NATO submarines in Black Sea

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Chrom]

Are you sure Chrom?

It's a very bold and quite frankly very hopeful statement to make.

Well, in strictest sense non-Black Sea SSN's are not prohibited to enter Black Sea. But the convention impose such limitations what we would surely know if any US submarines ever entered the sea. It is impossible to sneak there silently - and USSR / Russia would surely cry very loud about such cause.

Now, why SSN were is bad idea... First, Black Sea is quite small and not deep. As result, it is fully seeded by russian analog of CONUS, albeit much more dense and effective due to Black Sea nature. What would be purpose to operate american SSN in such environment? Also remember, said submarine must obey "2) Vessels of war belonging to non-Black Sea Powers shall not remain in the Black Sea more than twenty-one days, whatever be the object of their presence there. "

 

[StevoJH]

Although Bosporus is wide and deep enough for subs to sail submerged ,trust me you wouldn't want to send one of your SSNs under a tanker. Safe transit in Bosporus depends heavily on weather conditions due to the geography of the place. Sometimes the wind and the currents can prevent 100.000 ton tankers from taking the sharp 80degree angels and they can hit the shore. Especially when sailing to north at its narrowest point of Kandilli-Asiyan Bosporus is merely 700m wide and the currents may exceed 7knots on calm days.

Can it be done? Yeah sure.. Would you want do do it? Definitely not (during peacetime anyway).

As far as i know subs are required to sail at surface and don't think SSNs are classified different than other warships/subs in terms of Montreux convention.

I think someone might have read to much Patrick Robinson.

Sailing submarines up the Bosporus under tankers. Even in the book it was a Kilo commanded by an Israeli and an Upholder commanded by a Brit Admiral (they dragged the guy back from retirement to see if it was possible the kilo might have got out that way).

 

[tatra]

To cut to the chase, if US or NATO wanted subs in the Black Sea, e.g for special ops or recon (and there really is no other reason at the current time to have subs there: US/NATO aren't going to use an SSN or even an SSK to sink a dinky little 700 ton attack craft and they sure as heck aren't going to risk attacking a big-a$$ Slava over Georgia, and sub- or shiplaunched cruisemissiles can cover all relevant parts of Georgia and beyond from the Med), they could rely on Turkish SSKs to do the job. Turkey is an ally of Georgia. The whole point is moot. And before anyone falls over my previous reply, do realize it took untill page 2 before anyone here even touched the Montreux Convention question.

 

[Firehorse]

Now, why SSN were is bad idea... First, Black Sea is quite small and not deep. As result, it is fully seeded by russian analog of CONUS, albeit much more dense and effective due to Black Sea nature.

You are wrong:

c.159,600 sq mi (413,360 sq km) from east to west, up to 350 mi (560 km) wide..
it has a maximum depth of 7,250 ft (2,210 m).
http://www.answers.com/topic/black-sea

Most of that sea is pretty deep. Compare it on the map with the Med.Sea-

http://www.tryukraine.com/images/black_sea.jpg

Did you mean COSUS?
Anyway, American and/or British sailors could have been sent to Turkish subs to gain some local experience. And at one time, the U.S. Navy has considered Flying Submarines for closed seas! http://www.waterufo.net/flyingsubs/NavyFlyingSubHtml1.htm

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/08/flying-submarines.html

But all of the above doesn't exclude the possibility that USN and other NATO's diesel subs might have been operating in the Black Sea before the switch was made to SSNs.

 

[Chrom]

You are wrong:

Most of that sea is pretty deep. Compare it on the map with the Med.Sea-

http://www.tryukraine.com/images/black_sea.jpg

Compared to oceans...

Did you mean COSUS?
Anyway, American and/or British sailors could have been sent to Turkish subs to gain some local experience. And at one time, the U.S. Navy has considered Flying Submarines for closed seas! http://www.waterufo.net/flyingsubs/NavyFlyingSubHtml1.htm

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/08/flying-submarines.html

But all of the above doesn't exclude the possibility that USN and other NATO's diesel subs might have been operating in the Black Sea before the switch was made to SSNs.

Well, US diesel subs could theoretically shortly operate there. Though, i dont see much sense in that. Installing needed equipment on Turkey subs and sending own peoples to operate that equipment would be much easer and wiser.

 

[Chrom]

To cut to the chase, if US or NATO wanted subs in the Black Sea, e.g for special ops or recon (and there really is no other reason at the current time to have subs there: US/NATO aren't going to use an SSN or even an SSK to sink a dinky little 700 ton attack craft and they sure as heck aren't going to risk attacking a big-a$$ Slava over Georgia, and sub- or shiplaunched cruisemissiles can cover all relevant parts of Georgia and beyond from the Med), they could rely on Turkish SSKs to do the job. Turkey is an ally of Georgia. The whole point is moot. And before anyone falls over my previous reply, do realize it took untill page 2 before anyone here even touched the Montreux Convention question.

Turkey is ally of Georgia? It is really not. If you even remotely know history, you'll realise Turkey is actually rival of Georgia. Moreover, Turkey unofficially have some hopes to re-annex Georgian province Adjaria.

 

[Firehorse]

Compared to oceans...
Well, US diesel subs could theoretically shortly operate there. Though, i dont see much sense in that. Installing needed equipment on Turkey subs and sending own peoples to operate that equipment would be much easer and wiser.

The max diving depth of Cold War era SSNs (not to speak of SSKs) wasn't below 300m- so even in the Black Sea, in most areas, there would have been at least 150-200m of water to the bottom.
Thanks for the admission, but in some instances, like doing recon or special ops, to maintain secrecy, it would be better to send your own sub.
And yes, Turkey stands to benefit more from weak Georgia, even if it's neutral or allied to russia again, as in the old days. Georgia isn't homegenious even without Ossetia & Abhkazia- there are also Armenians, Mingrels, Ajarians, etc.