norwegians respond to russian naval activity
- Thread starter kilo
- Start date
Actually, year of commissioning and last year and length of maintenance does start to give an indication of design and signature management competency.
eg, changes in signature management technology for subs (at a rough cut) happen every 5-6 years. However, some baseline models still have a technological advantage over other countries platforms. eg, I would regard a 25 year old French SSN to still be acoustically superior than the PLAN equivalent.
The USN for example when it pulls its subs in for a refit does make acoustic mods and management changes to onboard systems.
As a simple example. Which countries have magnetic and array silencing facilities? (and I'm not intending to give an open answer to this apart from saying that there are less than 4 with the capability). The issue is that any country that doesn't have access to the technology will have less competent acoustic management on their platforms. In this respect, I would rate a 24 year old soon to be retired USN SSN/SSBN acoustically superior to some of her current build (less than 5 year old) contemporaries in other navies.
Technology is only one part of this equation, but in sub warfare - its one of the "kings" in establishing competency and capability.
Before we get any more generalised sub questions, can people remember to stay on topic.
Its acknowledged that topics will stray from time to time as points are established and clarified, but persistent dilution of the the "topic de main" becomes frustraing for all.
Can we also get away from these "what if?" "when will?" "who knows?" series of rolling questions unless the poster has made some serious effort to do their own research first.
This isn't an online military version of "trivial pursuit"
Its acknowledged that topics will stray from time to time as points are established and clarified, but persistent dilution of the the "topic de main" becomes frustraing for all.
Can we also get away from these "what if?" "when will?" "who knows?" series of rolling questions unless the poster has made some serious effort to do their own research first.
This isn't an online military version of "trivial pursuit"
Thats precicely what I was saying only more firm and long , because he said The last Sierra was commisioned in year blabla... meaning if a sub is commisioned long ago it means its automaticly inferior to any newer design , which from what you have pointed is clearly not true and that was the whole sole purpose of my quote.
It is noteworthy to point out that the Ula class was built specifically for operations in the North Norwegian Sea, in fact specialized to do so. When you look at submarines, particularly smaller conventional submarines that are specialized, it is difficut to make broad comparisons.
A few examples, haven't we been discussing in other topics about the difficulty the Greeks have had lately with their AIP subs because of the warmer climate? Didn't the Collins have simiar issues?
It is an issue that will be resolved, but it is noteworthy that the U-212/214s were designed for conditions more similar to the Baltic Sea than the Black Sea. I also know that for exports these considerations are now accounted for more realistically early on.
Another example, Norway pulled out of Kockums Viking project a few years ago and this was considered a good thing, because it simplified the program because the Danes and the Swedes had requirements for conditions in the Baltic, not the North Norwegian Sea.
In the North Norwegian Sea, I can personally vouch the Ula is an excellent submarine, and crews not to be messed with on their home turf.
A few examples, haven't we been discussing in other topics about the difficulty the Greeks have had lately with their AIP subs because of the warmer climate? Didn't the Collins have simiar issues?
It is an issue that will be resolved, but it is noteworthy that the U-212/214s were designed for conditions more similar to the Baltic Sea than the Black Sea. I also know that for exports these considerations are now accounted for more realistically early on.
Another example, Norway pulled out of Kockums Viking project a few years ago and this was considered a good thing, because it simplified the program because the Danes and the Swedes had requirements for conditions in the Baltic, not the North Norwegian Sea.
In the North Norwegian Sea, I can personally vouch the Ula is an excellent submarine, and crews not to be messed with on their home turf.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #46
I wasn't saying the sierra was inferior to any other sub. I was responding to rossiman's post in which he implied that the sierra was a 21st century sub.
Its a long time since the Ula class had noise issues. It is very quiet under electic power and the crews are very good. The Norwegian captains course is regarded as one of the toughest in the world and americans take the course on a regular basis even if their career is not over if they fail the course as is the case with any Norwegian wannabe skipper who fails. Only one or two of the crew members are conscripts (one torpedoman and sometimes a cook), all the rest are officers or junior officers with very long training before they set foot in one.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #48
A new article says that Norway's military intelligence unit (MIU) has compiled "tracking reports" on Russia's recent sub activity. If this is true that means Norway's sub force was able to find and track the Russian subs in a very short period of time.
Congratulations to Norway! :norway
Congratulations to Norway! :norway
Norwegian subs and other sensors have tracked russian and Nato subs since the late 40's / early 50's. It didnt stop when the cold war ended but there wasnt so much _russian_ activity to listen for any more so the subs focused more south and for international operations. P3s and other sensors still got contacts now and then.
