Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

And we do the same to them.

It’s like one of those stupid articles in the Daily Fail: ‘RAF sees off Russian jets in the Baltic’

Armies have little peace utility. Whereas navies have high utility in peace and war.

Hopefully forgetting that lesson in the late 20th century won’t cost now in the 21st.

Supportive Bloke

Of course we do.

Mapping the sea bed has gone on forever.

It is just the intensity with which the Russians are doing this is at a new level.

Thing is they know no boundaries in their actions. So are they placing charges against cables and pipes? What are they actually doing?

Sure, some systems have built in sensors if disturbed to self report damage. Older systems probably don’t.

So we probably have a good idea of what they are up to but not in every single case.


Thing is they know no boundaries in their actions.



Remember Ivy Bells

Undersea Boundaries only matter when you get caught .
Also came up a few weeks back , was off topic for Naval warfare, but RAF used US planes to overfly the Soviet Union but only revealed in last decade
Mapping routes for V bomber or something. Before my time , and never used but I would think glad they did.

Last edited 1 year ago by Duker
supportive Bloke

Sure that has been going on for. Good while too. The British were tunnelling under the Berlin Wall …..


Everybody was tunnelling under the Wall. 🙂

Paul Burch

Ah yes. We do the mapping, but when was the last time we destroyed a Russian undersea cable or pipeline. Therein lies the problem. How do we deter? If, say, half our undersea cables and pipelines were to fail within one week, what would we be justified in doing? Something? Nothing? Would we be justified in claiming this was a concerted attack on a NATO nation and taking military action with the support of our NATO allies? We need to have eyes on them and see in detail what they are up to otherwise the Russians will likely do something that costs the nation billions and possibly lives too. And THAT could lead to a full scale war, not just the current proxy war.


I was told that in the 80’s and 90’s Armed Russians actually landed on Barra Head.


Now that is interesting. Who told you if you can say in around about way? Is this part of local lore?

That’s probably one of the few things of any real interest I have seen posted here.


Never heard of the place , but it does have a strategic location.
Trouble is since the 80s the island has been uninhabited once the lighthouse was automated.
Likely the stories have grown from people who werent there. Satellite recon has replaced eyes on ground and can give a new set of photos every 3 -4 days

Red dot doesnt show on this map but its at very bottom of outer Hebrides chain of islands

Last edited 1 year ago by Duker

I sort of knew where it was. I am interested to know more about this tale. Lots of strange tales on a periphery.


Google maps has wonderful clear sharp view of the island except part of the cliffs near the lighthouse which is ‘blurred for some reason’


Yes! 🙂


It’s just the way they stich together and purchase imagery…

There is a clear image at Bing….there is nothing there but cliffs…


A friend of mine, a JP in the Outer Hebrides told me that. I only heard about it from him but he was well acquainted with the local waters and had a mooring off Barra and in his home port. Quite credible as the St Kilda range is NW of Barra Head. One often saw large trawlers off the West coast of the islands who knows what came up in their nets?
No one to stop a landing on Barra Head, once they automated the light, except the local fishermen.


Gosh! I find anything like that truly interesting. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Russians (Soviets) had been ashore up there more than once. I have thought for a long time that more should be done to ‘defend’ the bases up there.


Apart from being a extremely difficult place to land what would be gained by a small number on shore that couldnt be done by purpose built Soviet/Russian intell vessels in the seas around – but outside the territorial limit.
seems to be the classic


I hear you.


Question, let’s say hypothetically there was an armed conflict between nato and Russia/China, could we technically target and sink these civilian vessels that are civilian vessels in name only? As wouldn’t they still technically count as civilian vessels and wouldn’t that be a war crime?


It’s only a ‘war crime’ if you don’t win.

‘War crime’ is a very loaded term. Rather like ‘terrorist’ or ‘freedom fighter’………

‘International law’, whatever it is, is not domestic law. Somebody has to enforce ‘law’ for it to be law……


Yes . During the ‘long war’ for the US in the ME the Hague Court War Crimes prosecutors were sanctioned people by US government for daring to suggest they would investigate US war crimes.
War is nasty and brutish full stop


Exactly. I have never quite grasped the ‘ferry full of nuns and orphans’ idea when it came to OTH weapons. There is a certain arrogance in the idea of a ‘clean war’. War is war. The propaganda we are seeing generated by the Ukraine is derivative.

Last edited 1 year ago by X

There is no reason why any vessel should not be sunk. Ask the crew of British any merchantman in WW2. That includes hospital ships. In a war any Russian will be fair game.


Thats what happened but it wasnt ‘right’ .Even in 1939 it was a war crime to sink a merchant vessel without warning, one of the reasons Doenitz was convicted at Nuremburg.
The liner Athenia was sunk after torpedoed without warning on the evening of the day war was declared by Britain


The opening position in WW2 was a nonsense. In theory a submarine had to surface and ensure that all crew and passengers were evacuated prior to sinking it. This was in a time when ships had radio and could call escorts up even assuming it was not a Q ship which was capable of sinking a submarine on the surface.
Doenitz was convicted because he was C IN C of first the U Boat arm, then the Kriegsmarine and finally Hitler’s successor as German Head of State.
He received a ten year sentence whilst his predecessor as C In C Raeder was given a life sentence so he was lucky.
The USN adopted U Boat tactics against Japan when it entered the war.


