

Russian Attack Subs in the Gulf of Mexico Undetected - kumarski
http://freebeacon.com/silent-running/

======
brudgers
_"It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has
patrolled so close to U.S. shores."_

Sure. Patrolling where potential or actual adversaries don't want attack
submarines patrolling is what attack submarines do. The ocean is big and the
Russians have many decades experience evading US anti-submarine technology.

The article appears to have some sort of political agenda. Florida sits
between the Gulf of Mexico and Georgia's coast and the primary mission of
antisubmarine aircraft is to protect capital ships, e.g. Aircraft carrier
battle groups, placing air assets over a ballistic missile submarine would
tend to reveal its location.

------
philip1209
I do not understand the motivation of announcing this.

First, it was clearly detected, however they claim it was not early enough.
Regardless, it sends a message to Russia that they know of their activities.

Second, I doubt the veracity of this claim - what is the benefit, besides
political, of this announcement? My hypothesis is that a sonar array heard the
sub entering the gulf, and it was treated as a military exercise to try
detecting it using passive measures - i.e. to assess our capabilities of
detecting the new type of submarine, or to study it by having it trailed. If
the Pentagon felt that there was actually a threat, I think that they would
conduct some unannounced "war game" with active sonar in the gulf to locate
the sub more quickly.

Regardless, this sends the message that we are not completely oblivious, like
saying "We don't know whether Putin put creamer in the coffee he had this
morning at 7:38 am in this specific presidential bunker."

~~~
brudgers
The purpose of the announcement is to try to save funding for naval weapons
systems as the budget priorities continue to shift away from cold war
strategic nuclear weapons systems. This is the sort of information which is
only made public for political purposes, and the liberal references to
President Obama ignore the fact that Congress establishes the budget and that
priorities within the defense budget tend to be established based upon the
advice of experienced personnel at the Pentagon and within the civilian
intelligence agencies.

------
pi_neutrino
'“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy
ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.'

Yes, that may be why the Akula-class sub was designed - but to imply that
that's what this particular sub, on this particular mission, was attempting,
is a bit disingenuous.

------
zeruch
I have no idea why such a rather skewed bit of jingoistic pabulum made it up
the HN pages. That isn't just a jab, the quality of the writing, its tenor,
and its loaded (apparent) agenda seem wildly out of step with HN.

------
rdl
It must be terrifying to read articles like this (written for a domestic
political purpose: preserving and expanding Navy funding) in a foreign
newspaper, if you don't have the right context.

I assume Russian publications say exactly the same things whenever US forces
conduct exercises nearby.

~~~
Intermediate
I have never seen publication about the same things in Russian press.

------
mpyne
If it makes anyone feel any better this article is getting pilloried even by
actual U.S. submariners:

[http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2012/08/not-everything-
you-r...](http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2012/08/not-everything-you-read-on-
internet-is.html)

------
jonhendry
FYI, that isn't a newspaper, it's published by a right-wing lobbying group.

