Sub that shadowed Russian carrier Kuznetsov was targeted and was forced to retreat

Two of the Udaloy class destroyers with in Kuznetsovs group (“Admiral Chabanenko” and “Admiral Levchenko”) tracked and chased a submarine intruder.

After a half hour chase the sub finally managed to escape tracking by having to deploy an active decoy. Shortly after “Admiral Levchenko” managed to re-acquire the target and transmit its coordinates to the anti-submarine IL-38 May which was on standby for a torpedo attack on the target.

Russian Navy has not announced the type or the origin of the sub.

The Russian Navy Destroyer Admiral Levchenko-

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.stp-norway.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

www.militaryimagelibrary.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


IL-38 May-

www.bharat-rakshak.com...

www.bharat-rakshak.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


[edit on 19-12-2007 by iskander]

When did this take place and and did they happen to be near any points of intrest when it happened?

Very interesting, as the US is, Russia is on the tip of its feet, roaring for an excuse to get into a battle, namely they want it instigated by the US or its Euro. allies.

Another interesting development from Mother Russia........yes i am interested in the intelligence they have on the said sub they tracked.....makes me wonder, what are the US subs doing around the world?



Thanks op! Flagged.!

reply to post by jarheadjock


Huh, what?

The US is "roaring to get into a fight with Russia"? Since when?

Germany was "roaring" to get into a fight with the RN, not once, but twice, how did those turn out?

I really doubt the US is itching for an excuse to start a fight between a lone sub and Russia's CBG, just as I doubt Russia's admirals are stupid enough to think their CBG could do anything more than diddly squat against the US Navy.

How could a ship that has spent 90% of its life doing nothing hope to take on the HMAS Ark Royal, let alone the USS Nimitz (or, worse, the Ronnie Reagan)?

en.wikipedia.org...

The Moscow-based military analyst Dr Felgenhauer believes that the accident-prone Admiral Kuznetsov is scarcely seaworthy and is more of a menace to her crew than any putative enemy.[9]

reply to post by iskander


Umm... where is the source for this? I'll reserve my comments for how ridicules and illogical it all sounds until then.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

How could a ship that has spent 90% of its life doing nothing hope to take on the HMAS Ark Royal, let alone the USS Nimitz (or, worse, the Ronnie Reagan)?

The Russians would never use there carrier to attack another carrier battle group, the days of WW2 style carrier engagements are long past.

In todays modern navy, the carrier is in my opinion an obsolete platform, here I am only speaking if the carriers were to actually "fight" a real war against a first class adversary, for anything short of an all out war they still have there uses such as force projection and what I would call "gunboat diplomacy", nothing lights a fire up a governments ass quite like having a carrier battle group parked off there coast much like the way battleships were used pre WW2. But just as battleships proved in WW2 that they were extremely vulnerable to attack by aircraft, so I believe that carriers would be shown to be extremely vulnerable against submarines in any future war.

In my opinion the submarine is now and has been for some time the premier capital unit of modern navies.

Howlrunner if you want to know what the Russians would use to take on a CBG type "ANTYEY TYPE 949A " into your search engine, these things were designed and built for taking out Carrier Battle Groups.

reply to post by WestPoint23


for once i concur - want to see the source for this ; as far fetched as WP makes it sound - the ACBG (Truman group) in the med have NO asw assests - and the russians did sail with them....

reply to post by WestPoint23


well in all fairness, the 'authenticity' of the new source(or lack of it) does not restrict you from sharing your opinions on why you deem it to be ridiculous and illogical?
I'm all ears

Originally posted by Tonka
[In todays modern navy, the carrier is in my opinion an obsolete platform, here I am only speaking if the carriers were to actually "fight" a real war against a first class adversary, for anything short of an all out war they still have there uses such as force projection and what I would call "gunboat diplomacy", nothing lights a fire up a governments ass quite like having a carrier battle group parked off there coast much like the way battleships were used pre WW2. But just as battleships proved in WW2 that they were extremely vulnerable to attack by aircraft, so I believe that carriers would be shown to be extremely vulnerable against submarines in any future war.

My father-in-law was in the Soviet Navy (sub) and he was shadowing the US carriers for most of his life. I totally agree with your assessment. I mean, they really could fire from a relatively close range if need be.

The OP story makes a certain amount of sense to me.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
My father-in-law was in the Soviet Navy (sub) and he was shadowing the US carriers for most of his life.

It makes sense. If I had quite a few submarines at my disposal, I'd use them to track potential enemies too.