Crimes Against the Peace (i.e., waging was that are illegal under International Law) and War Crimes (i.e., contravention of rules governing the conduct of warfare).
That was the 2 charges he was found guilty.
Unrestricted submarine warfare was the basis of the second.
Still are illegal under the Geneva conventions , but the Germans had your view of convenience.


I hadn’t known this but USN began unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese merchant fleet right from the day of Pearl Harbour

The London Naval Treaty’s ( 1930, 1936) had proscribed the sinking without warning of merchant ships by submarine

Article 22 of the 1930 Treaty of London relating to submarine warfare declared international law (the so-called “cruiser rules“) applied to submarines as well as to surface vessels. Also, unarmed merchant vessels which did not demonstrate “persistent refusal to stop…or active resistance to visit or search”[5] could not be sunk without the ships’ crews and passengers being first delivered to “a place of safety” (for which lifeboats did not qualify, except under particular circumstances).[6] The 1936 treaty confirmed Article 22 of the 1930 treaty remained in force….’

Since this was signed by all the major powers incl Germany and US

Dave G

To be fair, things are a lot easier in an actual war situation. if it is close to the uk such as in the north sea, you could probably use an aircraft to tell it to surrender into a uk port for inspection or be sunk if all you need to be legal is give it a warning…. Alternatively you set up a formal exclusion zone around critical sites and say any vessel there without prior permission will be sunk (this was done in the falklands).


 but a concerted effort to monitor suspicious vessels by Scandinavian journalists has revealed the true extent of this campaign to the public.”

Surely thats just a cover story by western intell agencies which have put the many hours and such into gathering the details from their many sources.
The story is then given on a plate to media, who do a single small boat voyage to gather some video.


The Shetland cables cut has been establised to be fishing vessels
‘Faeroese Telecom’s head of infrastructure, Páll Vesturbú, said the damage to the mainland link, which happened just after midnight on Thursday, had affected the fibres in the cable, but “they were not cut off”.
“We have reason to believe that the cable was damaged by a fishing vessel,” he said.
“There was also an incident last week, and we also believe that this was caused by a fishing vessel.”

More interesting is the Svalberd cable ‘outage’ and what it was used for
The cable is operated by Space Norway, and also serves the SvalSat park of more than 100 satellite antennas. SvalSat is today the world’s largest commercial ground station with worldwide customers. Its location at 78°N, halfway between mainland Norway and the North Pole, gives the station a unique position to provide all-orbit support to operators of polar-orbiting satellites.”
more than commercial customers I would think

They also say it wasnt ‘mysterious’ as Naval Lookout claims
The analysis of the failure indicated a shunt failure in the cable causing loss of power to some of the signal repeaters, Space Norway informs. The redundancy was restored on January 18th, and the cable is expected to be fully repaired in course of February.’

Supportive Bloke

The will know the exactly date/time/location of the cut and then it is just a matter of cross checking with AIS.

If there is a trawler in the box then, I agree, that is the likely culprit.


AIS only works when its turned on.

Supportive Bloke

Sure but if it is in and it is a trawler then you have your answer….

If it is off then you look at commercial satellite images to find the culprit.

Anyway, with their level of EM hygiene, you can find most Russian ships with hoop aerial and a scope.


Anyway, with their level of EM hygiene, you can find most Russian ships with hoop aerial and a scope.

Are you sure? Or are you defaulting to the rhubarb repeated elsewhere?


Just a thought.
Why doesnt the RN have an open day for small craft owners so we can look over their boats so we can make our available in wartime.
My 1922 37′ launch was taken up in 1941-44 and served with the mines weeping squadron on the Clyde.
No reason why if we knew what fittings would be needed; modern small craft couldn’t fulfill some useful role.


Lorsque les pays maritimes font ce que les Russes font aujourd’hui, c’est normal et légitime. En effet, leur commerce et leur vie même sont basés sur le trafic maritime. La guerre de l’Atlantique (1939-1945) remportée par la Royal Navy l’a suffisamment démontré. Et nous ne devons pas oublier que ces pays maritimes ont des responsabilités mondiales. Ces responsabilités représentent un poids écrasant sur leurs finances. C’est à leur honneur qu’ils les prennent sans hésitation.

Mais les Russes ? un pays continental dont l’immense territoire leur offre tout ce dont ils ont besoin ? S’ils n’avaient pas de marine, personne ne s’en apercevrait, pas même eux.

Leur activité frénétique d’espionnage sur notre infrastructure sous-marine avec de vieux navires n’est donc qu’une simple provocation.


Sorry, I forget to translate.

