ISTM the editor wrote this headline. TFA only mentions Russia in the context of being a threat to Sweden. Also why present tense when "Sweden’s two A26s should be completed between 2022 and 2024, at which point it will be possible to gauge whether they can meet their ambitious performance parameters." Or at least that was the case in 2018 when TFA was published; do we have any idea whether construction even started?
-The very problem Sweden causes for Russia is described in the story; Sweden can effectively prevent the Russian Baltic fleet from exercising power in the Baltic or, for that matter - keep it holed up in the Baltic sea if the Russian admiralty should order it to brave the Kattegat and Skagerrak straits to venture into the North Sea.
The Russians aren’t concerned that Sweden are going to invade them anytime soon; they are concerned that, should the Russians get a bit carried away in their geopolitics-by-force games, the Swedes may be a heck of a nuisance.
The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to defend Sweden, so there's also that. Also, if memory serves, flattening the Copenhagen/Malmo area was considered an obvious Russian opening move during the cold war, if things had gotten hot.
-As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't.
Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines.
The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord.
Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting.
Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive.
The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.
The lobbying of nukes by the Russians would result 100% in an first strike attack by the US. Once they have shown that they are willing to use the nukes the only logical tactic is to try to cut the head off quickly. Right now the odds are on the US could destroy a good percent of the Russian nukes before they receive the order to launch as the US have a better accuracy and quicker launch time. If you wait then you are waiting for them to launch first which means even when you have time to response you have lost. This is the real world math that results in a less screwed outcome (for some meaning of screwed).
Considering that scenario today, it would be president Trump who would make that call, thus I don't think so. I can not even imagine what he would do in such a situation but I don't think he would strike Russia.
Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and likely 2nd strongest (after the US) by strength. Much of it is also nuclear, so you don't really know where it is at any given time - a few subs are always parked in the Atlantic just in case. Sweden also has 1/14th the population of Russia, and 1/4th the population of Ukraine. I don't see what Sweden could do with this (im-)balance of power with a few puny conventional submarines and why anyone in the Russian Navy would be afraid of anything they can possibly do.
I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port.
Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer.
Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.
The Russian submarine fleet is anything but formidable. Yes, the Yasen class is nice, but Russia can't afford them. The Borei is a decent SSBN, but the numbers are just too small to be formidable. The Lada isn't bad for an SSK, but again, no real budget.
The rest of the fleet is comprised of Kilos, Akulas, and Oscars. These would have been formidable in the 1980s, but they're outclassed by most NATO fleets (excluding Germany which has let their entire military collapse).
Your sub-launched ASMs are nice though. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, but since most of the SSGNs don't leave port, not really much of a threat.
On the other hand, if you add up the national GDP of Sweden+Norway+Denmark+Finland you get about 538+398+324+251 = 1.511 trillion dollars, similar to that of Russia (1.578) as of 2017.
So, just these four nations have combined economic power to match Russia: Russia can't afford a sustained war, though it may afford a quick act of aggression (a la Crimea) followed by everyone pointing fingers at everyone else. But it's a risky game because it will push their economy even further behind.
There was no "aggression" in Crimea. Not a single shot was fired. And Russia did in the past "afford" several sustained wars of the scale unimaginable in this day and age. It was much weaker then that it is today, and fought much stronger adversaries (Napoleon and Hitler, to name just a few).
There's also the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund currently evaluated at 1.1 trillion dollars. The fund holds stocks, property and other assets all around the world.
The Russians cannot send an aircraft carrier to the Middle East without a tow ship. The Russian navy is a paper tiger. The only reason that anyone cares about a Russian threat is the nukes, period. I will bet on the Swedes.
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? I feel like we've asked you this a zillion times. It doesn't take much mozgi to figure out how to do this, or why.
That comment wasn't criticizing the actual headline, which never said Russia fears Sweden. Even if I don't fear you, I might fear your deadly submarines.
Headline criticisms are unsubstantive to begin with, but it's particularly unsubstantive to make up a different headline and criticize that instead.
