Links = web link to news article. Check for more info!
I wrote these points in a document which I posted in October to my Twitter pined tweet
The purpose was to sort out things systematically to be able to understand what happened
- under reconstryction -
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/22/ffci-d22.html
https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/organization/navy/news/baltic-guard-interim-assessment-5620902
Main topics covered:
This post explores the claim that USA and allies (led by GER) actually tried to protect Nordstream pipelines.
- The USA provided data already in June.
- Then USA had some split with UK on 20-21 September.
- Did USA left the Baltic Sea on 23rd September because:
- It left protection of pipelines on its allies?
- It left because it learned planting operation succeeded and it did not want to be in the possibly what could happen a battlefield. Next European messy gangrene?
(Spoiler alert:
The UK is considered the Prime Suspect
The UK submarine S120 Ambush considered involved
The data/clues hint that the USA knew about it
The data clues/hint that allies tried to protect NS)
1. Were USA, GER and other allies aware of UK attack on Nordstream?
The article discusses the actions taken by various countries prior to the damage to the Nord Stream pipelines. It discusses the role of USS Kearsarge, a US Navy amphibious assault ship that recently transited the Baltic Sea.NATO and the US have been involved in efforts to address security concerns in the region.
The article explores the possibility that US, DK, SWE, DK and possibly French navies protecting Nordstream pipeline against adversary.
Possibly the UK navy and its submarine Ambush S120.
June 2022: Der Spiegel was the first to report that the The C.I.A...
...issued a vague warning in June to a number of European nations, including Germany, that the two Nord Stream gas pipelines that carry natural gas from Russia could be targeted in forthcoming attacks, three senior officials familiar with the intelligence said on Tuesday...
... what intelligence officials call “strategic warning” of a possible attack — a warning that came with no specifics about the likely time or place or manner of a potential strike... The Biden administration, which in the run-up to the war often accused Russia of planning attacks on Ukraine, was careful on Tuesday not to blame Moscow — or anyone else.
[M: Perhaps because the plan was still unclear? Because the threat would come in future? Note that it was warning to European nations, most likely those who are shareholders of NS: GER, FRA, NED.]
The CNN wrote about it but since it was not Russian this news was "forgotten":
The CNN shortly reports that the week before the Nordstream sabotage there were some Russian submarines in the area, other newspapers reposted.
"Russian submarines were also observed not far from those areas last week, one of the intelligence officials said.
US officials declined to comment on the intelligence about the ships on Wednesday."
[M: How is this possible that nobody followed up on this news? How so nobody tried to use this argument that a RU submarine was in the area? Could it be that it would NOT be Russian and the news about this have been supressed since the 29/09/2000 the day CNN reported it? Could it be that digging in this could expose the real adversary? If there was a sub, what is the possible evidence?]
4. Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW)Activities before 26/9
The USS Kaersarge was not part of the exercise - sub detected?
Did this lead to the next warning to Germans and European allies?
What was Kaersarge anti submarine helicopters seeing near Gdansk?
Why did Kaersarge leave the Baltic Sea on 21/09 after issues with UK-UA "special relationship - here?
1,2,3 Sept 2022 - US Military Helicopters Circled Around Future Nord Stream Leaks For Hours In September
In particular, at the beginning of the month, a US Navy Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopter loitered over the location of pipelines in the Baltic Sea near Bornholm for three days in a row on September 1, 2 and 3.
Anti-Submarine-Warfare, they stay at place,
they can drop sonar or sonar-buoy and transmit data]
Helicopters are better than planes due to lower speed for anti-sub warfare]
[M: The post of the blogger is interesting. How so no Russian sub was announced?
US was conducting anti-submarine mission which has not been a drill.][Could it be that a UK submarine was discovered here?]
It is curious that on September 2, almost in parallel with the US military, a military helicopter NH90 of the Dutch Navy was flying in the vicinity of Bornholm Island, probably observing the activities of the Americans....
US helicopters, according to Flightradar24, also flew over the branches of Russian gas pipelines on September 10 and September 19.
