Don't be suprised if people don't take your claims of service purely at face value, and also be prepared for people to call you out on it too + expect to be asked to prove it, this is the internet after all
About that sneaky Akula
- Thread starter Quiller
- Start date
He cant back it up. Even if he's in the business he's said to much already. The poster shouldnt have even said that. And if he is blowing hot air? Well?
Thats why I smelled a rat from the beginning. The USN is facing big cuts and the SSN program is the one largest in the crosshairs. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32418.pdf No Admiral wants to lose his toys and in a Post Cold War environment how do you justify a 55+ SSN force? With the new Virginias coming off at 2 b+ off the quay?
And with the entire navy being upgraded? This is an old Cold War trick. No battle is as fierce as an inter service budget rivalry.
Thats why I smelled a rat from the beginning. The USN is facing big cuts and the SSN program is the one largest in the crosshairs. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32418.pdf No Admiral wants to lose his toys and in a Post Cold War environment how do you justify a 55+ SSN force? With the new Virginias coming off at 2 b+ off the quay?
And with the entire navy being upgraded? This is an old Cold War trick. No battle is as fierce as an inter service budget rivalry.
He can at least prove he has served, the Mods have ways and means which can confirm/deny. Dunno what they are as i've never tried it on.
Anyway from Warships IFR June 2012 there's an article about "US SSN force levels in decline" with this bit you might be interested in.
So there's going to be at least 11 boats cut with an operational dip set to come, but the size of the operational dip being 5 boats.
Hell of a dip, from today till 2028 the difference in US sub levels is 16, pretty big drop.
Last edited:
Yes but the average quality of boat will be much higher and with the strategic realignment of the SSN mission none of this should come as a surprise to boat skippers and crew. The ones that will be retired will be the older SSNs 688-718's that have no VLS and are at the end of their operational lives anyways.
So by then we will have about 20 Virginia's built, 3 Seawolfs, and the rest advanced LA's. Which will still be a very dangerous submarine in 2028.
We have to be flexible to face the naval conflicts of the future. A Cold War SSN posture is just not reasonable.
True, True.
I was more focussing on the point in 2028 where - even the US (albeit for a while) - doesn't have the force levels it believes it requires to do the job.
Even if he was ex- or current USN, that still wouldn't prove his claims. Like a poster above said, if he's telling the truth he can't possibly back up the claims, and if he's not well...
It'd at least give him a touch more credibility for his claims than if he didn't prove he served, at least in my opinonEven if he was ex- or current USN, that still wouldn't prove his claims. Like a poster above said, if he's telling the truth he can't possibly back up the claims, and if he's not well...
Can we close down this crap ? Seriously, even if this guy is, and I doubt it, becuase anyone involved in these operations do not and will not talk about it, they have security clearances, they know what they are on about and would not talk shop in an open public forum, and to come out with that in your first post !!
Yawn
Yawn
Personally, i'd be very surprised if it was tracked at all. A while ago (before I was born) my dad got a chance to talk to a Nimrod pilot at an airshow when they were letting the public on to have a look around - didn't mention which one but I will ask - and specifically asked about what was the real potential of locating a Russian sub which was trying to remain undiscovered. The reply he got was basically "Virtually zero, and even if we did find them chances are they'd understand they could be tracked at that depth and dive deeper as a precaution".
EDIT: Interesting article for those interested from 2 years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...n-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html
EDIT: Interesting article for those interested from 2 years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...n-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html
Which leads me to believe that if the UK can catch an Akula, then the US are definitely more than capable to track one which in turn suggests to me that there wasn't an Akula there.
Last edited:
Don't know where you got that interpretation of my interest in the article from.
The focus I was pointing out was that the UK supposedly managed to find Akula class subs which - seeming as the whole thread is about that very thing in a different theatre of operations - seemed relevant to the discussion.
I thought the way I worded "if the UK can catch an Akula, then the US are definitely more than capable" was more than clear about dicating which part of the article I was interested in and more importantly it's context in this thread.
I merely remarked the article was interesting, was I saying that the "mission" of the Akulas was true? Did I say anywhere that part of the discussion about getting subs acoustic signatures was relevant? No. In fact I didn't mention what the Akula was doing at all.
So how about you read what I post more carefully before making me out to be some kind of simpleton "at best"
971
New Member
@ RobWilliams
Well, you got it all wrong.
I’ve quoted that article you linked us to. So my reply was vis-á-vis to that. More exactly to the:
"We have put a lot of resources into protecting Trident because we cannot afford by any stretch to let the Russians learn the acoustic profile of one of our bombers as that would compromise the deterrent." - part.
'Thought it was obvious. Apparently it wasn't.
Well, you got it all wrong.
I’ve quoted that article you linked us to. So my reply was vis-á-vis to that. More exactly to the:
"We have put a lot of resources into protecting Trident because we cannot afford by any stretch to let the Russians learn the acoustic profile of one of our bombers as that would compromise the deterrent." - part.
'Thought it was obvious. Apparently it wasn't.
Let's not let this deteriorate into an exercise in chest-thumping. It's bad enough we've got one person claiming to be part of the unit that tracked this hypothetical Akula in the Mexican Gulf.
971, I can't help but notice that every time you post you have a habit of getting people arced up. Maybe cool it a little, would you please? You think Russian hardware is the best, we get it.
