Bitchin' Deal from LA Police Gear

[308Mike]

Unfortunately, we don't have the early detection ability in the Gulf of Mexico that we have in other parts of the world. And if the drug smugglers got ahold of one of the later class of soviet subs, they are extremely hard to locate using passive sonar. Secondly, the US Navy isn't quite as good as it used to be at prosecuting subs since they switched more towards maritime patrol and interdiction missions after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So, unless the sub skipper was doing stupid things like coming up to periscope depth and sticking things out of the water that could be detected by FLIR/IRDS or Radar, they could very well make a trip or two all the way to coastal waters without detection. Then they would be very vulnerable as there are few channels deep enough to let a sub slip close enough to shore to unload so they would have to transfer the drugs to smaller boats. That would be the most likely time of detection. Once detected, they could submerge again and disappear before any type of anti-sub forces could get to the area with a live weapon.

HOWEVER, I think that ANY sub crew who KNOWS what they're doing to operate a sub to that degree would understand just how much they were risking to possibly get blown outta' the water - ESPECIALLY the captain (unless they had a former Soviet Sub Capt AND HIS FAMILY under armed guard for "incentive" to make sure the load goes through), for the most part, finding a crew QUALIFIED enough to do what they're trying to do is playing with FIRE, AND THEY KNOW IT.

[Kommander]

Question: How do we know that the navy has not already detected and destroyed one or more narco subs. It's not like they like to go talking about that kind of thing.

[Jericho941]

I dunno, intercepting drugs is a little different from poking around Polyarny in the Parche.

[cu74]

Unfortunately, we don't have the early detection ability in the Gulf of Mexico that we have in other parts of the world. And if the drug smugglers got ahold of one of the later class of soviet subs, they are extremely hard to locate using passive sonar. Secondly, the US Navy isn't quite as good as it used to be at prosecuting subs since they switched more towards maritime patrol and interdiction missions after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So, unless the sub skipper was doing stupid things like coming up to periscope depth and sticking things out of the water that could be detected by FLIR/IRDS or Radar, they could very well make a trip or two all the way to coastal waters without detection. Then they would be very vulnerable as there are few channels deep enough to let a sub slip close enough to shore to unload so they would have to transfer the drugs to smaller boats. That would be the most likely time of detection. Once detected, they could submerge again and disappear before any type of anti-sub forces could get to the area with a live weapon.

HOWEVER, I think that ANY sub crew who KNOWS what they're doing to operate a sub to that degree would understand just how much they were risking to possibly get blown outta' the water - ESPECIALLY the captain (unless they had a former Soviet Sub Capt AND HIS FAMILY under armed guard for "incentive" to make sure the load goes through), for the most part, finding a crew QUALIFIED enough to do what they're trying to do is playing with FIRE, AND THEY KNOW IT.

Been a long time, (40+ years) since I had much interest in submarine capabilities - once my tender ass was no longer "in play" I lost the incentive - so I'm not really "up" on modern submarines. That said, I agree with TFBNCC's assessment of early detection capabilities in the Gulf of Mexico. At the time the expensive underwater arrays were deployed during the Cold War there wasn't much of a threat from the direction of South America. Cuba was not a threat; by the time one of Ivan's boats reached Cuba it had been tracked for days and had US assets assigned to keep it neutralized.

I do disagree with his statement that Soviet submarines are extremely hard to detect with passive sonar; the Soviet boats were notoriously noisy and even way back in the 1960's US passive sonar capabilities were very good. Ivan understood speed and depth, pretty much ignored safety, and I'm not sure there is a Russian word for "stealth". Riding Boomers above the Arctic Circle on Ivan's doorstep in the sixties, our problem was not detecting his submarines but making sure he didn't detect us while staying within our assigned patrol area. Fortunately for us, the patrol areas from which our targets could be covered were large.

I also agree, at least partially, with 308MIKE's comments. Successfully operating a submarine is a wee bit more complicated than mowing the lawn with your riding mower. I doubt the drug smugglers could put together Mikes' "...sub crew who KNOWS what they're doing...". While I still have a modicum of intestinal fortitude and spirit of adventure, I would not put to sea on an old Soviet Submarine unless surrounded by an exceptional crew. (But then, perhaps I have turned into a wuss in my old age......)

[Termite]

Unfortunately, we don't have the early detection ability in the Gulf of Mexico that we have in other parts of the world.

Rumor control has it that there is a Los Angeles class that is assigned to hang out in the GoM.
I say "rumor control", because when I asked someone who should know, his response was to stare at me and mutter "No comment".......

Draw your own conclusions.

[tfbncc]

It wouldn't surprise me that there is an LA class on permanent "training" missions in the GoM. But that is still considered short range detection.

Most sonars, both passive and active, measure their detection ranges in kiloyards with the most sensitive maybe having up to 15 to 20kyds passive detection if water conditions are good. I don't think the GoM is deep enough for deep sound channel convergence zone detection. For long range detection, you need a permanent or semi-permanent SOSUS array (or whatever they are using now) that picks up extremely low frequency and has a detection range of thousands of miles as long as they have open water. Couple along with satellite and humint intelligence, it allows you to put the tactical assets, P-3, P-8, ASW helo equipped ship, or fast attack sub within detection range of the target. Without the layered detection methods used extensively in the Atlantic and Pacific, you are reduced to open ocean search using radar/ESM/infrared and the old Mk1 Mod 0 eyeball. That gives the bad guys pretty good odds of success.

Then, we don't keep ASW planes armed with any types of weapons while they are stateside. So, they have to draw torpedos from the weapons department, have them trucked over to the hangar, go through the routine of loading, all which takes quite a bit of time. Or, if they want to send in surface ships, who? From where? And do they have ASW capability? The US has ignored it's coastal defense and response for decades. Essentially leaving it up to the Coast Guard. While, they do a great job, they are NOT equipped for war. They are law enforcement.

Digging through my always spotty memory, I seem to recall sometime back in the late 70's or early 80's that a Yankee class SSBN popped up 200 miles off the Florida coast. How he got there undetected, nobody could figure out. Caused quite a panic. But it also highlighted just how woefully inadequate our coastal defenses are. And they haven't improved much in 40 years.