Russian Nuclear-Armed SSNs?

I'll comment more on this later, but this article from the Eurasia Daily Monitor is quite interesting. Excerpt:
Then came the real sensation: Putin asked how many Russian nuclear subs were at sea. Ivanov reported: "Today, there are eight nuclear-powered submarines at sea on combat patrols. Five of them are strategic and three are multipurpose, but each of them has nuclear arms aboard" (Interfax, September 10). Ivanov made the statement and then repeated it once again unequivocally, as broadcast the same day by Russian government’s Rossiya television channel: "The subs have different tasks -- some are armed with ICBMs, others are multipurpose -- but each of them has nuclear weapons aboard." Ivanov's statement is highly significant, because under existing agreements it is illegal for Russia to deploy non-strategic nuclear weapons on board attack (multipurpose) subs.
On September 27, 1991, U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced drastic cuts in non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons and invited the Soviet Union to follow his lead. Ten days later Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to do the same. In January 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian President Boris Yeltsin officially committed Russia to continue tactical nuclear disarmament.
The non-strategic arms limitation agreements required the total destruction of all nuclear artillery shells, tactical land-based missile warheads, and nuclear land mines. They also mandated the partial destruction of anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense missile warheads, non-strategic naval nuclear weapons, and Air Force and Naval Air Force bombs. All the nuclear weapons left after the partial destruction and, in particular, all non-strategic naval weapons were to be detached from delivery systems, taken off ships and subs, and placed in centralized storage facilities away from naval and other military bases. The only exceptions were Air Force tactical bombs that were allowed to be deployed at storage facilities near air bases (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nuclear Status Report, www.ceip.org)...
...The tactical nuclear limitation agreements are not a formal treaty, and no compliance verification mechanism ever existed. Despite statements to the contrary, questions about Russian compliance with non-strategic nuclear disarmament have been raised. Unlike U.S. naval-based, long-range cruise missiles, their Russian (Soviet) equivalents -- the Granat and Granit -- were not designed or ever tested to carry conventional warheads. Still Russian attack subs continued to deploy these missiles at sea, which did not make sense if only their nuclear tips continued to be in place despite official pledges.
However, now the time for speculation is over. Ivanov’s statement, made in front of reporters and President Putin reveals unequivocally that Russian attack subs are being deployed "on combat patrols" against NATO ships with battle-ready non-strategic nukes onboard. Russia is clearly cheating now and may have been cheating on its signed tactical nuclear arms control promises all along.
More later...

Update 0021 15 Sep: Back in 1991 or '92, I remember they had us change the standard response we were supposed to give if anyone asked us about the presence of nuclear weapons aboard non-SSBNs. To the original, "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard any U.S. Naval vessel", they added something like, "However, it is the policy of the U.S. government not to deploy nuclear weapons aboard attack submarines or surface ships". So, while we can't confirm or deny, I can say that I personally never saw a nuclear weapon, and I was stationed only on attack submarines and an aircraft carrier.

If the Russians are cheating on this agreement, my initial thought was that it'd be stupid on their part -- but, the Russian Navy was never known for being run by the brightest group of Admirals. Then I thought some more; the only real mission the Russian submarine force has nowadays is protecting whatever SSBNs they can get out on patrol, so I suppose they'd be willing to risk having us put nukes back on our SSNs (a minimal tactical advantage, if any) in order to have a weapon that's really their only chance to kill one of our SSNs going after their boomers. I have no idea why they'd want to publicize it, however.

I never did really understand the Russians...

A Submariner's Account Of 9/11/01

PigBoatSailor returned to blogging to put up an excellent account up of his 9/11 experiences on a boat in Groton. It's much more interesting than my recollections I posted last year.

The Importance Of Using Good English

Idaho 1st District Congressional candidate Bill Sali today stated that he supports a bill making English the official language of the United States. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to have many specifics about the bill nailed down. Apparently as a method of demonstrating how embarrassing it would be for someone who doesn't speak or write English well, his new video page features a couple good examples of bad English: "The VB's support of Bill Sali is important" (VB = volleyball, maybe?) and "The globabl implications of this election". Maybe his webmaster was subconsciously thinking about the Tower of Babel, where God decreed that man should speak different languages.

The fact that the bill in question was referred to sub-committee in April 2005, and is still sitting there in September 2006 (the same fate as the previous bill on this subject introduced in 2003) I'm sure in no way indicates that this is yet another example of Mr. Sali grandstanding about a proposal that has no chance in hell of succeeding.

Update 2355 14 Sep: It looks like they fixed the typos on the campaign website. I wonder if they're reading my site?

Canadians Want To Send A Sub To The Arctic

[Intel Source: SubSim] The Commander of the Canadian Joint Task Force Atlantic says he wants to send one of Canada's submarines on a "sovereignty patrol" of the country's Arctic regions. As I've mentioned before, Canadians are apparently upset that American submarines might be passing through Canadian territorial waters when sailing through the Arctic Ocean. They're concerned about some of the potential problems of operating up north, though:
"One of the things that I will want to be able to exercise, practise, validate, is how well I can communicate and control the submarine in what is an area where you have very difficult and, in some cases, sketchy communications architectures. Satellite coverage is as bad there is it is anywhere on earth.
"So pushing the submarine up into those types of operations allows us to figure out where the envelopes are. . . . I would hope to get to the stage where I can do that sooner rather than later."
In March, then-rear admiral Dan McNeil said it would be "almost impossible" for diesel-electric subs to operate in the Arctic archipelago, noting depth charts of the area are more than a century old and currents in the narrowest passages move along at up to 17 kilometres per hour.
Out of date depth charts? Seems like all they'd have to do is ask the U.S. Navy for updated ones, and I'm sure we'd be glad to provide them.

(Emergency Deep! to avoid the counterfire of various Canadians...)

Submarine Decommissioning Schedule Changes

Back in June, I blogged about the (late-arriving) FY-07 Ship Decommissioning Message. Now, the Navy's put out an updated message. This Navy Times article discusses all of the changes; here's what effects the Submarine Force:
• Attack submarine H.G. Rickover will be deactivated March 1, 2007 instead of Sept. 30, 2007.
• Attack submarine Minneapolis-St. Paul’s deactivation date was fine-tuned from Sept. 30, 2007 to Sept. 27, 2007.
• Attack submarine Honolulu’s deactivation was moved up a year from Sept. 30, 2007, to Nov. 1 of this year. Her bow will be used to replaced the bow of San Francisco, which was destroyed in a collision with an underwater mountain in January 2005...
• The deep-diving research submarine Dolphin, the Navy’s last diesel-powered sub, will remain on the ledgers until Dec. 8, 2006, rather than Oct. 1, 2006. It will be sunk in a fleet training exercise. The Navy spent $60 million bringing Dolphin back to service after a fire in May 2002. Dolphin just recently rejoined the fleet.

Ships whose schedules did not change:
• Attack submarine Salt Lake City deactivates Nov. 3.
The only big "surprise" I could see was moving HGR's decomm up seven months. Anyone else notice any surprises?