There are always some activity to be detected - for example, training shooting, training runs, etc. All that tells absolutely nothing about Norway capability to find and track any sub. I dont say they cant, i dont say they can. Just what this article carry zero information about such capability.
I have to disagree with you here my brother in law was a conscript on an Ula class sub, he was neither a cook, torpedoman or officer.
Staying on the subject:
What I consider interesting is that the Russian are trying to find a path out of Murmansk along the Norwegean coast.
In my interpretation it could mean:
1. The measures Greenland, Svalbard, Tromsø are actually working very well.
2. The Russian have great problems leaving home port. Trying to sneak past on somebody elses backyard seems pretty desperate, and compromising a future element of surprise.
What I consider interesting is that the Russian are trying to find a path out of Murmansk along the Norwegean coast.
In my interpretation it could mean:
1. The measures Greenland, Svalbard, Tromsø are actually working very well.
2. The Russian have great problems leaving home port. Trying to sneak past on somebody elses backyard seems pretty desperate, and compromising a future element of surprise.
The russians are only doing what they did for some 40+ years, and the level of activity is still far below what it used to be. Still an interesting and welcome change. I think the entire world prefers a Russia that is more powerful and has the finances to keep its military in working order and its troops payed and happy. Nothing is worse than a poor desperate Russia that is falling apart from within. The black market is no place for russias weapons and expertise.
First off, when it comes to the Ula class. It is quiet, and the crew knows its waters. A couple of years ago, during a NATO exercise, one Ula caused so much havoc, that it had to be "taken out", so the naval SAG could try to complete it's mission....
About the russians and the submarines: How do we know this is true? Submarine activity is the most secret of the secrets. I doubt the russians have the cash to play around with it's subs. Flying around in some beat up Bears is one thing, but deploying an Akula or Oscar for a month is another.
Right now a russian CVBG is at sea, heading south along the Norwegian coast (read it on the news). It's the first time since 2005 the Kuznetsov is sailing away from its pond in Severomorsk. I expected the same CVBG to deploy last year, because the russians made bid deal in the media about it. But it did not happend. Why not? Ask me, I'd say lack of money.
Also, if russian subs are deploying, why the hell are they lingering around the northern norwegian coast for? Nothing to see there, and nothing to gain politically either. What they should do, is sail towards the US west coast, pop to the surface and show uncle sam the finger. That would make sense, that would make Putin a player, and that would cause panic in the western navies.
Like I said, theres no way for us to know. But the whole story does not make sense.
Thats my two cents..
About the russians and the submarines: How do we know this is true? Submarine activity is the most secret of the secrets. I doubt the russians have the cash to play around with it's subs. Flying around in some beat up Bears is one thing, but deploying an Akula or Oscar for a month is another.
Right now a russian CVBG is at sea, heading south along the Norwegian coast (read it on the news). It's the first time since 2005 the Kuznetsov is sailing away from its pond in Severomorsk. I expected the same CVBG to deploy last year, because the russians made bid deal in the media about it. But it did not happend. Why not? Ask me, I'd say lack of money.
Also, if russian subs are deploying, why the hell are they lingering around the northern norwegian coast for? Nothing to see there, and nothing to gain politically either. What they should do, is sail towards the US west coast, pop to the surface and show uncle sam the finger. That would make sense, that would make Putin a player, and that would cause panic in the western navies.
Like I said, theres no way for us to know. But the whole story does not make sense.
Thats my two cents..
Last edited:
Bearcat: The russian carrier has time and again been "just about ready". The limited footage I've seen is not reassuring: To me it seems like very big planes on a relatively small ship.
My take on the situation is, that the russian will have great difficulty in passing the defences streaching from Greenland to Northern Norway. This being the case, they might try using brute force where stealth fail.
What I do not understand - and here I concur with You - is why they try the most risky passage. Bringing their most valuable asset within range of groundbases aircraft - I don't know the distances from Bodø for instance - and exposing it to submarines fighting on their home turf.
What I have noticed is the Baltic Fleet seems to be conspicious by its absense in this increased activity.
My take on the situation is, that the russian will have great difficulty in passing the defences streaching from Greenland to Northern Norway. This being the case, they might try using brute force where stealth fail.
What I do not understand - and here I concur with You - is why they try the most risky passage. Bringing their most valuable asset within range of groundbases aircraft - I don't know the distances from Bodø for instance - and exposing it to submarines fighting on their home turf.
What I have noticed is the Baltic Fleet seems to be conspicious by its absense in this increased activity.