[Could it be that a UK submarine was tracked and followed here?]
In all cases, the trajectories of the US military speak of observation flights or loitering with other targets over a specific section of the water area. Helicopters that made sorties on the night of September 22-23 and 25-26 have especially confusing tracks.
[M: Perhaps there was a UK submarine in the vicinity and US Navy from Kaersarge was tracking its movements. This kind of excludes that it was a secret approved NATO operation, looks more like UK went rogue and USA has been on it, knew, monitored yet has not stopped it or did not understand intentions of the submarine - speculating on another post with How it maybe went - so far sequence is in few posts on twitter. Btw, the path looks like the helicopter dropped sonarbuoys, then cycles to transmit its data to Kaersarge].
2 Sept 2022 - helicopter call sign FFAB123 MH-60S from USS Kearsarge flew either along the route of Nord Stream-2 or generally between the points where the accident occurred.
'
23 Sept 2022 - Anti-submarine warfare MH-60R from the nearby USS Kearsarge
24 Sept 2022 - US Navy MH-60R Sea Hawk VVHG725
[M: US Kaersarge was deployed in June on Baltops 22, then redeployed to Baltics again and stayed there until 24 SEpt 2022. Left just 2 days before the event. Coincidence or was the USA actually in the area helping allies to protect their infrastructure?]
The exercise was extended over the 26/09 event.
"The Baltic Sea is of vital importance for the Alliance and is bordered by six NATO countries”, said NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu. “Northern Coasts is now in its 13th year.'
Note Bundeswehr statements:
The increased presence in the Baltic Sea has also had an impact on the Navy's annual autumn maneuvers: Northern Coasts lasted longer than usual this year at four weeks, from 29 August to 28 September. This provided an opportunity for more participation from Germany's Baltic Sea partners.
"As a major resident, we have a natural focus in the Baltic Sea region," explains the Inspector of the Navy, Vice Admiral Jan-Christian Kaack. "Our allies expect a leadership role from us."
"There has been a significant shift in the projects of our ships, boats and aircraft from outside to the Baltic Sea," confirms frigate captain Ulrich F. from the MOCMaritime Operations Centre. And he adds: “This applies to both national and international units. However, exact figures, data and facts are classified.”
"...As much steel at sea as possible..."
[M: Why and when were assets activated and called into the Baltics?
And why was the exercise extended from 3rd-15th till 28-09?
Was USA demanding GER leadership in the case as it was about European key infrastructure?]
About the exercise:
Northern Coasts is a recurring exercise which has been taking place in the Baltic Sea since 2007. It is hosted by a different Baltic country each year.
German Navy Admiral Stephan Haisch will lead the units involved in the exercise from the German Navy’s operations center in Glücksburg. As part of the exercise scenario, a fictitious regional country raises territorial claims over islands in the Baltic Sea using its naval forces to threaten freedom of navigation.
Acting on a UN-mandate, Allied and partner forces will seek to restore freedom of navigation. Training will also include maritime surveillance, naval combat, air-defence, anti-submarine warfare and mine-clearance.
See article about participants and paths - here.
The exercise typically involves a variety of naval activities, including:
- Maritime interdiction operations: These are activities aimed at intercepting and boarding vessels suspected of engaging in illegal activities such as piracy, drug trafficking, or smuggling.
- Anti-submarine warfare: This involves detecting, tracking, and countering submarines using a variety of tactics and technologies.
- Mine countermeasures: These are activities aimed at detecting, locating, and neutralizing sea mines using specialized ships, aircraft, and divers.
- Maritime security operations: These are activities aimed at ensuring the safety and security of commercial shipping and other vessels operating in the exercise area.
- Search and rescue operations: These are activities aimed at rescuing distressed mariners or aircraft in the exercise area.
- Naval gunfire support: This involves using naval artillery to provide fire support for troops operating on land.
9-14 Sept 2022 - German Navy had an intelligence ship and a submarine hunting warship in the area (reported by Billy Bostickson, @BillyBostickson)
The German intelligence vessel „Oste“ A52 - The German Armed Forces call it their „eyes and ears“ was in the Bornholm area on 14th of September. Perhaps it spoiled the first attempt to mine the NS1 and NS2.
