RayRMargaret Thatcher told navy to raid Swedish coast
Pelle Neroth
MARGARET THATCHER ordered the Royal Navy to land Special Boat Service (SBS) frogmen on the coast of Sweden from British submarines pretending to be Soviet vessels, a new book has claimed.
The deception involved numerous incursions by British forces into Swedish territorial waters in the 1980s and early 1990s, designed to heighten the impression around the world of the Soviet Union as an aggressive superpower.
Sometimes the boats landed commandos, but often their job was to fool the Swedes by mimicking the sonar signals given off by the Soviet vessels that stalked the same waters.
The Swedish government, neutral in the cold war, is not believed to have known about the deceptions, which were carried out by the British and American navies.
A Swedish parliamentary inquiry noted evidence found on the seabed of submarine “midgets with bottom-crawling capacity of a hitherto unknown character”.
The cold war under the Baltic is detailed in a book by Ola Tunander, research professor at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
Tunander writes that there were more than 4,000 reported detections of foreign submarines in Swedish waters in 1982-92. The West claimed the vessels were all Soviet, probing the country’s defences. Tunander believes many were part of a CIA-run operation by Britain and America that continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“A lot of cold war intelligence operations were failures, but this one was a real success,” Tunander said.
He reached his conclusions after speaking to former Royal Navy submariners and CIA officials. One British naval captain told him: “Margaret Thatcher signed approval for every single operation.”
One of the boats used was HMS Orpheus, a submarine kitted out for SBS operations.
Tunander said he had once sat next to a British admiral at dinner and questioned him about the operation. He replied that it was “none of my business”, Tunander said. “The admiral then added jokingly, ‘Don’t people fall under buses sometimes?’ ” This weekend Sir Keith Speed, navy minister from 1979 to 1981, was asked if the missions had happened. He replied, “Yes,” but added: “I cannot say any more as I am bound by the Official Secrets Act until the day I die.”
Russian and Nato submarines were involved in some of the most aggressive clashes of the cold war as the Soviet Union examined the potential for controlling Scandinavia. This would have allowed it to outflank Nato armies in Germany and threaten Atlantic shipping.
The confrontation under Swedish waters came to light in 1981 when a Soviet Whiskey class submarine ran aground in an incident called “Whiskey on the Rocks”.
As late as 1988 Ingvar Carlsson, the Swedish prime minister, warned the USSR: “Blood will flow. We will use all available methods . . . to sink the submarines . . . Our borders are holy.”
A senior Swedish source said the submarine incidents had been fully investigated and that Tunander’s claims were “completely untrue”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257297.ece
RayRWell the Su-35 is a huge step forward compared to the baseline Su-27 and later derivates as well. I think it will be one of the most capable fighters of its kind. Size can be both an advantage and a disadvantage! The large fuel load of the Flanker is rarely used because the aircraft would be very heavy then. Payload of the Typhoon could at least theoretically similar to that of the Flanker in the AA area. Even AtG Typhoon isn’t that bad when it comes to payload, the Rafale is even better and has an even greater maximum payload than the Su-35 despite being significantly smaller and lighter.
The Eurocanards were not designed to fight the Su-27 or MiG-29 baseline models, but advanced derivates of these types like the Su-30MKI/35 or MiG-29M/K/35. There were of course economical and political reasons to develope their own fighters, but there was also a need as the Americans had no fighters which would have fullfilled the needs of the Europeans.
Yup agreed.
RayRBecause in the example it was assumed that the Su-35 burns 1/3 of its internal fuel to reach the combat zone, while the Typhoon would use external tanks to do so and drop them when reaching the combat zone. Therefore the Su-35 would have 2/3 of its internal fuel left, while the Typhoon would have 100% of internal fuel;)
Thats so lame:p
RayRNormal mission profile for a counter-air mission is take-off with external fuel and use that fuel for cruise into combat zone. The tanks are dropped before the fighter enters the arena. The theory is simple and true: sacrifice cruise performance on way to target but have lower weight in combat. In case of nasty surprise the aircraft can be cleaned up with hitting one push-button.
My numbers are there. Dispute it. On internal fuel the Eurofighter has better/equel fuel fraction.
The Russian wikipedia site states for Suchoi 35:
Empty weight: 18.4t (metric)
Internal fuel: 8t
Take-offf Weight: 25.7t
That means a wepons load of: -700kg
–> negative weapons load. 😮
Assuming 1.2t weapons load (roughly 8 AAMs), the take-off weight is 27.6t and the fuel fraction is 0.29. That is equal to that of a loaded Eurofighter without external tanks.Note that Empty Weight is normally not equal to Operating Empty Weight. Assume at least 500kg for pilot, equipment and “stuff”. Same applies for the Eurofighter, too.
