NATO (by constitution it cant be) Norway and Finland are both NATO members.

Yes the Soviets would have created merry hell in the Baltic but, norweigen, Danish, Finnish and west german forces could have caused huge casualties especially with mines basically trapping the Baltic fleet in the Baltic (like the germans did in WW2)

Would the soviets invade norway? dont think so they were more centred on the idea of maintaining what they already had.
had a war started the Soviet knew that some countries would cause problems and also likely help the west they knew the poles couldnt be relied on for a start so taking norway and sweden created more problems and also took away fighting men.

So the alliance planned to attack the bastions. The U.S. Navy upgraded its undersea fleet specifically for the mission and launched development of the catastrophically expensive Seawolf-class submarine specifically for assaults on ice-covered portions of the bastion

The answer to the Soviet build up of SSBN's was not in any way shape or form the Seawolf at all, the 688 was built for exactly that purpose and the FLT II & improved version spoke volumes about capabilities the Seawolf was a counter to a new breed of boats that didnt yet exist in reality.

NATO’s efforts undermined mutual nuclear deterrence, Dismukes wrote. “The mortal intercontinental nuclear threat to which successful strategic ASW would subject the nation would be suffered on behalf of no clear or feasible strategic objective.”

NATO never undermined the deterent and there was a strategic role and plan in place, the deterent works by saying to your enemy if you do this to us we do it to you and thus since its inception it has worked.
NATO is not an offensive organisation it is purely defensive, NATO had no real tangable invasion plans for the Soviet union they only made plans and exercises based on a soviet invasion and even the soviets russians admit they had no tangeable plans to invade their exercises were for defence as well.

Fortunately the Cold War ended before the strategic-ASW notion had its full, destabilizing impact

submarines following submarines didnt stop on december 25th 1991 it still goes on today it has never stopped and will be continuing im sure into the next half century.

“Faced with this reality, Russian planners are likely to prove hard to convince that the United States intends to give their SSBNs a wide berth.” And that could provoke the Russians into targeting America’s own boomers, with the predictable escalatory results.

Russia like the USN and RN and other navies target the SSBN's i have no doubt that there are Russian boats monitoring the boats of the UK and USA thus this point about esculating provoking is mute.

The U.S. Navy and its allies should reconsider their long-held belief that it’s wise to target Russia’s ballistic-missile submarines

Its not just a belief held by the USN its held by most of NATO so this guy wants us to stop following boomers of the Russian navy while at the same time they are on the hunt for ours?
Unfortunately by doing that it gives them advantage

Get real

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

I neither have the time or the crayons to explain it to David axe alot of his articles are at best humourous this one being no exception.

This. He conveniently ignores the fact that they were doing the same to us.