Example

I don't understand. I've seen about half a dozen of these articles over the past year and this does not include the articles about the damaged USS Connecticut .

Am I missing something? Is not this type of information supposed to be top secret, you know, "silent service" and wanting to keep their operations hidden so as to be an effective deterrent, strategy, and tactic? They also are including pictures of the subs.

They might as well give guided tours to spies.

Seems like if this is a PR visit where it is surfaced and is taking on members of the UK military for tours keeping it secret is sort of moot isn't it?

Once they surface and pull into a major port - news gets out pretty fast - especially among parties interested in where our subs are.

You can try for total OpSec, but unless you stay submerged the entire deployment, it's challenging.

We once pulled into Adak, in the winter...ah a special slice of hell...and were told to have no identifying items (hats/coats with subs name, etc). The Chief on the tug said "Hey I know that boat, I used to be in Mare Island". So much for OpSec.

Yeah, it’s kinda hard to miss a sub pulling into any port with a giant number painted on the side.

But go out and submerge…gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Belwolf:

They might as well give guided tours to spies.

Yeah . . . no.

I'm pretty sure that parties really interested in the location of our subs have higher-tech solutions than relying on the media.

When I was supporting a seismic research organization, they were required to submit all undersea recordings to the Navy for screening before they were entered into the massive public database of seismic recordings. Nothing was said about this to me, but I assumed at the time that the data removed could be interpreted to reveal locations of mobile underwater objects, both ours and theirs. Of course, just the presence of blanks in the record could be almost as revealing as the traces themselves. I tried to discuss my conjectures with the manager for that program with little acknowledgement, but no doubt there are others who might have noted the same thing.

So, in effect, this information has been available for decades to the cognoscenti at least. This looks more like some form of gunboat diplomacy where the administration wants to goad opponents into some form of action or inaction. Of course, we all know the level of stiffness in the backbone of our CiC, and that any threat he might offer is an empty one.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Yeah, it’s kinda hard to miss a sub pulling into any port with a giant number painted on the side.

But go out and submerge…gone.

Pretty much this.
That Sub goes under, good luck finding it.

I could not find a reference image, but there was a time when US subs were at military docks and the building in which the submarine was docked had to be shorter than the length of the sub, so that satellites could see the boomer. It was for treaty verification.

Once a submarine breaks the surface, it’s pretty much bare assed nekid to the world via satellites.

But, yes, I’ve always thought SSBNs only pop up officially at their home ports. It’s been a long time since I’ve worked in a submarine shipyard and maybe I’m mixing it up with some Tom Clancy novel but when subs finally leave the yard, they got surface escorts to mask their signatures until they get to open waters. And these were just SSNS.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
It’s been a long time since I’ve worked in a submarine shipyard and maybe I’m mixing it up with some Tom Clancy novel but when subs finally leave the yard, they got surface escorts to mask their signatures until they get to open waters. And these were just SSNS.

Yeah, that’s a firm “no”…there are no “escorts”. Just tugs till open water in the port, then underway on your own…at maneuvering Watch until open water…then dive…set watch station…go to Zulu…hit the rack.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Yeah, it’s kinda hard to miss a sub pulling into any port with a giant number painted on the side.

But go out and submerge…gone.

Been a long time since our subs had hull numbers on them.

The SSGN have become a highly valued chess piece that the combatant commanders all fight over, next to aircraft carriers, those SSGN's are in high demand. Back in the 80-90's when the USN was a fit fighting force, there were plenty of surface ships, particularly cruisers that could carry the large magazine of missiles that these SSGN's can carry. With nearly half the Ticonderoga-class cruisers decommissioned today and rapidly shrinking over the next five years, there's a lot less weapons going out to sea, which means the visible presence and deterrence mission that surface ships are inherently good at, is now being forced upon the submarine force due to the lack of hulls in the water.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
It’s been a long time since I’ve worked in a submarine shipyard and maybe I’m mixing it up with some Tom Clancy novel but when subs finally leave the yard, they got surface escorts to mask their signatures until they get to open waters. And these were just SSNS.

Yeah, that’s a firm “no”…there are no “escorts”. Just tugs till open water in the port, then underway on your own…at maneuvering Watch until open water…then dive…set watch station…go to Zulu…hit the rack.

The tug boats was what I had in mind as escorts. It’s not like we had destroyers or frigates or CGNs hanging around the shipyard for that purpose.

This sounds like a Trident SSBN, not the SSGNs that carry lots of cruise missiles.

https://www.businessinsider.co...-israel-gaza-2023-11

If the administration expects this to frighten Iran, they will be disappointed.

With the news about the subs and the carrier groups in the region, they're sending a message to Iran. That's all this is.

Warning to Hezbollah.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
This sounds like a Trident SSBN, not the SSGNs that carry lots of cruise missiles.

https://www.businessinsider.co...-israel-gaza-2023-11

If the administration expects this to frighten Iran, they will be disappointed.

Its an SSGN.

DoD and USN rarely, if ever publicize the position of a nuclear strategic asset like a SSBN outside of its home port, foreign port calls are rarity, even at strategic home-away like Fastlane.

Loose lips…

I remember Geraldo Rivera embedded during the Gulf War giving very sensitive information during his reporting, and it was stopped, thank GOD!

Yes, we’re in the Information Age, but we REALLY need to protect the system that protects us!

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
This sounds like a Trident SSBN, not the SSGNs that carry lots of cruise missiles.

https://www.businessinsider.co...-israel-gaza-2023-11

If the administration expects this to frighten Iran, they will be disappointed.

I thought that at least one sub was assigned to each Carrier task group so news that one is in the Med with 2 Carriers there doesn’t seem like much news to me.