# Russian Subs Patrolling Off East Coast of U.S.



## Dark Matter (Aug 8, 2009)

Russian Subs Patrolling Off East Coast of U.S. 





By MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER
Published: August 4, 2009 
WASHINGTON — A pair of nuclear-powered Russian attack submarines has been patrolling off the eastern seaboard of the United States over recent days, a rare mission that has raised concerns inside the Pentagon and intelligence agencies about a more assertive stance by the Russian military. 

The episode has echoes of the cold war era, when the United States and the Soviet Union regularly parked submarines off each other’s coasts to steal military secrets, track the movements of their underwater fleets — and be poised for war. 

But the collapse of the Soviet Union all but eliminated the ability of the Russian Navy to operate far from home ports, making the current submarine patrols thousands of miles from Russia even more surprising for military officials and defense policy experts. 

“I don’t think they’ve put two first-line nuclear subs off the U.S. coast in about 15 years,” said Norman Polmar, a naval historian and expert on submarine warfare. 

The submarines are of the Akula class, a counterpart to the Los Angeles class attack subs of the United States Navy, and not one of the larger submarines that can launch intercontinental nuclear missiles.

According to Defense Department officials, one of the Russian submarines remained in international waters on Tuesday about 200 miles off the coast of the United States. The second submarine traveled south in recent days to make a port call in Cuba, according to a senior Defense Department official. 

The Pentagon and intelligence officials spoke anonymously to describe the effort to track the Russian submarines, which has not been publicly announced.

The submarine patrols come as Moscow tries to shake off the embarrassment of the latest failed test of the Bulava missile, a long-range weapon that was test fired from a submarine in the Arctic on July 15. The failed missile test was the sixth since 2005, and some experts see Russia’s assertiveness elsewhere as a gambit by the military to prove its continued relevance. 

“It’s the military trying to demonstrate that they are still a player in Russian political and economic matters,” said Mr. Polmar. 

One of the submarines is the newer Akula II, officials said, which is quieter than the older variant and the most advanced submarine in the Russian fleet. The Akula is capable of carrying torpedoes for attacking other submarines and surface vessels as well as missiles for striking targets on land and at sea. 

Defense Department officials declined to speculate on what weapons might be aboard the two submarines. 

While the submarines had not taken any provocative action beyond their presence outside territorial waters of the United States, officials expressed wariness over the Kremlin’s motivation for ordering such an unusual mission.

“Any time the Russian Navy does something so out of the ordinary it is cause for worry,” said a senior Defense Department official who has been monitoring reports on the submarines’ activities.

The official said the Navy was able to track the submarines as they made their way through international waters off the American coastline. This can be done from aircraft, ships, underwater sensors or other submarines.

“We’ve known where they were, and we’re not concerned about our ability to track the subs,” the official added. “We’re concerned just because they are there.”

Once among the world’s most powerful forces, the Russian Navy now has very few ships regularly deployed on the open seas. Moscow has contributed warships to the international armada searching for Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. 

Another example of how Russia’s navy has sought to display global reach came last year when a flotilla of warships, including the nuclear battle cruiser Peter the Great, sailed for exercises with Venezuela.

The submarine patrols off the East Coast follow Russia’s resumption last year of bomber runs off the coast of Alaska. Russia began sending Tu-95 “Bear” bombers through international air space near Alaska in what was interpreted as a signal of the Kremlin’s unhappiness over decisions by the United States and Europe to recognize Kosovo’s independence, in defiance of Russia.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

It would be a terrible idea, but it must be so tempting to send a Virginia class over to sink one.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 8, 2009)

Dunno for sure, but I'd be willin to put money on the fact that there's an American sub welded to their stern-planes as we speak.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Dunno for sure, but I'd be willin to put money on the fact that there's an American sub welded to their stern-planes as we speak.


They should repeatedly ping them with active sonar to be obnoxious.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 8, 2009)

"...They should repeatedly ping them with active sonar to be obnoxious..." I hope that's a joke, Clay.

