Royal Navy frigate intercepts Russian submarine in North Sea near English Channel

They were probably on their way to their new Arctic surface-to-air defence missile base, and perhaps felt like flipping the U.K. off on their way.

Last March, Russia conducted a major military exercise in the Arctic involving 38,000 personnel, as well as aircraft and submarines. Weeks later, the defense ministers of five Nordic nations - Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland - released a joint declaration that Europe must strengthen military collaboration to counter Russian aggression.

www.rferl.org...

a reply to: crazyewok

I don't see Russia playing games in the ME at all.

In the case of Syria, Russia was the only European country to be invited to help a sovereign Government fight against a Jihad Al Qaeda Western funded and armed rebellion in which it inflicted more damage in 2 weeks than the greatest military on the Planet could inflict in one year......so no games there apparently.

Sailing towards British waters is another matter entirely though and this testing of the waters(so to speak)has been going on for a while now but it will amount to nought, just saying "beware we are still here!" .

a reply to: southbeach

Russia is in Syria because of their military base.

THAT is Russia's red line. Don't mess around where they have military installments.

You were once an "Empire on which the sun never sat", now you get 4 hours a day if it's not cloudy.

Britain is at the tail end of decline and doesn't need a large military as it's soon to be part of the EU.

America expanded from sea to sea and in 200 short years has entered it's death throes.

We will one day be just like Britain and we too will get swallowed up by a larger conglomeration of countries making us simply part of a larger whole.

Your country wanted to join America in "our adventures" because it needed to test out their shiny toys just like we did. The prospect of monetary gain was just a bonus for the power brokers.

Derp indeed. Painful truths are painful.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: crazyewok

I don't see Russia playing games in the ME at all.

In the case of Syria, Russia was the only European country to be invited to help a sovereign Government fight against a Jihad Al Qaeda Western funded and armed rebellion in which it inflicted more damage in 2 weeks than the greatest military on the Planet could inflict in one year......so no games there apparently.

Sailing towards British waters is another matter entirely though and this testing of the waters(so to speak)has been going on for a while now but it will amount to nought, just saying "beware we are still here!" .

The age old military game is being played. My ___ is just as big as your _____ - see!

While claiming that Russia would not enter a new arms race, Putin went out of his way to remind the world that this did not make the country a soft touch. On the contrary, he boasted that "no-one will succeed in defeating Russia militarily", adding that "the more [Russians] retreat and justify ourselves, the more brazen our opponents become". The inference was clear: Putin does not want a new Iron Curtain, with Russia isolated as it was during the Cold War, but nor will he allow his country to be belittled. The unexpected and so far unexplained presence of the Russian submarine off the Scottish coast could be just one of many sallies against what Putin considers to be a hostile world.

www.heraldscotland.com...

Putin considers this a hostile world? That's ironic.

If you wait until those weapons pose a direct, clear, present danger to the United States, you've probably waited too long. - John Sununu

is also believed to be a major threat to military aircraft such as the RAF Tornado and the US Air Force F-15 and F-16.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
The Russian Arctic missiles are landing in Canada's economic zone and they are toxic.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

edit on 9-6-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

6.34

@ Fisherr

a reply to: Vector99

No it's in Syria because it was invited there by Assad.

a reply to: 200Plus

Soon to be part of the EU? It is part of the EU.

a reply to: crazyewok


Serious question: What do you think countries do with submarines? Do you think they build them, then keep them in their own territorial waters?

Subs travel all over the world, you just don't think about it because they usually stay out of sight. The problem isn't that they're there, the problem is that nations like the UK are making a big deal out of a foreign submarine navigating in international waters, when the UK has submarines closer than that to Russia.

originally posted by: southbeach
In the case of Syria, Russia was the only European country to be invited to help a sovereign Government fight against a Jihad Al Qaeda Western ... blah, blah

Actually, in the interests of accuracy... Iraq invited several nations to help them out and that what has been done.

On the OP... Trying to transit the English Channel submerged would be foolhardy at best. It is a very busy shipping lane and not exactly deep. The sub was going from the north en route to the Black Sea, where it is based. The fact the sub had an attendant Russian naval ship is a bit of a giveaway they this was not some clandestine transit. The fact that a Royal naval frigate was also in accompaniment probably indicates notice of its appearance, although the Type 23 frigate is a preeminent anti-submarine frigate, let's not forget.

The only interesting thing in this story is that Russia usually do this thing at night to avoid the people with cameras. Some nice photo opportunities.

Oh look, a submarine.

a reply to: crazyewok


I doubt that Putin gives one whit or another about what the UK does with it defense budgets. He knows we have you covered...as always.

This has been going on for years now.....

Russia pushes, we push back.
Its a bit like Tom and Jerry.

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
what about the massive international fleet that guards the south pole

What "massive international fleet" would that be?

a reply to: crazyewok

No it is nothing to do with the Yank's, Tony blair does need to face a criminal court for his complicity in that war however, destroying Badman Insane was a bad mistake as at least he kept the middle east in balance, the same with Gaddafi whom though definitely implicit in terrorism was not linked to the far more recent and worse group's.

The Yank's were indeed the ring leaders in the second gulf war however but as for libya well that was us and the french.
Neither war has done us any good whatsoever though undoubtedly there are a few power and money brokers whom made a tidy sum from those needless slaughter's of people.

Tactically speaking if we wanted rid of Sadam we should have assassinated him and given a general of our choosing our backing, the same with Gaddafi and that option was definitely available on both count's but of course it was about OIL.

As for the reduction in our naval forces, Cameron was merely carrying out a Tory policy based on Tory idiology, he is an pro european and know's that the brussels was making move's to bring in a pan european military body to replace our national armed services so of course not wanting to pay over the odd's for our small stake in that he decided to scrap as much of our armed forces and cut our defence budget as much as he could before they merged the existing armed forces making it easier for him to then negotiate a smaller involvement, save tax revenue (the new defence EU subsidie), cut that tax revenue and pass the saving to the multi millionaires, the same with the destruction of our welfare state, it is not to help the British tax payer only the multi millionaire tax payer and the same with our NHS and the increasing involvement of private enterprise which perversely cost's more in tax revenue because of course they want to make a profit so charge a premium for the same services or even substandard one's that the NHS once offered at higher quality and at Cost price but of course once again the Multi millionaires gain as they own shares in those private contractor's.

So the reduction in our armed forces is not because we have no money because that is a Tory Lie, it is because it make's money sense to a self interested group of right wing money men whom have no empathy for there own nation or there own people and only care about there own small Clique.

originally posted by: Freeborn
This has been going on for years now.....

Russia pushes, we push back.
Its a bit like Tom and Jerry.

Problem is we have less and less to push back with.

a reply to: Aliensun

He knows we have you covered...as always.

The U.S. spends it's tax payers money on The Military

The U.K. spends it's tax payers money on The National Health Service.

I know which i prefer.

News Flash
Russian sub travels slowly on the surface, sailors wave like mad,sailors in RN frigate disapointed its not from Iran so cant surender to it

originally posted by: crazyewok
Problem is we have less and less to push back with.

We have wit. Wit and a sense of humour. Plus we live better.

originally posted by: InTheLight
The Russian Arctic missiles are landing in Canada's economic zone and they are toxic.

Yup.

Funny how there was no outrage when the US put 2 tons of toxic chemicals into our waters in 2005.

Maybe only the Russian toxic chemicals are toxic to us...