Two Russian Project 971 submarines (known as Akula-class in the U.S.) spotted off the U.S. Eastern coast have people scratching their heads - Why would Russia send its submarines there?
U.S. submarines, of course, patrol close to Russian waters all the time[*], but at least they have a mission of sort - to shadow Russian ballistic missile subs as they go to their (infrequent) patrols or missile tests (which is, by the way, a rather dangerous practice that is hardly justified these days). Since Russian boomers rarely stray far from their bases (although they do occasionally), it makes certain sense for the U.S. attack submarines to spend their time somewhere near the Barents Sea.
But it doesn't really make sense for Russian submarines to go to the U.S. coast - there is no one there. The only reason to be there would be to show the flag, but with submarines you show the flag by not showing up on sonar screens - the point is to avoid detection. But I guess these mission could always be justified by crew training and things like that.
For some reason, "Defense Department officials declined to speculate on which weapons might be aboard the two submarines". As I understand, there should be no uncertainty there - START Treaty requires the United States and Russia to exchange declarations about nuclear SLCMs carried by their attack submarines (Note: one more reason to keep START in force). These are not released publicly, but the U.S. governments would probably know what's in them.
UPDATE 08/05/09: NORAD and the Northern Command issued a brief statement (emphasis added):
NORAD and US Northern Command are aware of Russian submarine activity off the East coast operating in international waters. We have been monitoring them during transit and recognize the right of all nations to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters according to international law.
Again, I'm not saying that Russia should not let its submarines to go on patrol or that U.S. submarine patrols are somehow more legitimate. The point is that there is no particularly useful mission in those patrols (whether U.S. or Russian).
UPDATE 08/06/09: As a reader correctly noted, the linked post at the FAS site describes patrols of strategic submarines, which do not go close to the Russian waters. U.S. attack submarines, however, do have a mission of shadowing Russian submarines. As far as I understands, they do come very close to the Russian waters (if only because Russian subs don't go very far very often).
The book
Comments
In a real sense, Russia is indeed “showing the flag”. Sending two 971-class submarines, including at least one modern Akula II, on an extended cruise is demonstrating prestige and providing excellent crew training. Let’s be honest, the Russian Navy is desperate for some “good news”. The Bulava program is in trouble; I believe the Bulava will be successful in time but no one can argue the program is in trouble today. Given the size of the Russian Navy on paper, few surface ships are ever at sea at the same time. There are shortages in all crew ratings; especially in nuclear propulsion officers. The very infrastructure needed to maintain the Russian Navy seems to be at continuing risk. The head of the Navy announced last week, the Kremlin may look to foreign shipyards for future ships. (I read that France).
Frank Shuler
USA
It is weird and unfair justificating US patrols near the Russian coast but at the same time screaming by a few Russian patrols near the US shore.
It would be interesting to know how many American submarines patrol off the coast of Russia every year
This blog entry is somewhat misleading. The linked article regarding US patrols addresses US strategic deterrent patrols by ballistic missile submarines, which can occur practically anywhere due to the long range of the Trident II ballistic missile. These patrols are also completely unrelated to attack submarine deployments (comparing apples and oranges). The linked article says nothing about deployment operations of US attack submarines, nor is there any available information to suggest that they "patrol close to Russian waters all the time."
so michael your opinion is that US submarines do not patrol close to Russian waters on a regular basis?
Oh, I’ll wager on the rare days the US Navy doesn’t have a submarine in the Barents Sea, the Royal Navy is there. Russian naval activity is at a historical low on deployments but I bet the US is still interested in all ship & submarine deployments from Severomorsk (Kola Peninsula). Just my opinion.
By the way, I think the real point of the story in the New York Times was the the Pentagon found the Russian submarine deployment off the US East Coast “interesting” because it represented a change in pattern. Anything the Russian Navy does differently always will interest the US Navy. The real excitement in all this I bet was in Norfolk. A whole generation of American ASW sailors had never had the opportunity to track an Akula submarine in blue water. I bet those guys had fun; in a professional sense!
Also understand the story was “leaked” to the Times by the Pentagon. That suggests to me the USN is playing up this “situation” in the budget wars. Russian submarines “on the prowl” is the best thing possible for future US Navy defense budgets.
Frank Shuler
USA
Other than showing the flag they might be probing US anti-submarine defence and/or training their crews to operate in certain rare conditions that exist in that area.
Since these two are of the Shchuka class (for some reason called "Akula"), they carry 3,000 km range cruise missiles of the "Granat" system. Slow, but long range. These could be considered a part of the strategic rather than tactical arsenal when they are 200km-1000km near US shores: Atlantic and Pacific. This is potentially an additional counter to the global ABM system - long range cruise missiles on deep-diving multipurpose subs. Russia has about 8-11 of these Project 971 subs. It will be interesting to find out if the upcoming Yasen class will be able to carry long-range land-attack cruise missiles. Of cours this is not as convenient as SLBMs laucnhed from one's own territorial waters, but it is something.