The submarine escaped and returned later to finish the job - see post.]
[M: After conducting further research, I could not find any information indicating that the German intelligence vessel "Oste" A52 participated in the NATO Northern Coasts exercise 2022. It is possible that the vessel was not part of the exercise, or that its participation was not publicly disclosed. Its presence near Bornholm is very suspicious. What was it doing there?]
Leaving the Area
Shortly after the mine sweeper, the „Oste“ and „Schleswig-Holstein“ both also finally left the waters east of Bornholm after six days. They arrived in the port of Klaipeda, Lithuania, one day later on the morning of 16 September. There they took a break from the exercise, according to a later press release from the German Navy.
[M: Unfortunately the boat did not stay to guard the Nordstream.]
20 Sept 2022 - The Finnish Navy is exercising with the French
... mine countermeasures vessel Céphée in the Baltic Sea 22¬-23 September 2022 Afterwards the French vessel will moor in Turku until the 28th of September.
[M: France is also a shareholder of Nordstream, or better to say French company, it is key EU infrastructure]
VIII. The UK opens channels to deescalate to AVOID nuclear response
26 Sept 2022 - UK, Russian defence officials meet in London;
26 Sep 2022 - 19:01 (19:01 GMT)
The UK’s chief of defence staff has held talks with the Russian defence attaché at the Ministry of Defence in London.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and Colonel Maxim Elovik met as part of ongoing efforts to “strengthen military to military channels of communication” with Russia.
30 Sept 2022 - The Prime Minister ok DK travels to London and Brussels to discuss the destruction on Nord Stream 1 and 2.
The trips to London and Brussels follow talks with a number of heads of state and government, including a video conference with the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, and the Swedish Prime Minister, Magdalena Andersson, who leads the Swedish transitional government.
[M: Mette Frederiksen has before a videoconference with SWE, NOR, and GER. Then she travels to London to meet Liz Truss and then to Brussels to meet NATO. Note the sequence of meetings, the timing, who she meets in person and who she has only a video conference]
X. Does the German navy KNOW who did it?
3 Oct 2022 - The person responsible for the Nord Stream gas pipeline leaks is unlikely to ever be held accountable, Vice Admiral Jan Christian Kaack, Commander of the German Navy, told Monday's "Aktuaalne kaamera".
"The basis for seeing possible events is a clear picture of the sea, or observation. If there is a clear picture of the air, surface or subsurface — almost clear, because you cannot always be completely sure — then you can look at anomalies in the system and then you can bring a special unit to the area where the anomaly was detected," Kaack said.
[M: My interpretation is that Germany KNOWS for sure which asset was there and caused the sabotage. Note that Jan Kaack speaks most likely about the mission The German intelligence vessel „Oste“ A52 - The German Armed Forces call it their „eyes and ears“ had just before the Nordstream affair.]
XI. USA investigates the area post mortem
Around 8 Oct 2022, USS Paul Ignatius investigated Danish NS 1 blast location before moving to Swedish NS 1 blast location¨
Around 25 Oct 2022, either USS Paul Ignatius or USS Roosevelt inspected Southern NS2 blast site
Note that Oliver Alexanders´s conclusion about those moves is that:
"While no official hands on U.S. investigation of the Nord Stream sabotage has been announced, it looks very likely that all the sites were inspected first hand by U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyers"
XII. Belgium and UK relations after
25 Nov 2022 - Belgium blocks export of nuclear technology to UK
Britain and Belgium are locking horns in a furious despite after Brussels blocked the export of nuclear technology that plays a crucial role in maintaining the UK's nuclear deterrent (for submarines).
The USA warns European allies, shareholders of Nordtsream (?) in June about the possibility of future attacks on NS pipelines. In early September US assets seem to detect a submarine. The German led Northern Coast exercise is extended, all possible ships are sent to the sea. Everybody searches for a submarine yet it is able to mine pipelines and escape.
