I’ve been reading this article and I think it misses the point in several ways.
First of all, INF treaty is completely obsolete today: you don’t need ground based intermediary-ranged rockets to threaten targets in Europe. The Russians demonstrated how they can easily do it from the Caspian lake ships, they can do it with the Baltic fleet as well as the flying platforms. So threat level doesn’t necessarily increase with the same weapons mounted on stationary ground launchers.
Second, the weapons themselves don’t define the threat level. The political situation does. So essentially the American program of demonizing, threatening and encircling Russia is what’s increasing the threat level.
Third, and most important, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Europe, it might all be about arming Taiwan with rockets that can reach mainland China with nukes. This way America can create a scenario where it can wipe out China while not using its own ICBMs and risking retaliation in kind. Of course, it would be really crazy to expect China not to retaliate against the actual culprit, but everything America does lately is just that kind of crazy. They piss on people and don’t even have the decency to say it’s raining.
Fourth, if it comes to the point where Europe is threatened by the intermediary nuclear-tipped rockets, it means it’s global nuclear war, and Europe is fucked however you look at it, so again this doesn’t increase the threat level.
Fifth, the intermediary-ranged nukes were never about threatening Europe, they were about shortening the reaction times in a first-strike scenario against Russia. Europe was never a target, it was a missile launching platform pointed at Moscow. So if you want to kill Russia in such a way that it can’t retaliate, you first surround it with anti-missile defenses, so that you can shoot down anything they retaliate with, and then you bring in the short reaction time weapons, such as the nuclear-tipped stealthy cruise missiles which aim at the Russian command posts and nuclear sites. That’s what the Americans seem to be doing, which means they are confident they can take out Russian submarines as well. It is my opinion that they, as always, missed several crucial things that will bite them, but they themselves always act as if nothing can go wrong. They are practically cornering the market of baseless overconfidence at the moment. Almost everything they do is more harmful to them than it is to the intended target, and yet they do it, again and again.
Taking out submarines? Does this have any technical plan whatsoever?
Sure, it’s all doable. You have more hunter-seekers than they have boomers, you are constantly on duty and you never make a mistake. Also the Russians never have submarines docked in a port but with active tubes, and the Russians never have something you never thought of. Perfectly reasonable assumptions, all in all. 🙂
I’ll see if I can find out are we going to have a nuclear war in the next few years, and how bad Europe is going to be affected. I can’t do it right now, but hopefully in less than a month.
I’ll report all my results here in this thread.
And I just finished reading some writings on the topic of submarine hunting from a former American submarine officer. It’s an interesting topic for sure.
Basically, from what I understood, if you want to hunt for a submarine, you need another submarine, and you need a sonar. Sonars do come in different types, but are mostly made for HF/MF (hi and mid frequency). They actually work somewhat better than I expected, and can catch up another submarine from about 100-120 km, but this still doesn’t mean shit. There are newer low frequency sonars too with extended range of up to 500 km, but this still doesn’t mean nothing if you don’t know where to look for. It can be used for cleaning bays and certain other geographical shapes. But if you really want to hunt a submarine, your best bet is to hide and wait for it somewhere you are certain it will eventually pass, like Gibraltar and such.
TL;DR
It’s not possible to hunt for a submarine, at least not realistically speaking, and especially not in wartime.