With all due respect, that's an exceedingly fine distinction to draw, particularly with a HN user whose first language might not be English. If I fear a nation's military, it isn't an abuse of idiom to abbreviate that fear to one of the nation itself.
Besides which, as mentioned ITT, when one reads TFA, the only mention of Russia is as a threat to Sweden: "simulating attacks", "infiltrating territorial waters", etc. There is no support in the text for any Russian fear of anything. Let us not go so far overboard in defending sensationalist headline-writing editors.
Ok. The main point is: the GP was an obviously bad comment for HN, shouldn't have been posted, and we've cut that user an incredible amount of slack already about posting bad-for-HN comments.
Well perhaps 'afraid' is not the right word to use here ('fear' sounds more neutral). Having a neighbor, and not a particularly friendly one, calls for counter-balancing actions on either side. Simple as that.
Since those subs are defensive (defensive attack subs) and don’t need to roam the seven seas, nuclear power wouldn’t offer much. Moreover, diesel subs running electric are very quiet.
Also, nuke subs can (and do) leak radioactivity into the water.
IIRC- and I don't have a source for this (might've been thedrive?)- Russia has radiation-detecting equipment onboard their subs that helps them in their hunt to find U.S. subs.
Can’t talk specifically about nuclear subs. But in a normal nuclear reactor once it’s taken sub-critical (fission chain reaction “stops”) still puts out a significant amount of heat.
The reactor may be sub-critical but the fuel still experiences some nuclear decay and puts off quite a bit off heat in the process. You need to continually monitor this and run cooling equipment, otherwise Bad Things happen.
Interestingly this effect is used in the nuclear “batteries” in some space projects like the Mars rover, Curiosity.
The US Navy war gamed against these type of subs and did not win overwhelmingly - they then turned around and rented them from Sweden to develop new strategies. Of course staying away from the coast is a strategy.
That would be quite the understatement. If USS Ronald Reagan had been sunk in a real war the US would instantly have either lost all interest in further war or use the big red button.
I think the reason that nuclear subs are hard to make quiet is that the reactor needs quite a lot of supporting machinery, which tends to make noise (pumps etc. for cooling), and these can't be quickly shut down. Hence diesel-electric subs can be a lot quieter (but of course can't win in endurance). But a silent sub can still do a lot , especially if it's targets really can't quiet themselves...
Because they are diesel-electric. Diesel charges the batteries during snorkelling - afterwards you just use the batteries. Additionally, modern submarines like the german 212A-Class use fuel cells and other air-independent means of propulsion during underwater-cruise.
The problem with nuclear submarines is that they are massive and noisy. They need to be constantly cooled and thus require running coolant pumps, which emit audible noise. Also, steam turbines are noisy when running. They cant be cycled as rapidly to full stop and full power, as well as requiring complex gearing to go forwards and backwards. Their only advantage is their near infinite cruising range.
The US-ASW-Capabilities are laughable as of today. They are still fighting their soviet counterparts. They are as of now currently unable to find or fight modern diesel-electric submarines approaching their carriers in any form of exercise. Also, the USN relies heavy on Helicopters, which the russians were unable to counter during the cold war. Nowadays, there exist wire-guided Anti-Air-Missiles which can be launched submerged from torpedo-tubes.
Can you provide a link to tube launched SAMs currently deployed? The RN once experimented with Blowpipe MANPADs for a similar role, but to my knowledge no navy is deploying SAMs on their subs.
Also, don't discount SSNs in terms of ASW. There's a reason that submariners say the best ASW is another sub.
I wouldn't say the USN relies heavily on helicopters for ASW. They don't really rely on anything since they've let these skills atrophy. About the only investment they've made is in the P8. They've shitcanned the S3, shitcanned SOSUS, and will be in a world of hurt if the PRC decides to get serious about subs.
Diesel-electric subs are an underappreciated type. Nuclear is fine for indefinite remote launch stations, but anything tactical and espionage related, you gonna want a sub that's much quieter and can be turned of completely. Hard to find I English sources, but have a look at Dutch diesel-electric subs if you're interested. Played a neat role during the cold war, a role nuclear subs couldn't fulfill.