MM


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 8, 2009)

Russia is has Nuclear-Powered Submarines off our coast and we're concerned!? We're not threatining Russia at all!?....No threat of military action?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 8, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Russia is has Nuclear-Powered Submarines off our coast and we're concerned!? We're not threatining Russia at all!?....No threat of military action?


They were doing that for years...

Wonder if there's any Seawolf class subs out there keeping the Russians company.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Aug 8, 2009)

Just last year a TU 95's buzzed the Nimitz.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/sitrep/navy-intercepts-russian-bombers-11871.html


Wheels


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> They were doing that for years...
> 
> Wonder if there's any Seawolf class subs out there keeping the Russians company.


My brother is on the (688 class) USS Buffalo, he has told me the Sea Wolf class has been a maintenance disaster and that a lot of the guys call them the Pier Wolf class. He has a buddy from power school who is on one and they barely get out of port, much less complete a mission. On the other hand, apparently the Virginia class is awesome.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 8, 2009)

Bummer, the Seawolf class was supposed to be in place to counter the Akula/Akula II class subs.

I've heard the Virginia class has some pretty sophisticated electronics, including having it's periscopes replaced by electronic optics.

Then again, a good ol' fashioned Los Angeles class attack sub in thier shadow should make 'em a little nervous...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Bummer, the Seawolf class was supposed to be in place to counter the Akula/Akula II class subs.
> 
> I've heard the Virginia class has some pretty sophisticated electronics, including having it's periscopes replaced by electronic optics.
> 
> Then again, a good ol' fashioned Los Angeles class attack sub in thier shadow should make 'em a little nervous...


The LA class is getting really old. A lot of the stuff my brother works breaks again in another place as soon as it's fixed. Manning is terrible and they are having the guys in engineering work 16-18 hour days even when they are in port. Morale is terrible and several guys have been put on suicide watch when they get around nervous breakdown level. Add to that the command's "The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves" attitude and it's a lousy situation.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 8, 2009)

The "Silent Service" is pretty stressful to begin with, my Uncle Fred served aboard a few in the Pacific in WWII.

He wouldn't talk about alot of it, but I picked up alot of info from other family members about his ordeals.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The "Silent Service" is pretty stressful to begin with, my Uncle Fred served aboard a few in the Pacific in WWII.
> 
> He wouldn't talk about alot of it, but I picked up alot of info from other family members about his ordeals.


Justin hates the boat and hates his chief more. That guy wrote someone up for malingering right before the guy's appendix burst.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay, what's your brother's rate? I was a nuke EM on Sturgeon-class boats, out of Pearl. USS Drum (677) and USS Cavalla (684), decommed both, plus a few months decomming the USS Indianapolis (697) when they wouldn't let me take the early-out option at my 6-month point. I recall alot of 12-on-12-off shift-work schedules, with regular duty days thrown in. There were times we were working 12- to 15-hour shifts while underway (at sea, everything shifts to an 18-hour workday....which really sucks when you get back in to port) trying to keep the motors and generators running. Several times I got stuck on a 40-hour workday....things start to get really trippy when you've been awake that long! But in spite of all that, we kicked the butts of EVERYBODY we played games with, whether allied subs (I won't mention any countries....y'all're all good! We're just better.) or US surface ships. AKA "targets". The Akula is a nasty piece of hardware...but even the Sturgeon class 637 and higher subs could give it a serious run for its money. It just has more tubes. We're still quieter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2009)




----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Aug 9, 2009)

P-3's are good!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2009)

Funny you'd mention the Cavalla, RA!

That was one of my Uncle's boats, the Gato class Cavalla 244...she's on static in Seawolf park in Galveston, Texas.



FLYBOYJ said:


>


Oh yeah...that'll leave a mark!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Clay, what's your brother's rate? I was a nuke EM on Sturgeon-class boats, out of Pearl. USS Drum (677) and USS Cavalla (684), decommed both, plus a few months decomming the USS Indianapolis (697) when they wouldn't let me take the early-out option at my 6-month point. I recall alot of 12-on-12-off shift-work schedules, with regular duty days thrown in. There were times we were working 12- to 15-hour shifts while underway (at sea, everything shifts to an 18-hour workday....which really sucks when you get back in to port) trying to keep the motors and generators running. Several times I got stuck on a 40-hour workday....things start to get really trippy when you've been awake that long! But in spite of all that, we kicked the butts of EVERYBODY we played games with, whether allied subs (I won't mention any countries....y'all're all good! We're just better.) or US surface ships. AKA "targets". The Akula is a nasty piece of hardware...but even the Sturgeon class 637 and higher subs could give it a serious run for its money. It just has more tubes. We're still quieter.