Wen maritime countries do what the Russians are doing today, it is normal and rightful. Indeed, their trade and their very lives are based on maritime traffic. The Atlantic War (1939-1945) won by the Royal Navy has sufficiently demonstrated this. And we must not forget that these maritime nations have global responsibilities. These responsibilities require a great deal more than just a small amount of money. It is to their credit that they take them on without reluctance.

But the Russians? a continental country whose huge territory offers them everything they need? If they had no navy, no one would notice, not even them.

Their frenetic activity of spying on our underwater infrastructure with old ships is therefore a mere provocation.


Mere provocation? Unlike say UK and US ships in the Black Sea? Or UK aircraft flying around the Baltic?


So RN and USN vessels and aircraft are not allowed to visit friendly nations like Estonia and Romania in the Baltic and Black Sea? Who says? Russia?
Perhaps Russia should stop flights by her bombers to UK and US borders?


Might point is that everybody does it.

We mustn’t forget though that the US has 700 bases worldwide and the world’s largest navy.

I do wonder how some of you lot function IRL.


“I do wonder how some of you lot function In Real Life”…… Absolutely rolling around here, crying with laughter……. What could you ever know about real life ? You spend all your time on here…. You and the other Expert Duker…. Made my day that has.


What exactly are the friendly countries that are 60km off the coast of Crimea that need a visit by a spy plane , or the Baltics
Its a bit silly to try pretend military recon missions arent exactly what they appear to be by Nato or Russia


The Daily Mail article on the PoW. Wow even I thought it was a downer. Given the current situation I can’t see the US letting us take it out of commission.


I’m agog. If this happens it will be a disaster for national morale. I am not exactly pro-carrier. But the man on the street who knows little about the topic probably thinks we have proper carriers. What will they think? The surface fleet is built around these things. The US already prefers to be seen working with the French, Japaneses, and Ozzies. We have no kit. If true. Well.


It’s the Mail.

FFS – treating the Mail as a source of anything – let alone information – is symptomatic of someone who either reads while tracing the words with their finger or has to mouth them as they go.

Let’s start with the idea that there’s something awry with the propellers. That’s wrong – certainly with respect to the port shaft. As already in the public domain, the stbd prop did suffer some damage when the coupling failed, but that’s not applicable to the port prop.

What they’re referring to as cannibalisation is in fact STORob-ing, which is both commonplace and nothing to do with scrapyards or indeed mothballing. It’s everything to do with the quickest solution to replace a component on QNLZ, given the PWLS isn’t programmed to come out of Rosyth yet. The reason she’s not coming out of Rosyth yet is because the programme has altered to include some of the capability upgrades she was due to have in Portsmouth this spring / summer – might as well do them in a drydock. I suspect there are some supply chain delays in getting the new shaftline components (they’re not the sort of things you routinely keep in store because failures are so rare), which is leading to the longer than expected docking. The fuel pumps thing is very definitely a red herring and lord alone knows what “political” imperative there was to get her out of Rosyth in the first place. That did actually apply with QNLZ.

I’d have to say it looks as if the Mail have rung up that Essex steward from Chris Terrills programme, fed him some lines and asked for comment. “Bosses” and “propellers” indeed.

This is likely to be more accurate…


I know it was nine tenths rhubarb and one tenth horse muck…….

Also nothing had appeared elsewhere.

Lastly I had heard nothing through my sources.

I am bit sensitive at the moment. I just don’t need bad news. True or not. 😉

I am more concerned about why somebody needed to compile this story.

It is all so tiresome.

Last edited 1 year ago by X

Just Ignore then…. You don’t have to comment every single minute of the day…… Try getting out into the real World, you might actually enjoy it…… And, You might just learn about IR and the Russian Intentions about Invading Ukraine Lol….. still Crying about that comment Truth be known !!!! ….. oh and the comment “I was Wrong” Lol….. Yes you were absolutely wrong and just how many lives have been lost eh ?


I know what STORob-ing is………


I know you do.

There is very definitely a lobbying campaign to have one of them put into ER.

It’s almost as if there’s an organisation that sees it’s funding threatened because it can’t actually express what its for and as a result is trying to throw mud at anything else.


Yes. There is something afoot. I think this the ‘Army lobby’ (or part of) looking at using the Ukraine as reason to become front and centre again. Not for the country but for themselves. We need to think globally. Armies have little utility in peace. It is a mess.


Say’s the chap who stated as Fact that Russia would not Invade Ukraine……. OMG what an Idiot…… Can I ask what your actual Name is please? X just seems to be so Troll ish ?


Zelensky didnt believe it would happen either, and he wasnt alone at the top level in Europe who thought that.
yes the US had intell saying the opposite but they never get anything right -they said Afghanistan would last 6 months and Ukraine would last 2 weeks!

Im happy to say I got it wrong too but for the right reasons as I predicted the ‘bad things’ that went wrong for Russia

I can also predict your ridiculous personal attacks will result in consequences


Don’t mess with my Tutu !


Mate, Stop pandering ………..He’s a Attention Seeker with nothing to offer here….. NLO love to see his Prolific Posts…. and edit anyone who dares to answer with facts…… I love this site, It’s just so Biased !!!!


Lol….. looked it up then ?