I guess I would say that Russia does not fear Sweden's submarines, and that the article does not make an adequate argument that it does. What Russia has a problem with is one that it has had for centuries and been unable to resolve.
Since the end of the Great Northern War Russia's best ports are on the Baltic, and Russia has had a large strategic focus on the North - reference https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/156474/sundberg_... - but the Baltic is in a lousy strategic placement. If you were playing a military game you would want to expend a lot of manpower and economic might to get other ports that you could use, but they have never really managed this because unlike a military board game you can't just roll the dice a bunch of times and move your counters into Iran and solve your problems. I mean Russia won the war, but they didn't win the war enough to not be hemmed in by the Kattegat and better positions of Denmark and Sweden in the area.
Sweden's submarines are just the latest iteration of this long term problem.
Also we're in an age when many wars are fought through proxies and with plausible deniability. A submarine doesn't help with either of the those. This isn't the BUK missile that somehow "happen" to end up with "insurgents". It's going to be used only in an open and direct confrontation between the 2 clearly identifiable parties.
>This isn't the BUK missile that somehow "happen" to end up with "insurgents".
It didn't "happen", it were Ukrainian BUKs captured by the rebels - June 29, almost 3 weeks before MH-17, "Now the Donetsk sky will be protected by BUKs" https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703 [the publication time is easily verifiable through Internet Archive] - a news that the rebels had captured Ukranian anti-aircraft installation armed with BUKs, second such installation in a few days. Both sides published that news at the time.
Similarly a submarine can be hijacked either in real life or, in near future, virtually. Though my bet here is on unmanned underwater drones impossible to identify after attack (and probably self-destruction).
Are you seriously think that somebody can hijack a submarine? What do you think it is? A bicycle?
Missiles can be "lost" because the BUK missile is basically a truck. You put diesel in it and you are good to go.
Where are you going to "park" the stolen submarine? Into your small private hidden port? Are you an evil super genius multi-billionaire that has secret ports.
Real life is not a James Bond movie.
A non nuclear submarine can be parked and carried around inside a midsize container/cargo ship for example. An operation for a small well financed, though probably well less than a billion (otherwise it is just cheaper to build a sub yourself) team/organization.
Thunderball was in 1965; that technology has advanced somewhat from the slightly futuristic tech of a work of fiction from more than half a century ago is not some great declaration of that fictional world being achievable.
Operating a modern submarine isn't a skill that you pick up after staying at a Holiday Inn. And no, you wouldn't be able to hijack one "virtually" in the near future.
yesterday a german ship rammed a Venezuela navy ship.
a month before an oil tanker went down north of brazil, still zero clues which tanker it was, at all.
the sea is a very big place. we barrely hear all the weird stuff in the mainstream media. well, maybe not the baltic, that one is not so big and have too many eyes... i see your point.
To that point, letting Gadaffi go in Libya (they had UN Security Council veto power over resolution 2016) was Russia's great strategical blunder. Libya was a friendly Mediterranean base. Because of that, they're never going to give up Syria.
From a geopolitical aspect I think this is perhaps the most significant leverage the "west" has over Russian military adventurism. Not enough people put these two together, if they did they would not be surprised by either Russia's support of the Assad's forces, nor Russia strong-arming the Turks.
From a geopolitical aspect I think this is perhaps the most significant leverage the "west" has over Russian military adventurism
Russia is a petrostate, so the most significant leverage we could have over them is electric vehicles and, ideally, appropriate carbon taxes. Nuclear power would probably be #2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21992958
Correct, Russia is going to decline radically in the next few decades due to renewable energy, and none of Putin's geopolitical adventurism is going to alter that fact.
Dear Kockums, could you please quote one (1) medium sized A26 configured without weapons for use as a private yacht? Will I need permission from the State Department for that? Regards...