He's an EM. he won't re-enlist despite the fact that they recently offered a $90,000 Re-up bonus. Re-enlistment rates started to plummet in 1998, they've gotten worse pretty much every year. The Navy becoming obsessed with spit and polish and decorum to the point that they clearly hold morale in contempt combined with very high paying jobs in the civilian sector, which further combined with higher and higher stress levels as subs worked more and more understaffed.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2009)

I love that shot of the P-3, Joe. That will definitely help keeping an eye on things.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Russia is has Nuclear-Powered Submarines off our coast and we're concerned!? We're not threatining Russia at all!?....No threat of military action?



Why would we threaten them?

1. This has been done for years.

2. They have done nothing wrong. They are in international waters and have every right to be there. They are not threatening us by doing so. Should Italy threaten us everytime we send a boat in to the Med?

Think about it...


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 9, 2009)

I got out in '98, Clive. I agree with him, there is absolutely nothing to keep people in the service. EM's are supposed to be a 12-man division (counting chief and LPO). We routinely ran with somewhere between 6 and 9 of us. I lived on Mt. Dew and Excedrin. An average day consisted of only two Excedrin in the morning, and two at lunch. A bad day....well, lets just say that I kept the fine makers of various pain relievers in business. Guys who'd been in for 15 years were getting out because the jobs outside were better...better benefits, better pay, better hours...it wasn't worth it to stick around and actually retire, Thank You Very Much Mr. Clinton. Seawolf was just coming online when I was gettin out, so the only things we heard about it was that they were CONSTANTLY cleaning and hosting dignitaries for 6-hour in-and-out trips to show off the new toys. 

P-3's....glad to have them up there. Used to have a pic of one taken from our periscope, with cross-hairs on it. My ex was in a P3 squadron, I hung a copy up on their squadron bulletin board once. They didn't find it funny. Dunno why.

Cool story about P-3s, we were always giving them a hard time about not being able to find us even though they kept narrowing our operations box. Once we were scheduled to go out on a three-day "rabbit" op (we were the "aggressor" sub) to give the P3 guys another chance to find us. Something broke, and we cancelled the op. About noonish one day, we get this call that "hey, we found you!" Sure enough...the P3 hadn't gotten the word we weren't going out. So, tied up next to the pier, we had to concede the victory to them. They found us.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> I got out in '98, Clive. I agree with him, there is absolutely nothing to keep people in the service. EM's are supposed to be a 12-man division (counting chief and LPO). We routinely ran with somewhere between 6 and 9 of us. I lived on Mt. Dew and Excedrin. An average day consisted of only two Excedrin in the morning, and two at lunch. A bad day....well, lets just say that I kept the fine makers of various pain relievers in business. Guys who'd been in for 15 years were getting out because the jobs outside were better...better benefits, better pay, better hours...it wasn't worth it to stick around and actually retire, Thank You Very Much Mr. Clinton. Seawolf was just coming online when I was gettin out, so the only things we heard about it was that they were CONSTANTLY cleaning and hosting dignitaries for 6-hour in-and-out trips to show off the new toys.



It was the same in the army. A buddy of mine who is still in, is understaffed and living in the field. He returned home from Iraq last October and has spent 8 of the last 10 months on and off in the field (he is an air traffic controller) because they are so understaffed. He has been home from the field for the last 2 weeks. He leaves again tomorrow for over a month, and then will go on leave before deploying again.

The military is not what it used to be anymore.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 9, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why would we threaten them?
> 
> 1. This has been done for years.
> 
> ...


You have a point....But I still don't like it....


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 9, 2009)

Well, it's not like the US is not doing it either.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 9, 2009)

Been going on forever. I can remember US Navy blimps patrolling up and down the Jersey shore in the 1950s. Was one of the enduring images that I can recall from my childhood. 