2-4 March 2023 - Sergey Lavrov:
"Germany was humiliated, physically and morally"
"We will not allow to blow up gas pipelines again"
"Russia's energy policy will prioritize dependable and trustworthy partners. India and China are unquestionably among them."
It looks like the US was against the UK attacking European infrastructure, warned Germany and other European allies, it looks like they were protecting the pipeline, but they failed.
in another words:
The German led Northern Coasts exercise which mission was at very last moment changed to protect the #Nordstream failed.
Note: I got interesting comment on one of my posts (I try to ask questions to top accounts incl. UK DoD, world leaders, offices):
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.
Every bit helps keep this mission alive!
I'm still unconvinced that a sub could move from the North Sea to the Baltic Sea submerged. I'm not saying I know it's impossible. Just that I'm doubtful.
ReplyDeleteThe passage around Zealand is very narrow and shallow. If you did it surfaced, there'd be a detection threat. (And if you did it at PD, there'd be collision and grounding dangers.) I can't find a good free bathymetric map, but I suggest you buy one and at least convince yourself that a sub could enter the Baltic undetected.
You go on and on about your hypothesis, sometimes treating it as settled fact (the mattress cartoon). But I'm not seeing a solid explication. Just another amateur pushing a pet theory (rather than looking at all indicators dispassionately).
Planes fly on autopilots in dark, based on sats and data.
DeleteDK straight are mapped well.
UK subs were testing in NOR in spring, similar geology, many fjords.
If it was possible in 60ties, then now with all the tech not anymore?
Just read other posts.
Its quite clear there WAS a sub. And it was not a RU one.
Pipes had sensors, they were also taken out.
The mission needed several approaches.
Sub was used based public data. Just check my posts.
RU knows, GER knows, SWE knows, DK knows, US knows... only public is in dark.
I have spoken with a person from DK navy who confirmed that it is forbidden for submarines to pass through submerged. Yet in no moon, or with cloudy conditions, with high tide it is possible but very very risky. The collision could be avoided if the passage is e.g. reserved for a military convoy e.g. at night - a window of opportunity is open. Note that UK S120 Ambush was training in spring in Norway which has similar narrow passages. Some of UK boats later passed into Baltic Sea.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask, do you want to discount a hypothesis just because it is "risky/hard to do"?
Have you looked at this post which explored why a submarine would be ideal for delivery?
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/02/whose-submarine-was-there-week-before.html
Note that a inhabitant of the tiny island of Christiansø nearest the explosion may have seen a sub, or is saying that there is possibility to "hide" a sub (my Danish is poor).
Here is the video
https://twitter.com/JohnErikWagner/status/1576629916568674304
In the danish media it was mentioned that citizens at Christians ø, have seen 2 big ships, about 90 m long at the place of bombing, shortly before sabotage, directing to that it was a nation, not a groupe of people.
DeleteThis is consistent with the observation that SWE navy boats were there a week before...
Deletehttps://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/02/whose-submarine-was-there-week-before.html
and
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/02/100-shades-of-nordstream-sabotage-part.html
One more comment about "sometimes treating it as settled fact". You are right and not right. You may notice that in the very beginning I state that this is a hypothesis. The BLOG ITSELF has a hypothesis in the name. If you assume that and you write further to check if it has merit I do not see a problem. That is not an argument for nor against, just a void observation of me being inconsistent. Btw, I have, during writing changed the comment under the title [Case solved - Investigation concluded (for me)].
ReplyDeleteI have also found MY suspects. There is a post about it.
It is FULLY up to investigators to do the investigation and all verification carefully. Do You agree?
I can provide you ONLY with circumstantial (news), demonstrative (pics, videos), supportive, perhaps character, habit evidence which is in PUBLIC domain. So I bring the widest and FREE material to ALL who is interested to see who COULD be behind.
The physical evidence, forensic, trace, sensors data, testimonial, expert witness, is with SWE, DK, GER investigators.
It is unrealistic to expect me to provide that to you.
I hope you have learned something from my writing or that I provided you with different angle at least.
