Ukraine Presidential Crackdown Violence. Russia Invades Ukraine

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

According to the Montreux Convention, submarines from non Black Sea nations are never allowed to pass through the Turkish Straits. In fact, Black Sea nations submarines are not allowed to pass through unless they are a new sub heading to a port in the Black Sea, or heading out of the Black Sea for repairs or returning from repairs.

That's why submarines are sneaky.

Does Turkey have anything like a SOSUS line in the straight?

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by PIMking

But according to a treaty signed the US said they'd protect Ukraine's boarders in exchange for the nukes when the dirty commies collapsed.

You're also not allowed to invade another country and occupy it either...

Just saying

Right, but the US is usually more diplomatic. That is why they are the good guys. How are USA / Turkish relations anyway?

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Right, but the US is usually more diplomatic. That is why they are the good guys. How are USA / Turkish relations anyway?

Not sure how our relations are, I know a lot of the hillbillies dont like them because they think they're all muslims that want to kill every Christian.

Isn't Turkey trying to join the EU right now too?

I know Germany doesn't like the idea because they'd lose out on a ton of cheap labour

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

That's why submarines are sneaky.

Does Turkey have anything like a SOSUS line in the straight?

This day and age though, could a Navy submarine head through the Bosporus without being detected?

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Isn't Turkey trying to join the EU right now too?

I think they are, not 100% sure about that. One would think that Turkey would be pretty neutral. If you read the blog about Naval traffic through the Bosporus I posted on the last page. You will see that both Ukraine, American, and Russian ships have all passed through in the past couple of days. (US ships heading out of the Black Sea).

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

This day and age though, could a Navy submarine head through the Bosporus without being detected?

Without knowing what is in the straight for detection I'd guess a Los Angeles Class 688I, Virginia Class, Seawolf Class, and Ohio Class could get through undetected.

Oh wow, just wiki'd the two straights, some pretty shallow sections so it could be incredibly tricky to get through the two straights submerged.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Without knowing what is in the straight for detection I'd guess a Los Angeles Class 688I, Virginia Class, Seawolf Class, and Ohio Class could get through undetected.

It is interesting. The US does have two joint airforce bases in Turkey, although from what I just read, they are seen more as bases for NATA operations since Turkey and the US relations were strained over Cyprus.

Would the US ignore the Montruex Convention this early in this situation? If so, what kind of international repercussions would there be? With satellite imagery now days, would the US even need to have Subs in the Black Sea at this early point? Does a treaty exist between the US and Russia about the use of surveylance satellites with each other?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

That's why submarines are sneaky.

Does Turkey have anything like a SOSUS line in the straight?

Submarines as a rule pretty much don't draw international lines on their maps. Well they're there but ignored as required.

There are several great books that study the Sub Service during the cold war where American subs parked inside Soviet Naval Bases so they could count active hulls and departing subs.

In this case modern American Attack subs are very hard to detect and you have to be out right lucky. Even the Sosus nets had trouble with detecting modern Subs.

I don't see the American's moving Strategic assets like a SSBN Ohio Sub into that area, there's simply no need, they only carry a nuclear payload with standard torpedo's for defense but they're not made to be scouts or attack boats and if they need to launch their missiles they could launch them from the pier in Bangor and hit their targets.

The intriguing thing about Ohio's though is that they're quieter then the water around them, they actually absorb ambiant water noise at a crawl.

The Virginia's are very cool boats, but they're designed to be brown water subs, they can act as hunter killers but have a distinct depth disadvantage to Russian built Hunter Killers in blue water. In fact its rumored that the Russian Akula (II) class is a better hunter killer then the Virginia in terms of speed (Virginia 25 knots, Akula 28 knots) depth of dive capability (Akula 600 Meters, Virginia between 250 and 500 meters)

The Frightening thing is that the new Akula II just successfully snuck into the Bay of Mexico on patrol and went un noticed. Rumored to be as quiet or quieter then the LA Class 688i, the Virginia is a degree quieter but is outgunned, out sped and out depthed by the Akula II which is equivalent to the 688 (I) Class, which means that the submarine gap has significantly closed in the last 10 years, with rumors that the new Class of Russian SSN's will actually have a combat capability edge.

In terms of the 688i vs Akula II, the rumor is that the Akula II radiates about 110 db at crawl speed, while someone has calculated that the 688i radiates about 105 db of radiated sound. The 688i is rumored to have a top speed of 33 knots, but American tactics mean that's never hit, its more likely in an equivalent 25 knot to 28 knot range. The 688i is not a great deep diver because of its construction and design looking out at probably between 3 and 400 meters.

Now the interesting thing about the Akula II is it was designed to carry and fire the 200 Knot Supercavitating Torpedo with an extended range of up to 15 kms. The American mark 48 has a range of about 40 kms, but a speed of 55 kms

Its funny, during the Cold War the Russians had a distinct edge in numbers but a massive disadvantage in terms of technology and quieting.

Now its almost reversed, the U.S. right now has the numbers but the Russian's might have a slight technology edge.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

It is interesting. The US does have two joint airforce bases in Turkey, although from what I just read, they are seen more as bases for NATA operations since Turkey and the US relations were strained over Cyprus.