How does it mean a negative weapons load?Loaded wt is 25.7t MTOW is 34t.
Fuel fraction on full tank(8000 kg) and loaded weight =.31 for the Su-35 and Typhoon = .25
Specifications (Su-35)
Crew: One
Length: 22.20 m (72.83 ft)
Wingspan: 15.15 m (49.70 ft)
Height: 6.43 m (21.08 ft)
Wing area: 62.0 m² (666 ft²)
Empty weight: 17,500 kg (38,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 25,700 kg (56,660 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 34,000 kg (74,995 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Lyulka AL-35F turbofans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35
Empty 22,045 lb (10,000 kg)
Typical Load 32,280 lb (15,550 kg)
Max Takeoff 46,295 lb (21,000 kg)
Fuel Capacity internal: 8,820 lb (4,000 kg)
external: two 395 gal (1,500 L) and one 265 gal (1,000 L) tanks
Max Payload
14,300 lb (6,500 kg)
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/typhoon/
btw I have calculated it as 8000 kgs but Knaapo brochure gives the fuel load of sukhoi 35 as 11500 kgs.
And also capability to drop EFTs to get rid of excess fuel is not really significant because most aircraft can dump excess internal fuel if not needed from emergency dump systems most often at the wingtips.
RayRthat would be a “bro”. 😀
Seinfeld?;)
RayRYou seem to be forgetting that the Flanker’s engines produce roughly 50% more power and need that extra fuel. A Flanker on 2/3rds internal fuel will not get the same range as a Typhoon on full internal fuel.
And why are we assuming 2/3rd internal fuel ?fuel fraction is a red herring here.I will provide tanker support and enter the fight with almost full internal fuel load.And the range figures on full internal fuel w/o droptanks are there for everyone to see.
RayRMore pics!!Great!thanks Arthuro.
RayRI would rather go in, get the kill and get away. If I don’t get the kill, I also get the hell out of it. Most air2air combats were won when the enemy wasn’t aware of its danger. No sane fighter pilot would loiter after his presence hac been detected
That kind of situation can be hard to come when two well equipped AFs with awacs meet.And that sane pilot will definitely have to hang around even if detected because he has a job to do.
Hmm, when the Flanker goes into combat it has at least burned 1/3 of its fuel. When the Eurofighter comes with ETs, he’ll drop them and in best case he has fuel internal fuel. In terms of fuel fraction they start at a comparable basis.
So now you are saying carrying fuel internally is not a disadvantage because both of them are carrying similar fuel fraction? right?
The lack of ETs means longer loiter time and better range, but when it comes to combat both are clean from tanks.
both are clean but the amount of combat fuel load on the flanker is sufficiently more than the euro to allow for more combat persistance
Any aircraft will drop its tanks when going into air2air combat. A rather academical remark. The lack of ETs means longer loiter time and better range, but when it comes to combat both are clean from tanks. The Eurofighter with remi-recessed missiles has considerably less drag
.
Not at all academic.Even after the fighting is over it still has to come back to base.There has been numerous instances in Indo-Pak wars where aircrafts had to suffer from the lack of fuel barely reaching their forward airbases.
8 AAMs are enough. More muntion is more wasted weight.
Prove it.
As I said, advertisement is just that.
Not at all.It is getting more important in the days of increasing budget cuts and decreasing number of platforms.Particularly useful when your side had the technological advantages in the form of awacs and the like while your opponent lacks it.
RayRSchorsch,ALL of your assertions in your post is highly debatable to say the least.
Payload is great, but seriously more than 8 AAMs are wasted space, at least when you not engage in very odd situations.
Very weird comment.Define a odd situation.
Flying circles with 12 AAMs is the best garantuee to get killed with 8 AAMs still hanging on your aircraf
Another weird comment.Whats the pk of the aams when launched from long distances?The better guarantee than your above assertion is to get killed by running out of AAMs OR most importantly to be in an advantageous position and not having an aam to shoot.
Your celebrated TVC will be useless weight in 9 out of 10 situations. Actually if the Flanker was such a superior BVR platform, why does it need TVC? It still can’t supercruise, which a Eurofighter can use to disengage at will by that in case he is frightened by the Suchoi.
Hahaha!The most funny reason I have heard.TVC is one of the things which makes it a good BVR platform.What did they put one in the F-22 then?
RayRI don’t understand why you want to start a flame? just enjoy the pictures!
We don’t have access to first sources datas so any debate would be very speculative and subjected to strong tensions. We should better avoid another useless flame don’t you think?
