UPDATE! Arctic Sea's attack linked to 'seriously organized crime' and possible trafficking in nuclear materials.

That explains why the Russian sub was off the east coast of the US a week ago. [link to www.cnn.com] Interesting how the media didn't alert us then to this. Didn't they say it was lost two weeks ago?

That explains why the Russian sub was off the east coast of the US a week ago. [link to www.cnn.com] Interesting how the media didn't alert us then to this. Didn't they say it was lost two weeks ago?



Two weeks ago is when they last had contact. Does anyome know how long it would take a cargo ship of this size to cross the Atlantic?

all it is saying that the cargo would have been unknown to whoever hijacked it. the cargo is mentioned in the beginning of the article...do people even read what they post?

Carrying timber reportedly worth $1.8m (£1.1m), it sailed from Finland and had been scheduled to dock in the Algerian port of Bejaia on 4 August.

Well its got nothing to do with the UK, we dont want your stinking nukes we have been making our own for the bast 50 yrs. All the NATO navys should be cooperating to find this ship if it is carrying weapons. The russians should just admit it and ask for help.

:gulllet:

Obviously there was more than just timber on board.


That was my thought too. No way they are devoting all those resources to find a ship which purpotedly only has timber on it.

Suddenly this report has switched from the "official story" of a timber cargo to an "unknown" cargo? 1.8 billion in timber might be worth stealing although fencing it might prove difficult given the sheer bulk of it, etc.

Suddenly this report has switched from the "official story" of a timber cargo to an "unknown" cargo? 1.8 billion in timber might be worth stealing although fencing it might prove difficult given the sheer bulk of it, etc.


The Ruskies didn't lift a finger when pirates hijacked their ship full of tanks, yet they pull out all the stops over TIMBER?

So do the Russins think this boat is headed for the U.S.?

[link to www.cbc.ca]

The Department of National Defence has sent a surveillance plane to waters off Canada's East Coast to monitor a pair of nuclear-powered Russian submarines in the area.

The attack subs were first spotted on Aug. 5 in international waters off Georgia, according to officials. The presence of the boats was leaked to the New York Times last week by anonymous security analysts.

While the subs were off the U.S. coast, the Pentagon was also monitoring their movements but no action was taken against the vessels.Canadian officials said information indicates the Akula-class warships have now moved north.

'Commitment to sovereignty'
"For a variety of reasons, to demonstrate our commitment to sovereignty, we're watching to ensure we know what is happening along our coastlines," Defence Minister Peter Mackay told The Canadian Press. "Anything that comes near sovereign Canadian territory, we are going to react."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says Russia has been "flexing its muscles" on the international stage. (Canadian Press)Akula-class subs are equipped with surface-loaded cruise missiles and surface-to-air missiles but are not believed to pose any kind of threat, defence officials said.

A long-range CP-140 Aurora plane will keep an eye on the subs, which have remained outside Canada's 12-nautical-mile territorial limit, according to Canada Command, the Ottawa-based military headquarters in charge of continental defence.

It's unclear whether Canada took the initiative to have a patrol plane watch the vessels or whether the U.S. Northern Command requested that the submarines be tracked.

Canada Command spokesman Lt. Noel Paine declined to disclose the details of the surveillance mission, calling it a "routine" patrol.

Russian posturing
The arrival of the Russian subs off the North American seaboard is the first documented time in more than a decade the country has operated vessels in the region, according to military historians.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian military, has shrugged off foreign concerns about Russian sub patrols near North America. (Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters)During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union regularly patrolled each other's coastlines in an effort to collect military information and to track each other's fleet movements.

Analysts have suggested the arrival of the subs is part of Russian posturing.

Deputy chief of staff for the Russian armed forces, Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovistsyn, said the unannounced sub movements are "part of a normal process" and are travelling within recognized international regulations. There is no need for "hysteria" about their presence, Nogovistsyn told Reuters.

The patrol is just a matter of the country's fleet not sitting idle or continuing to travel around in circles on Russia's internal routes, he said: "The navy should not stay idle at its moorings."

Fight for the Arctic
MacKay said the submarines have not done anything considered threatening. But the minister added there is a pattern of "Russia flexing its muscle" over recent months.

The Arctic, with its prospective mineral wealth and ill-defined borders, has become an area of intense competition among Canada, Russia, the United States, Denmark and other countries.