And like vB said, we do the same thing. No big deal IMO.

TO


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 9, 2009)

"Extended Training Missions in International Waters". That's what they call it these days. And as long as nobody does anything stupid, its kinda an unspoken gentleman's agreement that yes, we know you're there, yes, we know you know we're there, but if you play nicely in my pool, I promise I won't piddle in yours. ...but I'm not turning my back, cuz I know you had alot to drink before you paddled over here.

One of these days they're going to find themselves either so undermanned that they will not be able to do anything, or the standards required for qualifying for certain technical jobs will be lowered so much that they'll notice a sharp increase in accidents and "incidents". heck, I probably wouldn't've made it through the training if I'd've gone in ten years earlier than I did. I can't help but think that there's going to be a wake-up call for the gov't and the military, and its going to cost someone some blood to do it. One would think that 9-11 would've opened eyes in Washington, but it doesn't sound like it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2009)

The only comforting thought (if there is such a thing), is that the Russian Navy is in worse shape than ours, manpower-wise.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> "Extended Training Missions in International Waters". That's what they call it these days. And as long as nobody does anything stupid, its kinda an unspoken gentleman's agreement that yes, we know you're there, yes, we know you know we're there, but if you play nicely in my pool, I promise I won't piddle in yours. ...but I'm not turning my back, cuz I know you had alot to drink before you paddled over here.
> 
> One of these days they're going to find themselves either so undermanned that they will not be able to do anything, or the standards required for qualifying for certain technical jobs will be lowered so much that they'll notice a sharp increase in accidents and "incidents". heck, I probably wouldn't've made it through the training if I'd've gone in ten years earlier than I did. I can't help but think that there's going to be a wake-up call for the gov't and the military, and its going to cost someone some blood to do it. One would think that 9-11 would've opened eyes in Washington, but it doesn't sound like it.


Justin is hoping that they decide to start decomming the 688 class starting with the lowest numbers and working upwards to make more personnel available in the long run. Obviously much of the crew would be needed to decom the boat in the short run.

He also said that everyone is having tremendous trouble qualling anything because they are either working or endlessly looking for "deep dirt" and get no chance to qualify.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 9, 2009)

I'm not so sure having an under-manned Soviet Nuke Sub off my coast is such a reassuring thing


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I'm not so sure having an under-manned Soviet Nuke Sub off my coast is such a reassuring thing


their subs may not be undermanned, they have a draft.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 9, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why would we threaten them?
> 
> 1. This has been done for years.
> 
> ...



Exactly.

They play their games, we play ours.

No harm, no foul.


----------



## Jester's Dead (Aug 10, 2009)

I think we should let Ted Nugent go kick their commie butts.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 10, 2009)

Jester's Dead said:


> I think we should let Ted Nugent go kick their commie butts.


 I like 'Nuge and I like his Hunting show.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 10, 2009)

From what I've read about the Russian (AKA, former Soviet) Navy, I'd be less worried about them patrolling out there than having an "incident", catching fire and sinking out there. From what I've heard, the Russian serviceability rates have dropped dramitcally in the last 20 years. Putting two Fast Attacks out there has got to be straining their resources. 

Wonder how long it will last? Probably not long.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2009)

Jester's Dead said:


> I think we should let Ted Nugent go kick their commie butts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

Jester's Dead said:


> I think we should let Ted Nugent go kick their commie butts.


Do you realize there is a big difference between "Russia" and the USSR who was communist?!?!?


----------



## badbear (Aug 11, 2009)

We get buzzed by bears all the time in the north sea its been going on for years its just cat and mouse games.BB


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 12, 2009)

It's business as usual all the way around.


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 12, 2009)

Yep, us and Russia have been playing that war at sea for years. Just another day in the office.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 12, 2009)

If anything comes out of this, perhaps maybe, it will bring some much needed attention to our military and the need to address the issues people have brought up in this thread.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 15, 2009)

I wonder if the Russian sub captain has a Scottish accent.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 15, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> They were doing that for years...
> 
> Wonder if there's any Seawolf class subs out there keeping the Russians company.