Why does this place shit on Russians like they're not human and defend Chinese people who eat live rats and fry live dogs? Universal law of attraction?
Clicked the link thinking that this would be some sort of grander geopolitical argument(alliances, treaties, borders, size of fleet).
I have instead finally crawled out of the rabbit hole that is international submarine comparison (think https://www.gsmarena.com/ or https://youtu.be/zIjngBAxTr4 (This could be a post on its own (Do you guys think the iPhone 1 with updated internals could outsell the newest iPhone? Is this actually the newest SE ?)).
What was most surprising to me is that there is a standardized way to become an international submarine dealer. What if I told you that a
Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution
from Georgetown University
could land you such career.
I don't know about you, but I was shocked!
I have a final question. How does Sweden's purchase choices on the submarine market explain Russia's fear of their submarines? Actually, after rereading the article, I'm not even sure what the author's whole point is?
I will now go to bed very confused about submarines :(
A Stirling engine powered Swedish sub sank the USS Ronald Reagan in a war game exercise. It was able to get within range of the aircraft carrier because the Stirling engine is very quiet. For more about Stirling engines, I recommend reading: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2013/11/30/...
84 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadThe Russians aren’t concerned that Sweden are going to invade them anytime soon; they are concerned that, should the Russians get a bit carried away in their geopolitics-by-force games, the Swedes may be a heck of a nuisance.
Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines.
The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord.
Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting.
Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive.
The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period.
The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
The rest of the fleet is comprised of Kilos, Akulas, and Oscars. These would have been formidable in the 1980s, but they're outclassed by most NATO fleets (excluding Germany which has let their entire military collapse).
Your sub-launched ASMs are nice though. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, but since most of the SSGNs don't leave port, not really much of a threat.
So, just these four nations have combined economic power to match Russia: Russia can't afford a sustained war, though it may afford a quick act of aggression (a la Crimea) followed by everyone pointing fingers at everyone else. But it's a risky game because it will push their economy even further behind.
Headline criticisms are unsubstantive to begin with, but it's particularly unsubstantive to make up a different headline and criticize that instead.
Besides which, as mentioned ITT, when one reads TFA, the only mention of Russia is as a threat to Sweden: "simulating attacks", "infiltrating territorial waters", etc. There is no support in the text for any Russian fear of anything. Let us not go so far overboard in defending sensationalist headline-writing editors.
Let's discuss the topic now? (Or nothing. Nothing is always an option.)
It’s a military submarine.
Most people will understand implicitly it’s deadly.
Thus Russia fears it.
And no I won’t abide the forum rules.
Violating a TOS isn’t illegal and I don’t have to import your requirements in a society ruled by law
Make the forum private if you don’t like it
It’s not really discussing much of value anyway except the occasional github project, this stuff is all debated better elsewhere.
Stuck at home though and mind is wandering. Gonna go do something more interesting than go in circles online
What do you think it is that empowers the owners of this web site to do as they please with it?
You are a guest here, learn to be a better one.
Since those subs are defensive (defensive attack subs) and don’t need to roam the seven seas, nuclear power wouldn’t offer much. Moreover, diesel subs running electric are very quiet.
A diesel motor on the other hand can be shut off completely and on demand, and the submarine can run off their battery which is completely silent.
IIRC- and I don't have a source for this (might've been thedrive?)- Russia has radiation-detecting equipment onboard their subs that helps them in their hunt to find U.S. subs.
The reactor may be sub-critical but the fuel still experiences some nuclear decay and puts off quite a bit off heat in the process. You need to continually monitor this and run cooling equipment, otherwise Bad Things happen.
Interestingly this effect is used in the nuclear “batteries” in some space projects like the Mars rover, Curiosity.
The US Navy war gamed against these type of subs and did not win overwhelmingly - they then turned around and rented them from Sweden to develop new strategies. Of course staying away from the coast is a strategy.
That would be quite the understatement. If USS Ronald Reagan had been sunk in a real war the US would instantly have either lost all interest in further war or use the big red button.
