Damaged Russian Submarine cornered by Swedish Navy?

[+JonathanRL 974]

Update:
An emergency broadcast in Russian was the trigger of the Submarine Hunt near the coast of Stockholm. When the hunt began, radio traffic between a Coastal Transmitter and a Kaliningrad transmitter was intercepted by SIGINT. This means we may have a damaged Russian Submarine in our waters. Swedish units are Weapons-Free. The Navy is also keeping tabs on a suspected mothership vessel that has been lingering on the border close to Swedish Water for quite some time.
- http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/english-version-could-be-a-damaged-russian-submarine_4023511.svd

Background:
The Swedish armed forces intensified a military operation off the coast of Stockholm on Saturday where they were investigating a report of "foreign underwater activity".

More than 200 troops, Swedish stealth ships, minesweepers and helicopters have been searching an area of the Baltic Sea about 50 kilometres  east of the Swedish capital since Friday evening, following a tip-off from what the military called a "credible source".

 

"I have decided to increase the number of units in the area -- units with specialized sensors," Commander Jonas Wikström told reporters at a press conference in Stockholm.

"We still judge that the information we received yesterday was very trustworthy," he added, but declined to comment on what the military had discovered after more than 24 hours sweeping the sea around islands in Stockholm's archipelago.
 

Swedish defence analysts cited by local media speculated that a foreign submarine may have been in the area to replace old spy equipment or to monitor a Swedish naval exercise.

Wikström declined to give details of the reinforcements to the "intelligence gathering" operation as they could provide information to "a potential opponent on how and where we are working" if there is ongoing "underwater activity".
 

Sweden's new Social Democrat Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist -- who took office just a fortnight ago -- refused to comment on the military operation but told the daily Svenska Dagbladet that his government would be more open about military incursions in the Baltic than its centre-right predecessor.
 

"What's been happening in the Baltic Sea, including airspace incursions, shows that we have a new, changed situation," he told the newspaper.

"Russia has made enormous military investments... with their increased strength they are training more, and that influences the security environment."
- http://www.thelocal.se/20141018/sweden-steps-up-hunt-for-suspected-submarine

 

 

[+whiteknight06604 934]

hope you guys can take care of business. not that i'm eager for any loss of life but it would be a nice black eye to Putin if one of those subs was damaged and immobilized inside Swedish waters.

[CowboyTodd41 134]

This happened a lot in the 80's didn't it?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Just got the Bedford Incident DVD, fantastic movie. Richard Widmark ASROCKS!!!

[Gr.Viper 131]

The emergency broadcast was probably "We've got the sausages and the smoked ham, but you'll need to pick it all up before we return for the dairy products. Bloody import bans."

[Derk 265]

They probably ran out of vodka and made that emergency call....

[+Gepard 11,295]

This happened a lot in the 80's didn't it?

 

Yep, so it was said in the 80th. 20 years later the cover was lifted and the truth came out, that US submarines had playing hide and seek with the swedish Navy. And the smörebod Navy was always thinking, that they were hunting the russian bear.

The best thing what happend was, when the US Navy was able to manipulate the nav system of a soviet submarine of the Whiskey class and it stranded on the swedish coast. Whiskey on the rocks. That was great!

Edited October 25, 2014 by Gepard

[+Typhoid 231]

well................

 

I don't know about US subs pulling that, it doesn't seem likely given the shallow waters there. But it might have. A big question would be "why?".

 

What I do know is that Soviet mini-subs have always been used for a variety of intelligence missions in shallow waters, complete with Soviet "mother subs".

[+daddyairplanes 10,238]

why?  to give the Swedes itchy trigger fingers in time of real war.  then we know they will already suspect soviet activity and shoot first,  and can send our subs elsewhere.....

[+JonathanRL 974]

Yep, so it was said in the 80th. 20 years later the cover was lifted and the truth came out, that US submarines had playing hide and seek with the swedish Navy. And the smörebod Navy was always thinking, that they were hunting the russian bear.