971, I can't help but notice that every time you post you have a habit of getting people arced up. Maybe cool it a little, would you please? You think Russian hardware is the best, we get it.
I linked the article too, however what I did was link the article, then selected a few paragrahs I thought good to emphasise my point and extrapolated from them again.
Just "quoting" me linking it means exactly sweet FA.
The better thing to have done would've been to quote me actually being relevant to what you started rambling on about, rather than inventing your own line of discussion.
/rant over. Sorry Bonza, just get wound up when people give me the "LOL u so stoopid!" attitude.
I'm taking your conspicuous absence as confirmation that you cannot in fact back up any of the above. So you're done.
All the good ones went through prev refurb or were plugged.
those that go will be because they are shagged.
971
New Member
Leaving unnecessary rhetoric aside, I’d try to get the discussion back on the thread’s topic somehow.
Sometimes people tend to believe that having SOSUS or GIUK on one’s side is a marvelous thing. Well, the way I see it, yes and no.
The system is based on hydrophones anchored at key-positions on the sea floor right? It’s no more than an early-warning system. A way of getting an idea of the surface or subsurface traffic in the area. In the case of submarines – if detected – it’ll tell you how many passed through (GIUK) or in close vicinity, their speed and heading. That’s the good part. The not so good one can be split in two:
1. The enemy might know – or at least have a good idea of where exactly these hydrophones are placed. It can choose to either make use of concealed navigation, deactivate them or right away destroy them (AFAIK the Russians tried to reach some of the GIUK’s hydrophones but without success; in the end they gave up, the operation being too costly and time consuming).
2. You need to have your prosecuting assets in the right place at ANY time. This is quite an effort to do given the huge distance (in GIUK’s case for instance) along the line.
As the Russians demonstrated back in the ‘80s with Aport and Atrina, once the enemy gets through these choke points or across a SOSUS line in any great numbers, the game is wide-open for anybody.
So an Akula getting undetected through the SOSUS nets to reach its patrol area off US’ south-east coast in the Gulf of Mexico is very possible, especially these days. And even if the boat was detected through GIUK, I doubt that US Navy would’ve used one of their SSNs to track it. Why? Because those boats in place in GIUK’s vicinity or close to Russian shore in the Barents Sea are there mainly to prosecute deployed boomers. Any detected SSN would be eventually reported on and probably left for the western Atlantic forces to be dealt with IF those forces are able to re-detect an intruder who doesn’t want to be found and who knows what’s in wait! Besides, tracking an attack boat is more difficult than tracking a boomer. Otherwise, one can wonder how come that there were undetected Akulas lying in wait outside British bases waiting for those Vanguards to get underway as it was at times reported?
So personally I believe that events described in AP0080’s post are hugely handicapped. Four and a half weeks of tracking? From mid-Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico? From 500nm off Portuguese coast? Highly unlikely. Even an old Project 627 would be difficult to track in that manner, never mind an Akula!
As others said, I too believe that the whole thing is just a hoax meant for political influence rather than addressing a real situation.
Sometimes people tend to believe that having SOSUS or GIUK on one’s side is a marvelous thing. Well, the way I see it, yes and no.
The system is based on hydrophones anchored at key-positions on the sea floor right? It’s no more than an early-warning system. A way of getting an idea of the surface or subsurface traffic in the area. In the case of submarines – if detected – it’ll tell you how many passed through (GIUK) or in close vicinity, their speed and heading. That’s the good part. The not so good one can be split in two:
1. The enemy might know – or at least have a good idea of where exactly these hydrophones are placed. It can choose to either make use of concealed navigation, deactivate them or right away destroy them (AFAIK the Russians tried to reach some of the GIUK’s hydrophones but without success; in the end they gave up, the operation being too costly and time consuming).
2. You need to have your prosecuting assets in the right place at ANY time. This is quite an effort to do given the huge distance (in GIUK’s case for instance) along the line.
As the Russians demonstrated back in the ‘80s with Aport and Atrina, once the enemy gets through these choke points or across a SOSUS line in any great numbers, the game is wide-open for anybody.
So an Akula getting undetected through the SOSUS nets to reach its patrol area off US’ south-east coast in the Gulf of Mexico is very possible, especially these days. And even if the boat was detected through GIUK, I doubt that US Navy would’ve used one of their SSNs to track it. Why? Because those boats in place in GIUK’s vicinity or close to Russian shore in the Barents Sea are there mainly to prosecute deployed boomers. Any detected SSN would be eventually reported on and probably left for the western Atlantic forces to be dealt with IF those forces are able to re-detect an intruder who doesn’t want to be found and who knows what’s in wait! Besides, tracking an attack boat is more difficult than tracking a boomer. Otherwise, one can wonder how come that there were undetected Akulas lying in wait outside British bases waiting for those Vanguards to get underway as it was at times reported?
So personally I believe that events described in AP0080’s post are hugely handicapped. Four and a half weeks of tracking? From mid-Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico? From 500nm off Portuguese coast? Highly unlikely. Even an old Project 627 would be difficult to track in that manner, never mind an Akula!
As others said, I too believe that the whole thing is just a hoax meant for political influence rather than addressing a real situation.
When you say plugged do you mean they had plugs inserted into the hulls to make the longer?
Yes. The best remaining hulls were identified and used for refits.and extensions.
A small squadron were replugged for an advanced ISR/SOCOM support role