Showing posts with label bmd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bmd. Show all posts

Monday, June 1, 2015

Russia’s Anonymous Sources Try to Sink U.S. Destroyer

"USS Ross" conducting northbound transit of Turkish Straits – May 23, 2015
[credit: Yörük Işık]
Russian news outlets were overly active this weekend recycling and enhancing a story that originated from two anonymous sources who want you to believe that a U.S. destroyer operated in, or extremely close to, Russia’s territorial waters until it was chased away by fighter-bombers – all while the U.S. Secretary of Defense and Russian Deputy Minister of Defense were both in Singapore discussing security in the Asia-Pacific region.

The U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer “USS Ross” (DDG 71) entered the Black Sea on May 23 to “work closely with [U.S.] allies and partners to enhance maritime security, readiness, and naval capability, and to promote peace and stability in the region.” The U.S. destroyer is the latest in a long series of naval ships from the U.S. and other foreign nations to regularly operate in international waters in the Black Sea much to the dismay of Russia. Moscow considers naval operations by non-Black Sea littoral countries – more specifically by NATO countries – in the Black Sea to be provocative.

After completing drills with Romanian naval forces on May 28, the destroyer continued independent operations in the Black Sea, apparently in the vicinity of the Crimean Peninsula. On May 30, RIA Novosti (aka MIA Russia Today) published a news article in which an unnamed “source in a Crimean power structure” reported that Black Sea Fleet SU-24 Fencer fighter-bombers were scrambled and successfully “forced” the U.S. destroyer, which was operating in a “provocative and aggressive” manner, “to depart for neutral waters in the eastern portion of the Black Sea.”

As the source never said “USS Ross” was operating within Russia’s territorial waters, this story could be characterized as routine activity for the two nations’ navies as viewed by an excitable RIA Novosti anonymous source. But then the source loses all credibility when he says that the “Americans have not forgotten the incident in April 2014 when one SU-24 actually ‘shut down’ all of the instruments on the new American destroyer ‘USS Donald Cook’, which has ballistic missile defense elements.” Even the Russian Ministry of Defense had to chuckle at that version of the April event.

Seeing an opportunity to prove it’s still relevant, Pravda.ru, masquerading as Politonline.ru, published its own amazing details in an article titled ‘SU-24s Almost Sink NATO Destroyer in Black Sea’. According to its article, the U.S. destroyer was “lit up by a ‘Bastion’ system from a Black Sea Fleet missile ship.” That’s a mistake – Bastion is a coastal defense cruise missile, not a sea-based weapon. The article goes on to say, citing an unnamed “highly-placed” MOD source, that “USS Ross” was within 50 meters of the “border” – presumably Russia’s territorial waters.

What’s strange is that both anonymously-sourced reports would have you remember, but then forget, that one or more Russian naval ships, armed with guns and anti-ship cruise missiles, were trailing the U.S. destroyer at the time. This raises several obvious questions:

  • Why did the escorts not operate between Crimea and the destroyer to prevent the latter from entering or coming that close to Russian territorial waters?
  • Why were SU-24s scrambled to deal with the incursion? Where the escorts incapable of dealing with that mission?
  • Why would the destroyer even attempt such a dangerous undertaking knowing that the Crimean-based SSC-5 Stooge and SSC-6 Sennight coastal defense cruise missiles, as well as the escort ships and land-based fighter-bombers, could and likely would respond to an incursion?

If this incident occurred on Friday or Saturday, then it would have coincided with the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, which was attended by U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Anatoliy Antonov. And Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s introduction of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili as governor of the Odessa region.

Did SU-24s fly near “USS Ross” as it operated in the Black Sea? Yes, as the U.S. 6th Fleet confirmed on Sunday. No official statement has yet been made by either side as to exactly when and where this activity occurred. The RF Ministry of Defense and Ministry for Foreign Affairs have been silent about the “incident” all weekend – probably because no serious “incident” actually occurred. The official websites for both agencies were open for business and publishing news over the weekend, but not a single mention of any "incident."

RF Ministry for Foreign Affairs silent on Black Sea "incident"

But “non-incidents” don’t sell newspapers, nor do they generate advertising money. So, expect both Russian and non-Russian media outlets alike to rehash the event on Monday as they bring in “experts” (with no reliable access to the details of the event) who will state unequivocally that Russia or the U.S. or NATO (depending on which country you’re in) is destabilizing regional security in the Black Sea. Expect flashy, nonsensical headlines, like “NATO-Russia Cold War Stand-Off in Black Sea” or “Did Putin Order Strike on U.S. Destroyer?”

It would be interesting to attend the next INCSEA [English] [Russian] talks to hear what either side has to say about the most recent event... if anything.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Russia Sending Subs to Black Sea?

In early-February, Rear Admiral Aleksandr Fedotenkov, Commander of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet, told a RIA Novosti reporter that the fleet expects to receive six Kilo-class diesel submarines by 2017.  His statement requires a little dissection in order to understand the likelihood of this happening and reasoning behind such plans.