The best thing what happend was, when the US Navy was able to manipulate the nav system of a soviet submarine of the Whiskey class and it stranded on the swedish coast. Whiskey on the rocks. That was great!

Eh? This never happened. NATO had no reason to. They already had our charts - hell they even planted SOSUS in our waters with our knowledge. On the other hand, several Russian special operators admitted operations against Sweden in the 1990s. Their charts of our waters was also more detailed then our own - the kind of information you only get if you actually been there.

 

Now Putin put the lid on most of the stories, but its still confirmed. Sorry to burst your bubble but the nationality of the Submarines has never been in any doubt.

 

Edited October 27, 2014 by JonathanRL

[Derk 265]

Well, so  with the "Whiskey on the Rocks" in Karlskrona it was a very clever camo job by the US ?

[+Gepard 11,295]

My info came from a TV report of the TV station ARTE. This is a german french public law TV station which usually broadcast good and correct background informations. The TV report was about espionage in cold war and old spooks of both sides (KGB,CIA, HVA, BND, MI6, MOSSAD) told their stories. So, for instance, the air spionage against the GDR by american planes from the 3 air corridors to Berlin was explained and the story of the HVA agent "Topas" who sat in the NATO HQ and sent infos to Berlin so fast, that in the most cases the HVA had it earlier on the table than the NATO sectretary general.

And there an old CIA spooks told the story about the actions of US submarines inside the swedish waters. The Whiskey on the rocks story he explained so, that Navy Seals were able to place a "box" on the skin of the boat which caused a certain deflection (deviation?) in the soviet navsys which cumulated by the time and caused a fatal missleading from intended course.

I will try to find this report in the ARTE mediathek.

[+Gepard 11,295]

In the ARTE mediathek the TV report was not longer available. But i found this skrip of an interview which the former US minister of defence C. Weinberger gave the swedish TV.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20040320162148/http://www.svt.se/nyheter/2000/000308/intervju.htm

 

it is translated with Google translater tool


Here is the full interview with US former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the SVT program Striptease.

Striptease:
Which NATO countries would have been most interested in infringing Swedish waters?

Weinberger:
It would obviously have been a part of NATO's activity as a defense alliance that there were defenses in all parts of the field against the Soviet submarine attacks, and it was undoubtedly events when NATO was trying to ensure that there was adequate coastal defense throughout the Alliance.

Striptease:
According to my information, NATO tested the Swedish defense?

Weinberger:
I think they tested all defense occasionally to see if there were gaps that could become clogged, especially after the Soviet submarine violation. In all probability, tested them, yes.

Striptease:
But the American, British and German submarines involved in these operations?

Weinberger:
US contributed many submarines to NATO, I do not think that Germany did, but it did, it definitely, and England did that and a number of other countries. Germany was indeed a member of NATO, but Germany did not contribute any significant naval force to NATO.

Striptease:
During the Cold War?

Weinberger:
During the Cold War, yes.

Striptease:
But it is not a political risk sending in NATO submarines in Swedish waters?

Weinberger:
I think there were consultations with the Swedish government. I know of no time when it was an intrusion by the Swedish government did not know.

Striptease:
So there was an agreement?

Weinberger:
I do not know if it was a contract. But there were consultations. It was generally understood by NATO countries and non-NATO countries, that a part of NATO's mission was a capable defense against all types of attacks, mainly from the Soviet Union. To meet that mission, we made sure that we had adequate defense. Therefore it was necessary to tesa them occasionally. If you want to know if the weapons are effective. So you have to test the weapon.

Striptease:
But when NATO submarines did intrusion into Swedish waters, you accept that the Swedish Navy dropped depth charges?

Weinberger:
As far as I understand there was consultation and mutual understanding that there would be different types of tests and trials to ensure that the defense in the Swedish area was effective and it was not as far as I know there is no type of confrontation between Sweden and NATO strengths at any one time.

Striptease:
But the Swedes were chasing submarines all the time?

