
Why Russia fears Sweden’s submarines - gullyfur
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-russia-fears-sweden%E2%80%99s-deadly-submarines-25896
======
bryanrasmussen
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_...](https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/156474/sundberg_ulf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
\- 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.

~~~
close04
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.

~~~
trhway
>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](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).

~~~
lakis

       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.

~~~
trhway
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.

>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...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/8/4/20753648/jet-
powered-hoverboard-english-channel-crossing-franky-zapata-success)

~~~
bryanrasmussen
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.

------
CalChris
_And they aren’t even nuclear powered._

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.

~~~
Koshkin
Why would an internal-combustion piston-thrashing motor be less noisy than a
nuclear heat-powered turbine?

~~~
stevenwoo
For some reason the original article did not link to the article on the same
website explaining why. [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-one-
cheap-sub...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-one-cheap-
submarine-sweden-sank-the-us-navy-battle-25639)

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.

~~~
Dahoon
>and did not win overwhelmingly

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.

~~~
lakis

       There is also the big button that says "full conventional war". I believe that the US has way more options then retreat or full nuclear war.

------
andreig2191
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/](https://www.gsmarena.com/) or
[https://youtu.be/zIjngBAxTr4](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 :(

------
scorecard
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/...](https://www.economist.com/science-and-
technology/2013/11/30/stirling-silver)

------
hirundo
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...

------
bryanrasmussen
I too would fear something - if it were deadly.

~~~
dang
Ok, we've taken tautological deadliness out of the title above.

Let's discuss the topic now? (Or nothing. Nothing is always an option.)

~~~
ldoro8nnf
Still doesn’t make this article with discussing.

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

~~~
AnimalMuppet
You're telling the guy with the power to ban you that you won't abide by the
forum rules? Not a great strategy...

------
m0zg
Of all the countries Russia fears, Sweden is _way_ towards the bottom of the
list. Source: have a brain, am a Russian.

~~~
lb1lf
-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.

~~~
erdos4d
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.

~~~
myrandomcomment
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).

~~~
mongol
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.

------
Igelau
Facts about the Kockums:

> 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.

