In my previous sunday night ramblings on world non-events I said there was no sign of a surge in submarine deployment
I was wrong.
Status of the Navy this morning shows a sharp increase in the number of attack submarines underway (30 now vs 18 before) and an increase in the number deployed (18 vs 14).
For those keeping count, that means 12 subs left port but are not yet "deployed" ie are in transit to somewhere. Could be a quick swirl around outside the harbour to shake off the barnacles, of course.
More than half the attact subs are underway, by the way.
That is ever so slightly worrying.
Of course if I were the US Navy and the balloon were about to go up, I would either not update, or fake the content of web pages like that. I mean keeping track of sub deployment is relatively easy, they're big and when they leave it is local news, but that doesn't mean you have to make it easy for the curious.
So maybe that is proof that nothing is going to happen!
- Log in to post comments
Based on the administration's past performance, I would say "Brownie" is now in charge of sub deployment.
Re your earlier post on an "understated" air strike - submarines can launch cruise missiles.
Yup, US attack subs typically carry a number of cruise missiles.
There could of course be a lot of innocuous reasons for so many subs at sea, they just had a multi-week standdown after a couple of accidents, so training cruises will need to be caught up on, and there could be an exercise going on.
But it is still a curious piece of data.
On a different note, the USS Nimitz finished fleet exercises (a Persian Gulf scenario) and is ready to deploy. Don't know if she is back in San Diego for a rest, or still in the Pacific.
But the level of rhetoric is low, and it is not like there is a political crisis in the US which would prompt an executive to look for foreign initiatives.