I think the reason that nuclear subs are hard to make quiet is that the reactor needs quite a lot of supporting machinery, which tends to make noise (pumps etc. for cooling), and these can't be quickly shut down. Hence diesel-electric subs can be a lot quieter (but of course can't win in endurance). But a silent sub can still do a lot , especially if it's targets really can't quiet themselves...
The problem with nuclear submarines is that they are massive and noisy. They need to be constantly cooled and thus require running coolant pumps, which emit audible noise. Also, steam turbines are noisy when running. They cant be cycled as rapidly to full stop and full power, as well as requiring complex gearing to go forwards and backwards. Their only advantage is their near infinite cruising range.
The US-ASW-Capabilities are laughable as of today. They are still fighting their soviet counterparts. They are as of now currently unable to find or fight modern diesel-electric submarines approaching their carriers in any form of exercise. Also, the USN relies heavy on Helicopters, which the russians were unable to counter during the cold war. Nowadays, there exist wire-guided Anti-Air-Missiles which can be launched submerged from torpedo-tubes.
Also, don't discount SSNs in terms of ASW. There's a reason that submariners say the best ASW is another sub.
I wouldn't say the USN relies heavily on helicopters for ASW. They don't really rely on anything since they've let these skills atrophy. About the only investment they've made is in the P8. They've shitcanned the S3, shitcanned SOSUS, and will be in a world of hurt if the PRC decides to get serious about subs.
Since the end of the Great Northern War Russia's best ports are on the Baltic, and Russia has had a large strategic focus on the North - reference https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/156474/sundberg_... - but the Baltic is in a lousy strategic placement. If you were playing a military game you would want to expend a lot of manpower and economic might to get other ports that you could use, but they have never really managed this because unlike a military board game you can't just roll the dice a bunch of times and move your counters into Iran and solve your problems. I mean Russia won the war, but they didn't win the war enough to not be hemmed in by the Kattegat and better positions of Denmark and Sweden in the area.
Sweden's submarines are just the latest iteration of this long term problem.
It didn't "happen", it were Ukrainian BUKs captured by the rebels - June 29, almost 3 weeks before MH-17, "Now the Donetsk sky will be protected by BUKs" https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703 [the publication time is easily verifiable through Internet Archive] - a news that the rebels had captured Ukranian anti-aircraft installation armed with BUKs, second such installation in a few days. Both sides published that news at the time.
Similarly a submarine can be hijacked either in real life or, in near future, virtually. Though my bet here is on unmanned underwater drones impossible to identify after attack (and probably self-destruction).
>Real life is not a James Bond movie.
True. For example James Bond's jetpack was much more inferior to that https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
a month before an oil tanker went down north of brazil, still zero clues which tanker it was, at all.
the sea is a very big place. we barrely hear all the weird stuff in the mainstream media. well, maybe not the baltic, that one is not so big and have too many eyes... i see your point.
Russia is a petrostate, so the most significant leverage we could have over them is electric vehicles and, ideally, appropriate carbon taxes. Nuclear power would probably be #2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21992958
> stretching them out from forty-eight to sixty meters
It reaches a prodigious length.
> hull will also be unusually resilient to underwater explosions
It's hard.
> a special ‘multi-mission’ portal for deploying special forces
It's ready to unload high-quality seamen.
If they staged an invasion of America, when the tears of laughter finally subsided, we'd already be completely conquered.
I have instead finally crawled out of the rabbit hole that is international submarine comparison (think https://www.gsmarena.com/ or https://youtu.be/zIjngBAxTr4 (This could be a post on its own (Do you guys think the iPhone 1 with updated internals could outsell the newest iPhone? Is this actually the newest SE ?)).
What was most surprising to me is that there is a standardized way to become an international submarine dealer. What if I told you that a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University could land you such career. I don't know about you, but I was shocked!
I have a final question. How does Sweden's purchase choices on the submarine market explain Russia's fear of their submarines? Actually, after rereading the article, I'm not even sure what the author's whole point is?
I will now go to bed very confused about submarines :(