Man why do threads always turn into an exchange of braindead nationalistic doggerel?
Like watching snotty little boys in the playground: "my dad can beat up your dad!"
It's enough to make a guy pray for the extinction of the species ASAP...


Anyway, I fail to see what is so unbelievable about this.

Of course if the Kuznetzov BG goes to sea, there are going to be Western subs shadowing it. Especially the USN and RN - that's what guys in the sub game do. In peacetime subs are primarily intelligence gathering platforms.

Same reasons the Russians and Chinese shadow our carrier groups...

And believe it or not, the Russians (remember, the guys that crushed the Nazis in WW2 and held the mighty US at bay for 50 years?) are not entirely incompetent, nor is their hardware entirely unsophisticated.

And when they detected the sub, the skipper of said boat, not being an idiot, backed off a bit.

It's not particularly difficult to believe any part of this story.

reply to post by Daedalus3


What's the point of getting into a discussion and even supporting such an incident when it has not yet been proven that it even occurred? Still waiting for the source… And what I find hard to believe is not the premise but the details and the general reaction of both parties, as "reported", those are a little suspect.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by WestPoint23

Umm... where is the source for this? I'll reserve my comments for how ridicules and illogical it all sounds until then.

Come on Westy, we’ve been here before and you know better then to put up a show for the crowd.

www.lenta.ru...

reply to post by xmotex


What you say is true. It is also wrong. The Russians didn't crush the Germans *at sea*, the RN did that. The Russians have never crushed anything *at sea* except for their own delusion that they were a world power. The last time the Russians put to sea in force in order to force an engagement they sailed from St Petersburg to the Tsushima Strait where they were promptly annihilated by the Japanese.

What was it Blackadder said? "This war would be a lot easier if we just stayed at home and killed 50,000 of our own men each month"...

The Russians (Soviets) *learned* from the Germans in WW2, watching what Donitz' wolfpacks did to that isolated island-nation the UK...

Which is where the only redeeming feature of the truly awful adaptation of Spy Story comes in. As one character notes when given the answer that maybe the Soviet subs are "flying the flag" all over the world, with just a couple of dozen subs Hitler nearly starved the UK into submission and the Sovs have a couple of hundred subs, so maybe the character had better be careful where the Soviets are flying the flag and who they're sticking it up!

Of course CBGs *probably* won't go after CBGs. Of course submarines will *probably* go after CBGs, but the point is that the US spent 50 years avoiding a direct confrontation with the Soviets, just as the Soviets spent 50 years avoiding a direct confrontation with the Yanks. Why would that suddenly change now? Especially when the Russian defence forces have spent the last 15 years being run down, not worked up.

The other point is that if the supposed flagship of the submarines can't be trusted to work right and the rest of the service can't be trusted to rescue those on board, who would genuinely expect the aircraft carrier to work right? And where can a carrier the size of AK project power in any meaningful way? The Falklands? Iceland? Svalbard?

Two Nimitz class carriers sailing together can carry enough aircraft to overwhelm the RAAF. The Admiral Kusnetzov cannot. The Poms sent 3 carriers to the South Atlantic and were still stretched, how many have the Russians got?

Plus, how many subs will the USN and RN send against the Kusnetzov CBG in a confrontation? One? Only slightly unlikely.

So, re-phrase my question. How could a ship that spent 90% of its life doing nothing hope to take on 3 or 4, or more, Los Angeles/Seawolf/Trafalgar class submarines?

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

What i meant to convey was of how the US or Russia wanted one or the other start something so they can retaliate (either politically, economically, or militaryr-ily) . The crux of the conflict would be either because of Russias defiance and uncooperation of the Missile Shield, and/or the whole issue on Iran.

So i really meant to say how the US/Russia want an excuse to prove who is right, IMO.

reply to post by assassini


They disturbed the oil production in Norway. Helicopter traffic to/from the oil platforms were forced to stop. The pilots were worried about crashing with the Russian jets. There was also an oil spill because a hose was mysteriously torned in half, but they didn't blame the Russians for it. They've launched a police investigation though...


Russian carriers training next to Norwegian oil-platforms

reply to post by jarheadjock


And what Russia is doing in and to Georgia isn't enough of a provocation for economic retaliation?

Russia's sale of uranium to Iran isn't enough of a provocation?

reply to post by assassini

When did this take place and and did they happen to be near any points of intrest when it happened?

18.12.2007, North Atlantic. A LOT of point of interests there, I’ll post another thread on those points of interest and that Kuznetsov group is beginning to run its operations in close proximity to USA. Central and Eastern Atlantic.