I dont think you understood me properly its not me who thinks Rafale rcs is huge(compared to you know what)..maybe I should have given a 😉
Anyway cheers excellent pictures!
RayRRafale has now degraded to a long range bomber with a huge RCS c/o boxy RWRs and fixed probe…what next medium transport..:D
Thanks for the pictures arthuro..:)
RayRI have read them hundreds of times and they say nothing about the air luanched versions being in service.
I searched but yes it seems the airlaunched Kh-41 and Onyx doesnt exist.
RayRUseful for imaging empty berths at Norfolk/San Diego I guess?. Otherwise three or four optical imaging birds add very little real capability to the task of hunting carrier groups at sea.
There are three naval recon sats there which are part of the EORSAT.There are other recon sats and then there are wide area optical recon sats.
When the carrier starts operations it is localized to a definite geographical area which narrows down the area to search.Those sats can be brought there and used.These has been launched in the last 3 years.there are other sats which are already in orbit like the Araks N/R(100X200 km/pass by area , 1000km/pass linear) or the Almaz-2(resolution 2-4 m) etc.
We can argue about the nitty gritties of the sats.But the point of significance is that the programe of launching military sats is going on.It was on the rocks for sometime in the early 90s but as you can see it is very much viable.It will be more so in the coming years with many sats already on the launch schedule.
And this certainly doesnot qualify as “they dont have all those sats etc.”
RayRRay,
So, thanks to that very comprehensive list we can see that, since the start of 2006 the Russians have launched precisely one US-PM ocean recon and one Tselina-2 ELINT bird…with the ELINT platform not even necessarily tasked to the maritime job. I think you may have made my point quite adequately!
:diablo:
What about the recon sats?;)
RayRRussia, Ray, for the umpteenth time does not have ‘all those sats’ etc, etc.
Dec 25, 2007: Second Glonass launch of 2007
Dec 09, 2007: Launch of the a Raduga/Globus military communication satellite
Oct 26, 2007: First Glonass launch of 2007
Sep 11, 2007: Launch of Cosmos-2429 Parus navigation satellite
Jun 29, 2007: Launch of Cosmos-2428, the last Tselina-2 electronic intelligence satellite
Jun 28, 2007: Genesis II launch from Dombarovsky
Jun 07, 2007: Cosmos-2427 – new Kobalt-M optical reconnaissance satellite
Dec 25, 2006: Three Glonass-M navigation satellites join constellation
Dec 24, 2006: Launch of Meridian communication satellite
Sep 14, 2006: Cosmos-2423 – the last Don photoreconnaissance satellite
Jul 21, 2006: Successful launch of a (new early warning?) satellite
Jul 12, 2006: First launch from Dombarovsky/Yasnyy
Jul 04, 2006: A new US-KS/Oko satellite?
Jun 25, 2006: Launch of Cosmos-2421 naval reconnaissance satellite
May 27, 2006: Space launch from a submarine
May 04, 2006: Launch of Cosmos-2420 Kobalt-M optical reconnaissance satellite
Dec 25, 2005: Launch of Glonass navigation satellites
Dec 21, 2005: Launch of two communication satellites – Gonets-M and Cosmos-2416
Sep 02, 2005: Launch of Cosmos-2415 reconnaissance satellite
Jan 20, 2005: Launch of Cosmos-2414 Parus navigation satellite
Dec 26, 2004: Launch of GLONASS navigation satellites
Sep 24, 2004: Launch of Cosmos-2410 “new generation” satellite
Sep 23, 2004: Launch of two Strela-3 communication satellites – Cosmos-2408 and Cosmos-2409
Jul 22, 2004: Launch of Cosmos-2407 Parus military navigation satellite
Jun 10, 2004: Launch of Cosmos-2406 electronic intelligence satellite
May 28, 2004: Launch of Cosmos-2405 naval reconnaissance satellite
Mar 27, 2004: Launch of the Cosmos-2406 military relay satellite
Mar 20, 2004: Reentry of the Cosmos-2383 naval reconnaissance satellite
Feb 18, 2004: Russia launched Cosmos-2405 (Molniya-1T) communication satellite
Dec 10, 2003: Launch of GLONASS navigation satellites
Aug 19, 2003: Russia launches two military communication satellites – Cosmos-2400 and Cosmos-2401
Aug 12, 2003: Russia launches Cosmos-2399 reconnaissance satellite
This is the partial list of the military sat and glonass launches for the last three years.Add to that the sats already in orbit.Many military sat launches are scheduled for 2008 also.
As for the rest of your post , I will try to reply later being very busy at this moment and coming few days.:)
Sign In
