It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


AP sources: Russian subs patrolling off East Coast

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:18 PM
reply to post by deltaboy

Why would any Russian want to defect here?

All they need do is wait a year or two and we will all be comrades, fellow communists, and above all citizens of the world.

They would be defecting to the land of change and hope, the socialist utopia that former soviet leaders attempted to create.

Eventually the only difference between the USA and Russia will be language.

Besides, it would be easier to take the sub to south America to a Russian friendly port then defect and cross the open border through Mexico into the USA.

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by deltaboy

They still dont get it!

Too funny!

They just released a photo of the Russian Capt God I hope they find him in time...

Here is a news update

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:23 PM
Actually Red October was a good movie.

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:41 PM

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
reply to post by Schaden

I don't know it for a fact, but it makes sence.

If there is anaval battle and the other ship/sub is not sunk, then they"may" send a small armed force to take over the ship/sub rather than justr sink it.

Also possible, is the need for forces to remove the crew of said ship/sub and bring them on the sub as prisoners. Someone must watch them.
Then the ship/sub could be sunk if desired.

It doesn't make sense to me. I can't imagine any Navy keeping a detachment of marines on an underway SSBN for boarding enemy ships, or to provide security and "remove dissenters" as you put it.
It wouldn't be worth the food and space they consume for such unlikely contingencies. Dead weight.

Sub crews are trained in light weapons and would use them if one of their own tried to sabotage a strategic launch.

On this note, I have read Russian SSBNs typically have a "party advisor" aboard.

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:57 PM
I do know of instances of naval Spetsnaz units being posted on subs, but as far as I know those were not normal circumstances. I don't think they were there to be boarding parties though, as opposed to underwater deployment via missile tubes possibly (just like American SEALS). Make no mistake though, Russian subs are built to accomodate crews and room can be made for such special "packages".

And yes, the Soviets required political officers on their ships but most of the time they proved to be a pain in the ass with their communist beurocracy.

@mrmonsoon: Nationalism for Russia? Silly rabbit, I am pure Canadian. You may not believe that there can be nationalist Canadians, but I assure you that I am prepared to kill and die for my country

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
reply to post by orangetom1999

You made no sense at all.

Someone said that they thought there were a small amount of (for lack of better terms) marines on the sub.

I said I did not know this is fact, but makes sense.
I then gave two examples of why it may be.

I completely fail to see your issue?

Schaden made a good comment but not the one of which I know.

Submarines do on occasion take on "special " parties for special tasks.

Not normally marines. As Schaden succinctly stated...submariners take on thier own security issuses and tasks and have thier own weapons.

Yes mrmonsoon..I had an idea that what I said about your quote made no sense to you at all.

I was specifically refering to the part about taking on prisioners. You need to seriously think this one through.

When the Greenville rammed that Japanese tuna training ship.....did they take on survivors or did they send out rafts and wait for help to come??

When the Brits sank the General Belgrano in the Falklands Island war in the 1980s ...did they take on prisioners or survivors or did they just leave the area??

What I am telling you is that this stuff is not advertised or told on television but every submariner knows how harsh and hard are the rules of the cannot give in to your natural feelings or you can get yourself and your shipmates

It is not politic but it is the nature of the buisness.
You do not take on unauthorized people on a nuclear submarine...or in WW2 a diessel electric boat.
You leave the area and leave them to the sea or you execute them...and as a matter of history... both have been war and in peacetime.

You especially cannot take on prisioners/survivors onto a Boomer with nuclear reactor and its "Special" loadouts. Not going to happen...every Skipper knows this.
And todays fast attacks with vertical launch tomahawks can also have special loadouts.

We live such nice sanitized lives ..these thoughts never enter most of our minds.

Hope this helps you to hear what they wont tell you the next time it happens in the news.


[edit on 7-8-2009 by orangetom1999]

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:11 AM
This article claims that the subs mission would be considered a failure.

MOSCOW (AFP) – Two Russian attack submarines are considered to have failed their secret mission in international waters after being detected by the United States and Canada, a report said on Thursday.

"If the United States and Canada really detected the foreign submarines, that means they unmasked them. This represents the failure of their military mission," the Interfax news agency quoted a source close to the matter as saying.

"It's unlikely the submarine crew will be congratulated under the circumstances," the source said.

Although that was pretty clear any way I just thought I'd bump the discussion up the board again - would it be a failure? They could of been probing reactions - they could of been there for months undetected, or maybe it was even a bit of slight of hand - your watching this one while I do something I don't want you to see with the other...

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by Now_Then

I disagree with that.

I think their mission was to let the US knew that the "russian bear" is back and can easily be off our coast.

I think Putin, yes Putin, not Russia's president, wanted this.

Believe me, from all the reaction, they did as they set out to, imo.

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:49 PM
According to the Web Bot, those Russian subs are going to launch an attack on New York, Central Florida, California, and the state of Washington. I'm sure we're not chasing them away,...well, you know why.

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:50 PM
This is tricky, but I think they would prefer to remain undetected.

This doesn't show us anything but weakness. Some of their best subs were counterdetected and would be ineffective had they been called into action.
I'd speculate there were at least a dozen American SSNs available on short notice to vector against those two Akulas. We don't know all the details, it's entirely possible those Russian boats were not alone.

I believe the news said they were operating within a few hundred miles off the coast. An Oscar SSGN is very effective at that range.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:41 AM

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
I think Putin, yes Putin, not Russia's president, wanted this.

Ahh yes - the puppet master.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by Now_Then

Yes, indeed.

It is my unquestioning opinion/fact? that no matter who is officially in office, Putin is completely running the show.

Also, as an old "cold warrior" and ex? head of KGB, we can clearly see where he is going and taking Russia with him.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:04 AM

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
reply to post by Now_Then

Also, as an old "cold warrior" and ex? head of KGB, we can clearly see where he is going and taking Russia with him.

He was a just a KGB agent, not the head of the KGB.

Russia is heading in the direction that her people want to move. Putin brought back Russian prosperity and dominance and he is now an icon of the people. All is right with the Russian Federation

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in