In December 2014 Russia quietly signaled what maybe called the start of Cold War II when it issued a new military doctrine which lists NATO as its “main threat”. President Putin, a former KGB officer is determined to return Russia to the superpower status of the Soviet Union. Communist dogma may have gone but it has been replaced by nationalist expansionism and paranoia used to justify a military renaissance. Western nations are feeling this growing power by increasing numbers of Russian ships, aircraft and submarines to probing defences and even entering territorial waters.
Despite the end of the Cold war in the 1990s it could be argued that the threat from Russia never really went away. Even as its forces decayed, it retained the world’s most formidable nuclear arsenal. Russia still covets its former possessions in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, seeking to expand it borders as an economic zone and buffer to ‘protect the homeland’. Many Western observers and governments have spent the last 10 years playing down the threat from Russia as decrepit and irrelevant. Those sounding a warning were labeled as “nostalgic for the certainties of the Cold War” or playing up the threat to justify specific defence expenditure. It was not until the annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine that there was full recognition the Russian bear has woken from his sleep.
With an iron grip on his domestic media, Putin remains popular at home as the ‘strong man’ and a recent poll found 64% of Russians would like a return of the Soviet Union while only 26% wanted an immediate end to the war with Ukraine. Despite growing economic problems caused by Western sanctions and a dramatic drop in oil prices, Putin is committed to a 33% rise in defence spending in 2015. The plan announced in 2012 for an ambitious rearmament program through 2020 is valued at 20 trillion rubles ($500 billion). $132 billion is allocated for upgrades to the navy and in particular the submarine fleet. The effects of this growing investment which has been happening in earnest since 2008, is already being felt on the frontline.
In 2014 the Russian navy received more than 40 warships, submarines and support vessels of different classes. In contrast the Royal Navy decommissioned HMS Illustrious and received not a single new vessel.
The resurgent Russian Navy
The annexing of Crimea liberated the Sevastopol naval base from Ukrainian restrictions and by 2016 the Black Sea fleet will have received 6 new Grigorovich-class frigates, 6 improved Kilo-class submarines and several missile corvettes. Meanwhile the Northern fleet is starting to receive the new Borei class SSBNs and the Yassen SSGNs. Both classes have had a long and difficult construction history and the Borei’s have had serious problems with their Bulava missiles but the first vessel was declared fully operational in 2014. The 6 older Delta IV SSBNs have all now been overhauled and upgraded. The new Yassen attack submarines are thought to be the quietest non-NATO nuclear submarines ever built. Development of the Lada class SSK with AIP (air independent Propulsion) has resumed and is even more stealthy than the very successful Kilo class which are formidable adversaries, particularly in littoral areas.
The surface fleet is also being revived with a rolling programme of frigate and corvette construction. Justified as a response to the building of the three 15,000 ton US Navy Zumwalt class ‘destroyers’, a second Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov is being reactivated and modernized. Together with the Pyotr Velikiy these ships are the most powerful non-aircraft carrier surface combatants in the world at least until arrival of the revolutionary Zumwalts. On the downside, France has finally suspended delivery of the 2 Mistral class LDH in response to events in Ukraine and the only carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov will be unavailable for several years undergoing modernisation.
The revival of the Russian submarine fleet, aided by information obtained by espionage together with financial backing and political determination, now present a major challenge for NATO.
Although the number of new submarines is not yet approaching the scale of the former Soviet fleet, the new boats are much closer to their NATO equivalents in terms of stealth and sophistication.
They even incorporate escape pods for their crews, lessons learned from frequent Russian submarine disasters but also an indication of greater appreciation for highly trained personnel. Patrols by Russian submarines that were virtually non-existent 10 years ago are becoming more frequent and transatlantic forays by Russian attack submarines have become routine.
Coming to a coast near you
Hot on the heels of the detection of a submarine in Swedish territorial waters in October 2014, in late November it was reported that the UK had detected a submarine “close to the Scottish coast”. It was unclear whether they succeeded in locating the submarine, or if it had actually entered UK territorial waters. One can only speculate where the alert came from; a periscope fortuitously sighted by a Scottish fishing vessel, a detection by a friendly submarine or surface ship or most likely, by a seabed SOSUS array? The event put the media spotlight on the dangerous lack of UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft, as it was forced to call on NATO partners for help. 2 US Navy P3 Orions, a French Atlantique and a Canadian Aurora arrived at RAF Lossiemouth to support the a hunt. An RN submarine was almost certainly sent to the area along with HMS Somerset carrying the very effective Type 2087 towed array sonar. The RAF deployed a Sentinel radar reconnaissance aircraft. Although designed as ground surveillance platform, it does carry a powerful synthetic aperture radar which can detect very small objects such as a periscope. There was a repeat performance again in early January 2015 when 2 USN P3s made a sudden return to Lossiemouth from their base in Sardinia and were active for at least 5 days.
