Swedish stuff......

[paul g]

I can almost guarantee that if we ever had the means to, russian and other submarines would have been detected off our shores on a regular basis during the cold war.

Actually eithne does have a hull mounted sonar, PMS-26L, also used by the Danes, that can be used to detect submarines.

Actually doubt it, supposing you're a soviet submarine commander who managed to breech the UK/Iceland/Greenland gap without being detected, and penetrate south, who are you going to spy on, Haulbowline or Holy Loch.

Getting back on Topic, Helsinki has a lot of really good military stuff, especially the fortress at the entrance to the harbour, and if you bring your other half, there are other attractions to keep her occupied. Even better you can fly to Helsinki by Aerlingus which means not suffering on Ryanair

And you can get a train from Helsinki to St Petersburg and visit the artillery museme there, which is well worth the trip, mostly soviet and captured german stuff, and lots of historical stuff.

http://www.artillery-museum.ru/en/museum.html

http://www.tykistomuseo.fi/piilosivut/artillery_museum/

[Jetjock]

Actually eithne does have a hull mounted sonar, PMS-26L, also used by the Danes, than can be used to detect submarines, does it not.

It does, but I recall Murph saying in the Navy section once that it got about as much use as the heli deck and was rarely used operationally, if at all.

As regards who to spy on, well the obvious answer is our closest neighbour and certainly not anything on these shores. The deep water off our Western shoreline is a perfect hiding place for a sub that would want to lie in wait for any Atlantic bound naval traffic from the UK.

[Jetjock]

Some good info here:

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...t=eithne+sonar

Seems it did get at least one operational sub "contact". But it was Test Pilot who casted doubt on its operational use. Memory not what it used to be

[paul g]

It does, but I recall Murph saying in the Navy section once that it got about as much use as the heli deck and was rarely used operationally, if at all.

As regards who to spy on, well the obvious answer is our closest neighbour and certainly not anything on these shores. The deep water off our Western shoreline is a perfect hiding place for a sub that would want to lie in wait for any Atlantic bound naval traffic from the UK.

nope its not,

Cold war naval convoys from America to europe would have gone via the Azores.

most american ports and many of the larger military bases are in the south near the gulf of mexico, The convoys would have assembled in the gulf, and then gone via the Azores and up the bay of biscay to French or Benelux ports.

that's assuming that the Russians would have got past the GIUK gap, which i doubt.

[Shaqra]

Can vouch for Paul G's recommendation on the St Petersburg Museum of Artillery and Military Engineering - it's just beside the Peter and Paul Fortress - absolutely incredible collection but set aside a full day to visit the place. The outside display of artillery and SP guns can be viewed free of charge.

[Jetjock]

Are you talking in a "shit hits the fan" scenario or just in general?

Convoys are one thing, but exercises and general patrolling are quite another kettle of fish.

It is quite outlandish to suggest that the North Atlantic was unpopulated by NATO naval traffic because they preferred more southern routes.

For example, the last thing an SSBN leaving a base in Scotland would do is to follow a predictable well used route.

The scenario you present is one of something more like a Carrier task force steaming off on a pre determined cruise. Forming up in the Gulf before setting off.

The vicinity of a carrier task forces while of high interest from an intel point of view, were not the best places for an enemy sub, given the amount of ship borne and airborne anti submarine assets available and also given that remaining undetected is the very basis of submarine warfare.

In any case, carrier task forces or convoys did not make up the majority of naval traffic and the shadowing of an Allied SSBN by a Russian SSN would have been of much higher strategic value.

As for the GIUK gap, what options would NATO forces have to stop Russian subs penetrating it during non combat operations? Absolutely none. Monitor and track it for as long as possible was their only option short of being the ones to start off an actual shooting war.

nope its not

Quite a condescending phrase that, however it was intended.

[paul g]

Are you talking in a "shit hits the fan" scenario or just in general?

Convoys are one thing, but exercises and general patrolling are quite another kettle of fish.

It is quite outlandish to suggest that the North Atlantic was unpopulated by NATO naval traffic because they preferred more southern routes.

For example, the last thing an SSBN leaving a base in Scotland would do is to follow a predictable well used route.