The Russian navy fired two long-range underwater missiles in Arctic waters near the North Pole in July. Russia has also launched several bomber flights that have brushed up against Canada's Arctic border.

In February, Canadian fighter jets scrambled to intercept a Russian bomber less than 24 hours before U.S. President Barack Obama was to visit Ottawa.

The Russian Embassy in Ottawa has denied that the presence of the latest vessels has anything to do with staking claim in the Arctic.

The Canadian navy is preparing to conduct an anti-submarine exercise in the Arctic later this month.

Geeewiz.... how can you loose a big ship like this one.

It should be easy to fine.

Unless it was a UFO Abudction.... smile.

According to this article the two nuclear submarines searching for the ghost ship is their entire northern fleet of nuclear submarines.

[link to russianforces.org]

The series of sea-based missile launches conducted last week (Bulava, R-29RM, and R-29) was clearly part of a fairly large-scale naval exercise. On September 10 the Minister of Defense reported to President Putin that the exercise was successful. The report was brief and had some interesting bits of information in it:

Today, eight nuclear submarines are at sea on operational patrol or in transfer. Of these, five are strategic submarines and three – multipurpose [attack] submarines, but all they have nuclear weapons on board.
Let’s start with strategic submarines. According to the latest publicly available START data exchange, Russia has 17 submarines that can carry sea-launched ballistic missiles – five Project 941 (Typhoon), one of which has been converted to carry RSM-56 (i.e. Bulava) missile, six Project 667BDR (Delta III) and six Project 667BDRM (Delta IV) submarines.
Project 941 submarines cannot possibly be among those five on patrol – the division that included these ships was disbanded in April 2004 and Dmitri Donskoy - the submarine that is used for Bulava tests – obviously cannot carry nuclear weapons.

This leaves Delta submarines. Of the six Project 667BDR, two are deployed with the Northern Fleet - K-44 Ryazan and K-496 Borisoglebsk. Four more are in the Pacific - K-211 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, K-223 Podolsk, K-433 Sv. Georgiy Pobedonosets, and K-506 Zelenograd. But according to the START data, the Northern Fleet submarines have only 29 deployed missiles, instead of full complement of 32, while the submarines in the Pacific have 56 deployed missiles for their 64 tubes. This means that the Navy began removing missiles from at least two submarines and it is highly unlikely that these two are available for patrol. (An alternative explanation for the empty tubes – that they are used for space launches – does not seem to work. In 2005, when the Borisoglebsk submarine was used for space-related launches twice, on June 21st and October 7th, START data listed 32 missiles at the Northern Fleet.) This leaves only four operational Project 667BDR submarines.

The situation with Project 667BDRM (Delta IV) submarines is a bit different. Far from being decommissioned, they are undergoing overhaul during which they are equipped with newly manufactured R-29RM Sineva missiles. But this still mean that not all of the START-accountable submarines are in active service. Two submarines – K-117 Bryansk, and K-18 Karelia – are currently in overhaul. Of the four others – K-51 Verkhoturie, K-84 Ekaterinburg, K-407 Novomoskovsk, and K-114 Tula – one (Novomoskovsk) has not been in overhaul yet, so it is reasonable to assume that it about to begin it, now that Tula has returned to the active service. Besides, Novomoskovsk was one of the submarines (with Karelia) involved in the failures of February 2004. So, I think it is reasonable to assume that Novomoskovsk is out and only three Project 667BDRM submarines are operational.

Would it be possible for the Russian Navy to have five of its seven operational submarines at sea? Certainly. We know that two of them were there – the Sv. Georgiy Pobedonosets and Ekaterinburg launched their missiles. Add two Project 667BDRM submarines fresh from overhaul, Tula and Verkhoturie, and one Project 667BDR (Borisoglebsk seems to be the only other sea-worthy submarine of this class) and you get five. But I really doubt that this deployment rate can be sustained for any period of time. Not that there is anything wrong with that – first, even one or two submarines on patrol would be perfectly adequate for any imaginable mission, and, second, as long as the Russian Navy can increase the number of submarines on patrol when necessary, they don’t have to keep them at sea all the time.

Attack submarines – in the next post.

How the hell you do lose a ship? Isn't there some kind of tracking device on most ships?

Maybe they want to defect.

Or maybe I've seen Hunt for Red October one too many times...