Sending Maritime Patrol aircraft to Scotland is very much in the US interest, however dismayed it maybe at Britain’s neglect of its defence. The US is particularly concerned that Akula and Yasen class submarines armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missile are operating near its coast. These submarines pass through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap on their way across the Atlantic and may close the Scottish coast, perhaps hoping to detect the British SSBN departing on deterrent patrol. Low altitude cruise missiles fired from close to their target would be very hard to detect and provide even less warning than ‘traditional’ intercontinental ballistic missiles. The US investing in blimp-mounted radars designed to detect cruise missiles and these blimps have been seen flying over Washington DC.
While the Russians almost certainly have no intention of attacking the UK or US, their increasing strength is a powerful diplomatic lever that is being applied by Putin who seeks out weakness and exploits opportunities. Demonstrations of military power in the face of irresolute Western leadership gives Russia confidence to invade and intimidate its neighbours. In the face of this, it is alarming that the US is reducing its defence spending and some of its military presence in Europe while facing economic stagnation, the rise of China and on-going challenges in the Middle East.
The strategic position for Britain is a far cry from the early 1990s and the ill-advised ‘peace dividend’ that has been exploited to a point where the UK is reliant on foreign help to defend its own waters.
Westminster heads in the sand
The 2015 election looks set to be dominated by the NHS and cost of living issues, with defence barely mentioned or obscured by panics over terrorism. Even the most optimistic commentators can only hope that the 2015 review will allow spending to remain static, while most are predicting yet further cuts. The threat from the Russian navy alone should be reason enough to cancel cuts in the MoD budget. At least the replacement of the Trident submarines looks as if it will happen but if we are to properly meet the threat, then Royal Navy urgently needs more submarines, frigates and maritime patrol aircraft. Lacking sufficient anti-submarine assets, the RN maybe unable to protect the SSBN undermining the credibility of our primary deterrent.
The Type 26 frigate build programme should be started as a matter of urgency. As Admiral Lord West said recently of the Type 26 saga “it is a national disgrace… we need to knock some heads together with BAE Systems, probably the PM needs to do it”. As discussed in the previous post the lease or purchase of maritime patrol aircraft could be arranged quite quickly. Expanding the submarine fleet would be the biggest challenge. Even if the significant funds for additional Astutes was available, it would take years for additional boats to arrive and would impact the Trident replacement submarine programme. If we were to be really radical we could even consider buying some of the excellent German or Swedish AIP SSKs. Manpower would be another headache and would require a huge investment in recruitment and training, as we are struggling even to man our existing submarine force. Sadly such proposals seem pie-in the sky, wishful thinking in the current political and fiscal climate.
It is becoming an inconvenient truth that European politicians shy away from, a dangerous new cold war is beginning that we need to become psychologically and materially prepared to face.
Related articles
- Russia Adopts New Military Doctrine Listing NATO as Main Threat (Forces News)
- US and Russia in danger of returning to era of nuclear rivalry (The Guardian)
- The new cold war: Putin’s forces target U.S. Navy and allies (The Navy Times)
- Russian Navy to intensify missions in 2015 – chief of General Staff (Tass)
- Russia’s Military Will Get Bigger and Better in 2015 (Moscow Times)
- Third Borey-Class Strategic Nuclear Submarine Joins Russian Navy (Spacewar.com)
- MoD asks for American help in searching for Russian submarine near Scotland (The Independent)
Is britain prepared for a new cold war?
I think the short answer is no! Not only is it unprepared to guard against snooping Russian subs from Mr. Putin but I think it is also unprepared to stop the Falklands having new owners one day. The Argentines have 2 things which could help them they have good special forces and they are good at knocking together all manner of Heath Robinson military gear. One example being a Exocet launcher bodged on to a trailer which gave the RN some trouble. Could the Q-ship make a come back? Pretend to be a cruise liner get in close then let the SF out in mini-subs ,attack the raf field (but save one typhoon for the Argentine version of Mr Brown RN) and secure the beach head for reinforcement. And the lovely long runway will be nice for those new Sukoi fighter-bombers.
There will be those who will poo-poo the above but with britain begging for American P-3 Orions to guard its OWN shores I would not dismiss it just yet.
How The World Works by Noam Chomsky, maybe in a distant future you will then be less inclined to swallow this sort of stuff.
As the article here suggests the problem is in the heads of our political and MSM classes. Few have shown any desire or inclination to understand the nuts and bolts of national maritime defence. Although there are ships in the pipeline; with the exception of the carriers they just aren’t coming in sufficient numbers to replace one for one even the woefully small navy we now have.
Just let us remember how close this country came to starvation and defeat twice in the 20th century through neglect or miscalculation in meeting the challenge of submarines cutting our sea lane lifeline.
Who imagines 7 SSNs will be adequate to ward off what looks ominously like a direct stand off looming from Putin’s Russia.
We would do worse than to join the Australians in looking at the Japanese SSKs and keeping retired vessels in mothballs for much longer than is current practice, before scrapping.