Weinberger:
It is normal for a country to ensure its sovereignty and that the waters will not be violated and invaded. And NATO's job was to defend all these waters against an attack, to attack up there had threatened NATO's European sectors directly. But as far as I know, there were no intrusions and tests of Swedish water without consultation. You are talking about a deal .... I do not think there was. But I think there were consultations that led to a mutual understanding on a specific case, for a particular situation, a special maneuver. That it would be agreed that it would be done. And it's very much in Sweden's interest to have their water defended and it was of course widely known that NATO would not invade Sweden. So it would be in the Swedish government's interest that they had all the help they needed - they needed someone - to protect its sovereignty in the water.

Striptease:
But at what level were these consultations?

Weinberger:
General of the Marine to Marine. The US Navy and the Swedish navy, I would think. The Swedish Navy is part of the Swedish government. And the US Navy is part of the US government. There would be responsible on both sides that would have discussions and consultations and agreements would float after it. If Sweden said we do not want any intrusion into that area in the month, it would certainly have been respected by NATO.

Striptease:
But other areas would have been OK?

Weinberger:
It depends on the response from the Swedish government and the officials who were responsible for the negotiations. What I'm saying is that no time, as far as I know, NATO sent a submarine directly into Swedish waters without consultation and prior discussions and agreements that it could be done. And during those circumstances, it was no problem. It was part of a routine and regularly seriously test that NATO did and had to do. It would have been irresponsible not to do so.

Striptease:
Where minubåtar involved in these tests?

Weinberger:
I do not know the level or type of instruments used. But all that was consulted and discussed ... we had all kinds of submarines and we also had to know where Soviet submarines were at all times. And we had the capacity to do so. It required that our submarines were mobile and could be moved around and they did. But we did not infringe on the sovereignty of any NATO member country or another. What was done was done as part of defense preparations that had to be done and had to be checked and updated. And it was very much in Sweden's interest and it was very much in favor of NATO that it was done. What I understand is what these consultations was about and I know of no time when Sweden protested and when there was no infringement that had not been previously discussed. And when it is discussed and agreed upon, it is not an intrusion.

Striptease:
Have you discussed this with the Swedish defense minister or the prime minister?

Weinberger:
Did I? No but I'm sure there were standing instructions and the Navy would not go into the fields ... The general instructions for the Navy was that they first of all was under NATO command - the units that were assigned NATO - we had other devices. But the units were assigned to NATO was under .... NATO's procedure was that NATO did arrangements and permits necessary to conduct the kind of testing that NATO had to do so that they could carry out their mission. As was to defend against a Soviet attack.
It (U137) were clearly violating that submarines can go where they are not wanted. That's why we made ​​the defense tests and försvarsmanövrarna to insure that they could not do it without being detected.
Just the submarine was in Swedish waters and ran aground in an area where they could not deny that they were in Swedish waters. It was plainly visible to all. It was exactly the sort of thing that NATO was trying to test for not allowing it to happen. There was much in Sweden's interest that it did not happen.

Striptease:
But the Swedish people believed that it was only Soviet submarines that infringed in Swedish waters?

Weinberger:
I think it is obvious that the submarines that came in and that was not Soviet submarines - as far as I understand - came after consultation and with knowledge that they would do certain tasks in the Swedish government agreed that they would do. I do not call it intrusion.

Striptease:
What cooperation was between Sweden and NATO during these years?

Weinberger:
Satisfactory.

Striptease:
In what way?

Weinberger:
NATO's mission was not to allow Soviet invasions or attacks. The consultations and discussions we had with all countries - not just Sweden - was to ensure that NATO was capable of carrying out this mission, and the opportunity to test the operation and activities of the defenses were adequate. If the Soviet Union had any new capacity that required CHANGES defenses or something. So the result of all this was, as I see it very satisfying. Apart from the intrusion of a Whiskey Submarine - there were no violations, no capability of Soviet make an attack that it was impossible to defend against. It was NATO missions. It was requested cooperation with many countries that we had. It was entirely satisfactory.