As per fleet commanders words the main purpose is to fly the flag and reestablish “situational” control key regions.

They clearly announced that they are back in the game.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


To me these are merely minor flare ups that have not escalated into the situation that the US is on guard for; namely Russia supplying Iran more nuclear materials (to the extent of nuclear weapons), Russia's flex of military superiority in its general area (either towards its EU allies or Gerogia), and if Russia will continue its drive for dominance at the Arctic circle (or wherever they placed their flag at).

These provocations as you said, may've warrented attention, but do not garner the necessary "warnings" so to speak , of being more afraid towards Russia. Though in recent times both nations may had shown characteristics of being belligerent, its all small talk and no play, IMHO.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

I really doubt the US is itching for an excuse to start a fight between a lone sub and Russia's CBG, just as I doubt Russia's admirals are stupid enough to think their CBG could do anything more than diddly squat against the US Navy.

Well, they sure raped the Kitty Hawk time and time again, and then the Chinese breeched all of the defenses and after they got with in striking range and still did not get tracked, they just shamelessly surfaced their attack sub in prime firing position with the Kitty Hawk right in their sights.

Then we have things like Shvla-M2/Bazalt/Granit/Sunbirn, etc, so yeah, not getting caught with your pants down is pretty much a prerequisite for not being seen as a big fat target.

How could a ship that has spent 90% of its life doing nothing hope to take on the HMAS Ark Royal, let alone the USS Nimitz (or, worse, the Ronnie Reagan)?

By not getting caught with its pants down by an enemy sub? Kind of like the Kitty Hawk did, maybe?

Kuzya also packs 12 P-700 Granit which are dedicated carrier killers, and other then enjoying a multitude of jam proof navigation/tracing/targeting channels they can fly blind relying only on their inertial +GPS nav and fly in a “swarm” pack, where one picks up altitude and uses its own active tracking to guide the rest of the pack which fly a sea skimming alt.

If the leader gets intercepted, another one simply pops up to take its place with out ever having the data link severed.

Considering their massive range, ramjet propulsion and hypersonic separating warheads with multiple terminal phase attack approaches, by design a single Kuznetsov is to engage two separate carries with two Granit swarm packs, and that does not include the firepower of the rest of the fleet.

How could a ship that has spent 90% of its life doing nothing hope to take on the HMAS Ark Royal, let alone the USS Nimitz (or, worse, the Ronnie Reagan)?

Humm, I have a rare WWI rifle which I keep in pristine condition, and I find quality ammo for it and go out on the range, I outshoot hot shots with composite framed heavy competition barrels that shoot custom hand loads, and I got original iron sights.

The Moscow-based military analyst Dr Felgenhauer believes that the accident-prone Admiral Kuznetsov is scarcely seaworthy and is more of a menace to her crew than any putative enemy.

You just stepped on a land mine there my friend, it already popped up so get ready for the loud ringing in your years, the smell of burnt flesh, numbness and a though that you just got stun by a thousand burning bees.

By Dr Felgenhauer, you don’t mean Pavel Felgenhauer now do you?

I’ll just start from here; Dr. Pavel Felgenhauer is a Defense and Security Editor for “Segodnya".

“Segodnya” is an openly anti-Putin media propaganda source which is financed by private interest and regularly interviews wanted criminals like Berezovsky, so when mentioning Felgenhauer/Segondya, think FOX networks.

Naturally Felgenhauer was published through other outltets, but his theme always stayed the same, focused and dedicated criticism of Putins presidency.

Felgenhauer is an openly anti Putin propagandist, and with just a quick search one can easily find numerous biased and speculative articles focusing on baseless slander of Putins cabinet and Russian Federation as a whole.

Here’s a taste of the shrapnel;

www.csmonitor.com...

suzieqq.wordpress.com...

cayankee.blogs.com...

www.militaryphotos.net...

Note that not a single of those sources are reputable and do not carry any credibility.

Here’s for the final blow;

www.amina.com...

Since most Westerners are completely unaware of the online black market IED auctions where local terrorists negotiate deals for their attacks TO THIS DAY, and then video tape the attacks as proof for payment, amina.com’s chat rooms were used as one of those auction houses back in the late 90s.

In 1999 amina was hacked and brought down by FSB, which was the first step to effectively stop all IED attacks in the area, and when thinking of clearly anti-Putin propaganda, think that it’s being spread by the same guys that are killing Americans even as we speak.