Would the US ignore the Montruex Convention this early in this situation? If so, what kind of international repercussions would there be? With satellite imagery now days, would the US even need to have Subs in the Black Sea at this early point? Does a treaty exist between the US and Russia about the use of surveylance satellites with each other?

Not to sound crusty about things, but this depends on the Commander and Chief. I'm going on what past presidents would do which is you send in the subs first to start gathering proper intelligence. and also mapping strikes as required.

If you want to shake up the enemy and the American's did it all the time, you accidentally leak that you have a sub in the area. That freaks out surface commanders and makes them change how they operate.

I would bet that both sides have subs sniffing around and doing electronic sniffing.

[FlameOn]

I'm not sure we'll be seeing any submarine warfare any time soon. Looks like the Russians are sinking boats to block off the channel entrance to the black sea.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldno...#axzz2vAaVD5Yu

[Tyler]

Dumb question, but has an American submarine actually shot a missile at an enemy in the last 20 years? Seems like a huge waste of money (unless Iraq has a navy that I don't know about)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Dumb question, but has an American submarine actually shot a missile at an enemy in the last 20 years? Seems like a huge waste of money (unless Iraq has a navy that I don't know about)

I have not made a claim against my house insurance in the last 20 years, but I am still glad that I have it.

[CaptainCrunch]

When I read that they were blocking off the entrance to a lake to seal Ukrainian navy boats in

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Don...05b6651099b11c

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you want to shake up the enemy and the American's did it all the time, you accidentally leak that you have a sub in the area. That freaks out surface commanders and makes them change how they operate.

I would bet that both sides have subs sniffing around and doing electronic sniffing.

With international diplomacy in mind, do you, as the President of the United States, break an international treaty at this early stage in the game? Turkey is of great strategic importance for NATO when it comes to Russia and the middle east. From your post, it sounds like the stealth technology of modern submarines is incredible. However, can a sub navigate the narrow, shallow, waters of the Bosporus (which is through the middle of a city) without being detected?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Dumb question, but has an American submarine actually shot a missile at an enemy in the last 20 years? Seems like a huge waste of money (unless Iraq has a navy that I don't know about)

At land based or sea based targets.

Yes to land based targets.

no to sea based targets

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Without knowing what is in the straight for detection I'd guess a Los Angeles Class 688I, Virginia Class, Seawolf Class, and Ohio Class could get through undetected.

Oh wow, just wiki'd the two straights, some pretty shallow sections so it could be incredibly tricky to get through the two straights submerged.

My understanding is that a lookout with a pair of binoculars can see to the bottom of the straight in sections, so unless your sub is also equipped with a cloaking device...


Also, Turkey is a NATO member, not sure they'd really have a problem with it anyway.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

With international diplomacy in mind, do you, as the President of the United States, break an international treaty at this early stage in the game? Turkey is of great strategic importance for NATO when it comes to Russia and the middle east. From your post, it sounds like the stealth technology of modern submarines is incredible. However, can a sub navigate the narrow, shallow, waters of the Bosporus (which is through the middle of a city) without being detected?

I'm not sure, but the depth shows at 361 feet in the middle the minimum draft depth of the 688i is probably about 100 feet I believe

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not sure, but the depth shows at 361 feet in the middle the minimum draft depth of the 688i is probably about 100 feet I believe

I'm curious as hell about what happened during the Cold War? Did the Soviet Union have warships, that met the criteria of the Montruex Convention, pass through the Bosporus on a regular basis? Did US ships, that also met the criteria, pass through the Bosporus? Did subs pass through the Bosporus at this time? Interesting stuff.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I'm curious as hell about what happened during the Cold War? Did the Soviet Union have warships, that met the criteria of the Montruex Convention, pass through the Bosporus on a regular basis? Did US ships, that also met the criteria, pass through the Bosporus? Did subs pass through the Bosporus at this time? Interesting stuff.

The Soviets certainly did, I can't say about the Americans' but that would be an interesting little thing to try to find out.

the Soviets were allowed to move ships through because f the world and that's why.

they were also smart enough to make sure that their specific role ships that weren't too specific were outside the boundries of the agreement.

In other words "No Comrades, this aircraft carrier looking ship that launches aircraft also carries offensive weaponry like missiles and guns so its not applicable to this convention and f you"

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Soviets certainly did, I can't say about the Americans' but that would be an interesting little thing to try to find out.

the Soviets were allowed to move ships through because f the world and that's why.

they were also smart enough to make sure that their specific role ships that weren't too specific were outside the boundries of the agreement.

In other words "No Comrades, this aircraft carrier looking ship that launches aircraft also carries offensive weaponry like missiles and guns so its not applicable to this convention and f you"

Would the Soviets risk taking an aircraft carrier into the Black Sea back then? With a NATO country controlling the lone passage in and out, they would run the risk of never getting the thing out of there. If something would have escalated to where the carrier was needed, the straight could be blocked and the carrier deemed useless in the Black Sea.