One thing about the quite deep-diving subs, it is tough to know if you just didn't find them, or if they were not there. While when you do spot them is important for you, it is when you don't spot them that is crucial but is very tough to find out.
Leon Rozmarin
Very interested in your comments about the RPK-55 Granat system. (NATO designation - SS-N-21 Sampson) It was always speculated, the 971 Class, the Shchuka B (NATO designation Akula II) could only carry four Granat missiles with the remaining weapons storage space configured in the four 533-mm bow torpedo tubes to the RPK-6 Vodopad/Vodoley ASW missile. (NATO designation - SS-N-15 Starfish). As the primary mission of these submarines was to be anti-submarine warfare, the primary armament of the Akula’a would always be the anti-submarine weapon. Apparently the 533-mm torpedo-room only had storage and support equipment for four SS-N-21 missiles, similar to the the USS Los Angeles-class boats in the US Navy. Do you have any additional information?
Of course, the nuclear Granat missiles were withdrawn from sea service in 1991 as part of the “gentleman’s agreement” between Moscow and Washington that ended active deployment of tactical nuclear weapons at sea.
I’m not sure I see any value in deploying such missiles. The SS-N-21s could be used to strike population centers or selected military bases, Norfolk for example, but they never could deter a war or win one. Deploying such weapons at sea again in violation of the 1991 Agreement only means the US would respond; no advantage to Russia. I think the time for such weapons has long been over. In fact, it is speculated the American inventory of nuclear Tomahawk missiles, numbering some 100 weapons, that are now held in reserve at US Navy land-base arsenals, will be disposed of in the near future.
Frank Shuler
USA
Gentlemen, there were always such patrols, ever in the worse times. And there will be more. The “new” here is that the Americans were finally able to track Schuka-B SSNs. Americans should be happy on that rather than making mass media noise.
Kolokol
Hard to track submarines in port. (smile) Good to see the Russian Navy at sea. Like I said, it’s also good for the US Navy budget as well. This year (fy 2010) the number of Virginia-Class submarines (SSN 774 class) being ordered was suppose to be increased from one submarine funded each year to two. Given the budget restraints, it has been speculated this would not happen. Perhaps with the news of “menacing” Russian submarine patrols off the American coast, this funding will be restored? This “news” couldn’t have happened at a better time for the US Navy.
Frank Shuler
USA
Well Franck. In such a case, a few Schuka-B sneaking around the American shore is a really good new for the US navy. Greetings!
Kolokol
Remember, it only helps the US Navy’s budget if those Schuka-Bs get “caught”! (smile)
Take care my friend.
Frank Shuler
USA
I am gessing that the two 971 submarines are the same that now are tracking the lost ship Arctic Sea?
Having sailed in "Pantera", I can testify that the Americans (or British) tracked us most of the time.
"In a real sense, Russia is indeed “showing the flag”. Sending two 971-class submarines, including at least one modern Akula II, on an extended cruise is demonstrating prestige and providing excellent crew training. Let’s be honest, the Russian Navy is desperate for some “good news”. The Bulava program is in trouble; I believe the Bulava will be successful in time but no one can argue the program is in trouble today. Given the size of the Russian Navy on paper, few surface ships are ever at sea at the same time. There are shortages in all crew ratings; especially in nuclear propulsion officers. The very infrastructure needed to maintain the Russian Navy seems to be at continuing risk. The head of the Navy announced last week, the Kremlin may look to foreign shipyards for future ships. (I read that France)." - Frank Shuler
It's not an understatement to say that "good news" are all wished for by the Russian Navy. Which navy doesn't wish them?
Yes, there are big, big problems the Russian Navy faces and hopefully we're witnessing a period where these problems will be adressed and their number will eventually decrease at some point.
"It would be interesting to know how many American submarines patrol off the coast of Russia every year" - john
Oh...you'll be surprised to find out. Way too many for these times. The ColdWar is over. Or is it?
"Oh, I’ll wager on the rare days the US Navy doesn’t have a submarine in the Barents Sea, the Royal Navy is there. Russian naval activity is at a historical low on deployments but I bet the US is still interested in all ship & submarine deployments from Severomorsk (Kola Peninsula). Just my opinion." - Frank Shuler
Totally agreed. For anyone else: like it or dislike it; it's the truth.
"Other than showing the flag they might be probing US anti-submarine defence and/or training their crews to operate in certain rare conditions that exist in that area." - reko
Another statement I find to be very relevant. These duties are well a part of all submariners' training programs. Maybe the two 971 boats in question had a relatively new crew and it needed exactly these kinds of exercises. Who knows?