The scenario you present is one of something more like a Carrier task force steaming off on a pre determined cruise. Forming up in the Gulf before setting off.

The vicinity of a carrier task forces while of high interest from an intel point of view, were not the best places for an enemy sub, given the amount of ship borne and airborne anti submarine assets available and also given that remaining undetected is the very basis of submarine warfare.

In any case, carrier task forces or convoys did not make up the majority of naval traffic and the shadowing of an Allied SSBN by a Russian SSN would have been of much higher strategic value.

As for the GIUK gap, what options would NATO forces have to stop Russian subs penetrating it during non combat operations? Absolutely none. Monitor and track it for as long as possible was their only option short of being the ones to start off an actual shooting war.



Quite a condescending phrase that, however it was intended.

NATO strategy was set on keeping the russian subs north of the GIUK gap, hence the fortune spent on sosus. From 1980 onwards under Lehman's doctrine the Americans were going to take the fight to the Northern Fleet. the Atlantic world have been bereft of NATO forces, they'd all be around Kola attacking the remaints of the Soviet fleet. if a russian submarine did manage to lay in wait off the west coast, then the naval force it would be facing would be protected by destroyers like the Spruance class, far more sophisticated than anything this country could afford.

Not sarcasm, but the chances of the russians managing to penetrate the GIUK gap in wartime and attacking civilian oir military shipping bound for british ports was pretty limited.

It may pain us to hear it, but the americans didn't regard Ireland as strategically vital during the cold war.

[Jetjock]

Not sarcasm, but the chances of the russians managing to penetrate the GIUK gap in wartime and attack shipping bound for british ports was pretty limited.

That is the crux of this argument.

We have at no time been discussing a theoretical wartime scenario. UK/US/Allied wartime tactics are irrelevant to a discussion on a period when merely posturing, intel gathering and brinksmanship were the order of the day.

What you are saying is exactly true, however, only in the scenario that the Russian Northern fleet put to sea en masse as a precursor to actual war breaking out.

Here though, we are only discussing the shadow boxing during the Cold War, when individual Russian subs quite regularly roamed the North Atlantic.

Russian subs and indeed surface vessels were regular visitors to Cuba and the Mediterranean. The only possible transit route from Murmansk would have been through North Atlantic waters not far from our shores.

Not in the theoretical doomsday scenario you put forward, but in the actuality of a well documented period of history.

[paul g]

Actually indirectly what I'm saying is the reason why the Finns and swedes have big armies and lots of military history is because they're in a strategically important location, facing Russia.

We live in the middle of a NATO dominated ocean, even during the cold war, the Russians were up against the USN, a what was ast the time a much bigger british fleet ( 50 destroyers and Frigates), not to mention the Dutch, Spanish, French and other navies.

[RoyalGreenJacket]

I can almost guarantee that if we ever had the means to, russian and other submarines would have been detected off our shores on a regular basis during the cold war.

ok so you didn't have the means to, but you are dead right Jetjock - they would have been detected off Ireland's shores on a regular basis - by the US Navy's 'Oceanographic Research Station' in Pembrokeshire in Wales.

not many people seem to know about it but i was based in RAF Brawdy (as it was once known) for a while and became familiar with it.

Read more here: www - US Navy base in Wales

an interesting place, right on Ireland's doorstep.

anyhow apologies if this went off topic here, but you raised an interesting point Jetjock.

[Jetjock]

Nice link RGJ. Thanks. I never knew the place existed.

Paul absolutely agreed with your analysis of where Ireland stood strategically. Ireland was of limited importance for a number of reasons.

Primarily because the Soviet's didn't have the naval capability to get their limited amphibious forces anywhere near here without being obliterated by the technologically and numerically superior NATO fleet.The main threat to Western Europe came from overland, with the massive Soviet Bloc armoured columns having a long way west to travel before any importance could be attached to this rock.

No reason though to discount that Soviet and Nato navies did not play cat and mouse off our shores. Plenty of Soviet "trawlers" showed up here during the Cold War. We only know about them because they were detectable.

[sofa]

So there was a Polish invasion attempt before the Celtic Tiger?!

They may have had advance information, and were looking for suitable landing beaches.http://archive.irishmilitaryonline.c...lies/happy.gif