Striptease:
So what you are saying is that you do not deny that even NATO's mini submarines came in deep in the Swedish archipelago?

Weinberger:
There is no question of recognizing or denying. There is the question of discussing the preparations we make to be sure that the defenses are adequate against Soviet attack. I have no idea of ​​the mini submarines or large submarines and attack submarines or nuclear submarines or whatever it was. The point was that it was necessary to test FREQUENCY test the capacity of all countries - not only in the Baltic Sea - which was very strategically important - but also in the Mediterranean, in Asian waters and everywhere - defense against Soviet capabilities and intentions. We had to know what their intentions were - we had to gather intelligence information and we had to try every now and then to be sure that our defense plans were updated and sufficient ... that we would be able to Resisting all scenarios very Soviet power and Soviet capabilities. It was done regularly. It was not only at sea, it was done against air forces, land defenses, it was done to prevent possible landing area. And when I say that it was satisfactory. I mean - it was not a Soviet invasion. It was the test.

Striptease:
But how regularly it was in Sweden?

Weinberger:
I do not know. Enough that it would work together with the military's requirement to ensure that there was updated information and tests. We would know when the Soviets had new submarines. We were then forced to see if the defenses were adequate against them and if we had intelligence capacity to know where these submarines were at every opportunity. All this was done on a regular basis and in a manner agreed. It was about every single occasion.


The program broadcasts of Wednesday, 03/08 at 14:30 to BBC1, and Sunday, 12/03 at 10:50 SVT2.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Gepard

[JediMaster 451]

Seems like every time he told them they were conducting exercises with the full knowledge of the Swedish military and gov't, all they could pounce on was that the population was apparently told they were always real Soviet subs and never an exercise?

Ok, so that was dumb because there's zero chance the Russians will think the Swedes were going after a sub they knew wasn't there, however the exercises did prove that the USN was testing its subs while the Swedish navy was testing its counter sub capability even when the Russians weren't there, and the public statements would indicate to Russia that NATO and Sweden were working together more closely than they publically admitted, but Russia would never publicize this.

 

It really seems to boil down to indignation that the Swedish gov't said it was always one thing when it was fully aware that sometimes it was a NATO exercise. So the Swedish military/gov't full well knew what was happening and had full control over what happened and when, but the population was just given a "bad Reds keep probing us!" narrative.

[+JonathanRL 974]

Your article does nothing but to prove my point. We (that is to say the Government and the Swedish Military) knew about their visits and the underhand negotiations with NATO during the cold war has been pretty much common knowledge for the past 19 years. And as Weinberger says; An invitation (abeit a secret one) is not an intrusion.
 

We would not start a hunt for an "intruder" that we knew who it was - especially not as it may upset our NATO allies or could damage equipment we allowed them to place there. The translated article also makes perfectly clear that NATO submarines was invited. Russian ones was not. Per definition, that makes all intruding submarines Russian ones.

We have had this debate several times over in Sweden, particularly during high periods of anti-US sentiment amongst our left. Then somebody goes out and says "omfg it was nato subs" and they never provide any substantial proof about it. The book "The Hidden Alliance" about our NATO dealings clarified our relations over the years with NATO making any futher arguments that it was NATO Subs pretty futile.

 

Jag tycker att det är uppenbart att de ubåtar som kom in och som inte var sovjetiska ubåtar - så vitt jag förstår - kom in efter konsultation och med vetskap att de skulle göra vissa uppgifter som den svenska regeringen gick med på att de skulle göra. Jag kallar inte det intrång.

 

What I'm saying is that at no time, as far as I know, NATO sent a submarine directly into Swedish waters without consultation and prior discussions and agreements that it could be done. And during those circumstances, it was no problem. It was part of a routine and regularly seriously test that NATO did and had to do. It would have been irresponsible not to do so.

Edited October 27, 2014 by JonathanRL