Putin isn’t the problem, its them retards in Washington and London, poking a stick into the Russian bear, Russia doesn’t want a war
Actually it is probably more down to the Germans and other eastern European nations who signed up to buy all there energy requirements (gas and oil) from Russia and have left themselves wide open to Russian blackmail. Fortunately the drop in oil prices has stopped Putin for the present but I feel this may only be a short reprieve for them. No doubt when the oil price goes up as it no doubt will he will really start to turn the screws on them again. The stupid thing is that years ago Putin actually wrote a university paper detailing his proposed strategy for using Russia’s oil and gas reserves as a means to enrich the Russian economy and use it as a weapon to exert power and control over the Eastern EU and ex-Soviet states. The real plonkers as you put it are the countries who should have known better and not walked right into his trap.
The problem is the goverments of the UK all any of the party’s have done is fritter away one of the most powerful navy’s on the planet down to nothing. And all they bother about is their image we have to look good on the world stage by given money away to foreign country’s money we should be spending on defence, I am sure NELSON is turning in his grave at the state of his beloved navy
I have one of those Ian Allan books on WW2 warships on my bookshelf. The number of ships requisitioned is huge. I couldn’t count them. They were mainly used for coastal escort and mine clearance. What steps is the Navy taking to have a similar effort in the event of threatened Russian close blockade of the UK? I am not even talking the actual thing.
Not Green Men but just the threat of mines would bring our trade to a halt as things stand.
The pressing problem is, are the English ready to die for Ukraine ? Do they want new coups, defend the independence of Ukraine and prepared to sacrifice their blood for this “sublime” purpose ? Are they willing to contribute to the wellbeing of Ukraine from their own savings ?
No. ask me one on sport…
I am sorry but the “threat” to the UK is simply exaggerated nonsense. The Russian Navy has always been constrained by the geography of an enormous nation but access to the sea constrained by choke points.
The Northern Fleet to get anywhere has to peacefully sail past us hence all the headlines of “Shock Horror” Russian Navy peacefully sails past us! The entire Fleet is a Carrier from a 1980s design and commissioned in 1990 and has spent a lot of time in shipyards since. It is smaller than our two new ones, so in 2020 if we keep both in service and buy enough aircraft to make it worthwhile, we have 2 to their 30 year old unreliable one. There have been lots of headlines about building large fleets but nothing of that size is under construction. They have a nuclear powered Cruiser which is powerful but again is from the 1990s and has been unreliable. They have 6 Destroyers, all 1985-95 vintage and zero frigates. To our 6 modern T-45 and 13 T-23. Of course we cannot get all 19 ships to sea simultaneously, but of course neither can they get their entire fleet of 6 ships to sea simultaneously either. The Carrier will pass us on the way to operate in the Med this Autumn and on the way back but will then be in re-fit at least 2017-19. One of the other nuclear Battlecruisers is being updated and brought back into service but will be 30 years old by the time it is back in service.
So if the Entire Fleet headed for the Royal Navy past NATO member Norway, we are talking 8 ships, and of course we presumably have the support the French and Dutch Fleets.
The Baltic Fleet, has 2 old 1980s Destroyers, 2 modern new build Frigates and 3 small Corvettes, they are faced by surveillance from the Baltic States, the Poles with second hand US frigates, then the modern equipment of the Germans and Danes before they get out of the Baltic. If they want to go any further they peacefully sail past us and we again get shock horror headlines.
The Black Sea Fleet based in Crimea has on paper 2 Cruisers but one is from the 1970s, and 3 old Destroyers, the 4 Type 22s we sold to the Romanians are more numerous and modern, before we mention the Turkish Fleet. They were scheduled to gain 6 new frigates but the engines were made in Ukraine and after the fighting that is not happening, so at present the 3 that have installed engines will be delivered, but obviously there will be life time issues around spare parts, the 3 half built without engines installed will be sold to India. The Russians will build more frigates to a different design but they have lost at least 5 years if not a decade in the process.
The Pacific Fleet has a Cruiser and 5 Destroyers, all at best 1990s vintage. They face a Japanese Fleet with 50 plus Surface Ships, the Chinese with 70, and even the South Koreans are much more powerful than the Russians.
Of all of this the only thing actually more modern than the 1990s are the small number of Frigates in the Baltic and as the rest approach 30 years old they are going to have to fund an enormous building programme which despite headlines there is no evidence the Russian shipyards are in a position to deliver or the total numbers will shrink.
I z 18months ago that we should of gone on a war footen it all ways the every time after a world war we cut back I understand a cut backs but no murder our arm forces over the years we rush to get ships done take the tape 45 we late started tape 26 are we or not having a 3rd carrier if we are that is a state ment to go some way but if you are asking are we ready not a chance if Russia wanted to invade us he could just walk in we got more gee gees than bloody TANKS in the 1st gulf war we hard 3 divisions 400 two 500 tanks now 120 tanks 19 warships RAF 800 to 900 warplens so you can see for your selfs how bad we are we got Army what you could put in wembly we need to bring back if they still out there the skill workers back and star building for our lives I fill we are running out of time.
No.