The Cold War really never ended. It just went underground. The Russians still consider the US to be their "number one adversary" and all the espionage, propaganda, arms races and proxy fighting still go on. I wish it wasn't so but it will probably always be.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 15, 2009)

With the ending of the Cold War, I think the Russians took a back seat to emerging threats and a change in mission strategy.

The Russians are still a force to recon with, but aside from China, I think the days of the "clash of the Titans" are behind us.

The media is just suffering from slow news, and looking for stuff to fill thier headlines.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 15, 2009)

I agree with GrauGeist. But not only the media. Also politicians like to create the illusion that the Soviets are back. Russia will not be a superpower again, at least not this century ! One of several superpowers ... maybe.

Kris


----------



## stasoid (Aug 15, 2009)

Just wonder if those are same two submarines now in a search for the allegedly hijacked russian-crewed freighter that went missing off the coast of France about a week ago.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 15, 2009)

For some reason, Stasoid's comment made me think of the ending to "Hunt for Red October" (a hacked-up movie version of an excellent book....I mean, c'mon...Alec Baldwin????), where the Russian ambassador is talking to the US Sec of State (or whatever his job title was), and mentioned another Russian sub that was missing. The American looks at him for a second and says "Alexie, you mean to tell me you've lost ANOTHER sub?"


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 15, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> ...The American looks at him for a second and says "Alexie, you mean to tell me you've lost ANOTHER sub?"


That was a good part, but my fav was the "One ping...one ping only" part...


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 15, 2009)

Alot of bad acting and even worse filming aside, they got that part right. Passive sonar echoes through the hull. Active is much much louder. And whales/dolphins....we grew to hate the bastards.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 15, 2009)

Well, my Uncle Fred and the crew aboard the Grayling (209) were saved by a whale...the Japanese destroyer was working them over, and took off chasing the whale and the Grayling got away!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 16, 2009)

There are any number of reasons for those subs to be there. Rest assured, if they didnt want you to know they were there, you wouldnt know they were there. It takes a LOT of effort to track an SSN. They can move, and the new ones are quiet.

Its the ones you dont know about that worry me.

Many centuries ago, a friend of mine spent some time in an aussie sub. He was a trainee, and expressed a vague interest in the submarine arm. Next thing he knew he had done the conversion course and was aboard one of the Oberons. These things were ultra quiet , and hard to detect. He then spent the next three weeks sitting outside a certain Russian harbour, identiying ships, and recording prop signatures. That gave our allies a tremendous advantage in tracking Soviet ships allover the world. So Im told. But my friend tells me it was the most stifling, mind numbing excercise he has ever undertaken. He never wanted to do it again. 

Makes me wonder if the US has kept up with its homework. I know that the RAN has not been to Vladivostock since the mid '90s, and since this sort of surveillance cloak and dagger stuff is strictly niche market, I am not sure the USN has the capability or know how to do this sort of thing. Its not something nukes can do all that well to be honest.....just sitting on the bottom watching the world go by .....


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 16, 2009)

Bein a nuke has nothing to do with whether or not it can sit quietly. The reactor makes no noise, they dont need to surface to recharge batteries, they can create their own O2 and H2O...the only real limiting factor is the amount of food they can carry. And yes, the Russian subs are alot noisier than the US and several other countries' subs. They're not the noisiest in the water, but they're fairly easy to track. Don't let "Hunt for Red October" fool you. I have no idea whether we still have subs parked in the middle of their harbors taking names, but I will guarantee you that we know when they put to sea and at the very minimum, which direction they're headed.


----------



## Glider (Aug 16, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Bein a nuke has nothing to do with whether or not it can sit quietly. The reactor makes no noise, they dont need to surface to recharge batteries, they can create their own O2 and H2O...the only real limiting factor is the amount of food they can carry.