1.  Wording.  Given the propensity of Russian news outlets to paraphrase what an interviewee actually says, let’s look at what Fedotenkov was quoted as saying:
“Подводные лодки проекта 636 в серии из шести кораблей, которые уже заложены на судостроительном заводе "Адмиралтейские верфи" в Санкт-Петербурге, придут на флот до 2017 года. Первые три корпуса мы получим в 2014 году, одну - в 2015 году и две - в 2016 году . Эти лодки станут основой для формирования полноценной бригады подводных лодок Черноморского флота. К тому времени в боевом составе флота останется фактически единственная подлодка "Алроса" проекта 877. На основе опыта подводной службы моряков-подводников Черноморского флота будет сформирована бригада подплава флота из кораблей 636 проекта.”
“A series of six Project 636 [Kilo] submarines, which have already been laid down at Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg, will arrive in the fleet before 2017.  We will receive the first three hulls in 2014, one in 2015, and two in 2016.  These submarines will be the basis for establishing a complete brigade of Black Sea Fleet submarines.  At that time, the sole Project 877 [Kilo] submarine Alrosa will still be in the fleet’s combat inventory.  Based on the experience of submarine service by Black Sea Fleet submariners, a brigade of Project 636 [Kilo] submarines will be established.”
The phrase “already laid down” is an overstatement, at best.  What Fedotenkov could have said - or meant to say - was the metal bending may have started for six new Kilo (Project 06363 (636.3)) units, but not that the keels had been laid down.  Not having the luxury of hearing an audio recording of his statement, it’s hard to know if Fedotenkov misspoke or if the RIA Novosti reporter (Sergey Safronov) paraphrased what the admiral said.  The first two units of the new Kilo design to be laid down are named after Russian cities in the Black Sea area (Novorossiysk and Rostov-na-Donu), which strongly suggests these two likely will end up in the Black Sea.

2.  Basing.  Can the Black Sea Fleet provide support for six additional submarines?  Let’s remember that the Russian Black Sea Fleet was left with seven submarines in 1997:

  • Beluga [Project 01710] SS-533
  • Bravo [Project 690] SS-226, SS-256, SS-310
  • Foxtrot [Project 641] B-9
  • Kilo [Project 877] Alrosa
  • Tango [Project 641B] B-380

The Beluga, Bravo, and Foxtrot units have been stricken.  This only allows for five (not six) new units to be based in Sevastopol.  Note that the Mod-Romeo [Project 633RV] floating recharging station PZS-50, based in Sevastopol’s Yuzhnaya Bukhta, is not listed in the 1997 agreement that divided the forces between Ukraine and Russia.  The submarine still flies the Russian Navy flag and supports Russian Navy operations in Sevastopol.  It is unclear to me what status this unit has.  But if rumors are true, PZS-50 will be scrapped soon, and B-380 will become the new floating charging station.  And if PZS-50 was not counted against Russia’s inventory of seven submarines, then B-380 would not.  Thus, if B-380 is scrapped or converted, then the final number of six “new” units can be reached.  Fedotenkov’s statement that the submarines would be based both in Novorossiysk and Sevastopol suggests the Russians eventually will get serious about upgrading the port of Novorossiysk to support at least a few submarines.

3.  Construction.  It is feasible that six new Kilos could be built by 2017.  Two are currently under construction at Admiralty Shipyards.  It is rumored that SevMash will begin construction of a third unit next month.  And there are more rumors that Krasnoye Sormovo in Nizhniy Novgorod soon could get back in the submarine construction business.

4.  Why the Black Sea?  According to a September 2009 document uncovered by the WikiLeaks project, Admiral Mark Fitzgerald (Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe) informed the Spanish Ministry of Defense of its European Phased, Adaptive Approach (PAA) to Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).  Admiral Fitzgerald “noted the extensive plans and requirements for ship-based ballistic missile defense in the Black Sea region.”  Fitzgerald told reporters in April 2010 the BMD ships probably would need to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea.

The Russians can read WikiLeaks and Navy Times, too.  And so it is no surprise that Russia now views any Aegis-capable ship (equipped with either AN/SPY-1A or AN/SPY-1B) operating in the Black Sea as something worthy of taking a closer look.  In 2011, Ticonderoga-class cruisers USS ANZIO (CG 68), USS MONTEREY (CG 61) and USS PHILIPPINE SEA (CG 58) conducted operations in the Black Sea.  In January 2012, Ticonderoga USS VELLA GULF (CG 72) also operated in the Black Sea region.  Obviously, the U.S. Navy has both an interest and the will to operate in the Black Sea despite Russia’s negative perceptions of the United States’ plans to deploy BMD assets in its backyard.

Having seven Kilo submarines in its arsenal would allow Russia to counter U.S./NATO forces operating in the Black Sea should tensions worsen in the region.  Given that the new Project 06363-type Kilo will be armed with the Kalibr missile system, capable of launching the 3M54/SS-N-27 antiship cruise missile and the 3M14/SS-N-30 long-range (in excess of 1,000 kilometers) land-attack cruise missile, U.S./NATO forces will have fun trying to keep track of how many LACMs actually are deployed at sea and at which facilities those missiles are targeted.