I don't claim to be an expert on subs but my understanding was that the one thing a nuke cannot do is sit still in one place for long. The problem isn't the noise as they, which you correctly say, are very quiet its the water they use to cool down the reactor. If you sit still for too long the localised heat of the water can give you away and make life very uncomfortable for you.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 16, 2009)

I dont know about today, but tracking US SSN and SSBNs back in the seventies and eighties was a relatively simple excercise because of the excessive cavitation they tended to generate. In comparison the Oberons were much quieter. Saying that the reactors are quiet is not the issue. The battieries in a diesel electric boat are just as quiet. The drive systems are where the noise comes from, and most frequently this comes from the cavitation of the props. Because US nuclear powered subs move quickly, they cannot help but generate more noise. To be fair however the US subs had two priceless advantages....it could dive deep, very deep, and it could use exceptionally high speeds to extricate itself from a situation if the need arose. And in terms of attqack systems it was very advanced. 

Common belief is that Soviet Subs are noisier than their western counterparts. This is true, but not for anythng to do with their reactors. They are not noisier because of their propulsion systems, so much as their drive systems are noisy. In particualr their props suffer from a lot of cavitation and this makes them easier to track. However, without the basic intelligence gathered about the signatures of each hull's special noise characteristics, it is is impossible to tell exactly what you are up up against, and what are the optimum frequencies to set your passive listening gear to.

And even though Soviet Subs are noisy, it is anything but easy to firstly achieve contact in the first place, but then, having made contact, maintain surveillance and not get detected yourself. Getting detected means that the excercise will be reduced to who gets the draw first, and thats basically a 50/50 chance of getting yourself sunk before them. Since the Russians have more subs than us (or did have), the math is simple....we run out of subs before them. So, from a western allied perspective it becomes imperative to maintain an undetected status to maximise our chances of a kill, and minimise the chances of them killing you.

Soviet tactics often involved the use of two subs....one acting like a beater (in a tiger hunt) , making a lot of noise and attracting a lot of attention, and a second operating in the shadows, and not so easily detected. Though only ever practised in excercise, I dont know how many times I have seen US Subs report that they have tracked and destroyed the enemy contact, only to be told they were sunk by the targets shadow. Maybe the Yanks got better at this game in the 90's, but they would fall for the same ruses again and again back in the 70's 

Plus, a nuclear powered sub is an expensive and valuable piece of hardware. I never once heard of them being used to undertake the job of sitting outside Soviet ports and recording signatures. To do so they would have to operate inshore, in shallow waters, therby denying them one of their fundamental means of defence (their deep diving ability) Because they are nuclear powered, it would almost certainly have triggered WWIII if they had been detected. The Soviets back then would not have allowed nuclear subs that close to their main bases. We were confident that they never knew our Oberons were so close, but even if they had caught us, the worst thing would probably have been a stern message for us to bugger off. We were always careful to stay in International waters incidentally


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 17, 2009)

Anything in contact with the hull will radiate noise out into the water. A pump mounted on its base will transmit the vibrations of a bad bearing out into the sea. A vacuum cleaner placed on the deckplate will put a little bit of noise into the water. There's so much more than just drive-systems that create noise at sea! Dropping a handful of quarters (ala "Down Periscope") will not make much of a difference, but its not that far from the truth. 

Harbors are busy places, with traffic coming and going all the time. Tides, currents, etc will ensure that no "heat buildup" occurs in the area, and other traffic will ensure that any warmer water due to discharges will not be noticed. The only thing that'll keep a nuke from parking on the bottom of a harbor is the fact that they're not designed to park on the bottom. The hulls are round. Stick it in the sand, and it'll roll a little bit, which is decidedly uncomfortable for those inside. I was on a sub that had a "liberty call" in Astoria Oregon. A fishing town. At low tide, you could look at the boat from the pier, and it was cranked over at a 10-degree angle. It really sucked for those who's racks were on the uphill side...Anyhoo, any monitoring would be done from offshore, in deeper water, doing laps in front of the harbor entrance where sonar could still cover who was coming in and going out.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 19, 2009)

I agree with you Rabid. You guys need to read "Blind Man's Bluff" to brush up on your historic settings where subs routinely were used for reconnaisance and subterfuge during the cold war. Historical truth is more fantastic than fiction.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 20, 2009)

I have that book Matt. It is a great book, a real page turner. I have read it twice now. Hard to put down! Everyone would be surprised at what has gone on under the water during the Col War. Love the Batcave


----------