As for the bathymetric map.... I will go with Yours: "I 'm not saying I know it's impossible. Just that I'm doubtful."... I will leave that to specialists. I checked Astute class subs parameters, how much they need to have under, etc and it looked doable (to me) but I have not been in a sub.
Cheers!
Hi again,
DeleteI have found the USA military manual about the Danish straights and passing by submarines. Do you accept that as a good source?
The Strategic Danish Straits
By Captain Malcolm W. Cagle, USN
October 1960 Proceedings Vol. 86/10/692
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1960/october/strategic-danish-straits
"The Chief of Naval Operations of the German Federal Navy, Vice Admiral Friedrich Ruge, put the problem this way in a recent article in the U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings: “If these narrows are closed it means that there will be 100 to 150 fewer submarines to sow destruction in the Atlantic. It can be said that a future battle for the Atlantic will be decided 50% in the Danish straits.”..."
"...While a submerged submarine passage is physically possible, the transit would be difficult, to say the least. In any case, peacetime regulations require that submarines transit on the surface..."
Is this ENOUGH for a proof of concept?
Do you now allow Yourself to consider the possibility that a UK nuclear submarine S120 Ambush COULD be in Baltics undetected and lay mines to Nordstream???
Look at the draft spec for Baltimax ships.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimax
I'm not 100% ruling it out. I've never operated there. But I know enough to ask the right questions (regarding a submerged transit). I would want the charts pulled out and looked at, to see if it is even physically possible.
Of course surfaced entry is physically possible. I guess you could think about trying to do it darkened ship at night, with an escort. Still a lot of risk, given other shipping that has radars. Nearness to coast and a bridge(s) to go under. And you have to do it twice.
Seems like a dive boat is just a better tool for the job than a US or UK nuke sub. But again, I think it would be a blast to think about, plan the op, be on the scope, etc. But that's because who doesn't like some spooky Tom Clancy stuff.
Thanks for the USNI article. But NOT a "manual". (And written in 1960, with home ported diesels as the main concern.)
ReplyDeleteAgain I love the idea of doing it or tying to do it. It would be Bungo Straight squared.
And I'm not 100% dismissing your idea. But I seriously think you need to think about how a nuke sub could get into the Baltic undetected. Bathymetric charts are a reasonable starting place.
Look at the draft requirements on oil tankers (VLCCs excluded).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimax
A nuke sub at PD is probably scraping the bottom.
And if you do it surfaced, darken ship, with an escort, you still have to do it twice. And there's land in sight. Bridges to go under. Plenty of civilian merchant traffic, with radars.
I mean get the bathy chart. What is the depth?
Also, look at the channels (are they two way or one way flow)?
Again, this sort of amateur sleuthing is fun and I even encourage you. But you need to test your babies. Not just baby them. Remember what Feynman said:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/richard_p_feynman_137642
USNI Proceedings is not a "manual".
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_(magazine)
I've never operated in the Atlantic and I don't know the details of the Baltic. But I know enough to ask the right questions. Is there a single example of a submerged transit through the straits?
ReplyDeleteNote, that nuke boats are generally deeper draft than diesels, making it even tougher for a US or UK sub to transit this route.
I think you need to do more than talk to a buddy in the Danish Navy. Pull the charts. Find out the minimum depth. You need 10 fathoms at least, for a nuke boat at periscope depth. More likely 15 fathoms.
Again, I don't know the exact details, but I know how to ask the right questions and how to evaluate evidence. "Talked to my Danish buddy" isn't enough, sorry. 1960 USNI Proceedings article isn't enough (mostly asserting that control of the straits would prevent transit).
I'm not 100% ruling out the possibility, because I want to see the charts. But so far, I'm damned skeptical of a secret entrance/withdrawal of a US or UK nuke sub. It would be an incredible adventure/story. But...show me the charts.
FYI, this draft requirement (50 ft max) for Baltimax oil tankers implies that a nuke sub at PD wouldn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimax
Fair factual point,
ReplyDelete1. The dude I spoke online is not my buddy so I have no idea how to verify, I tell how I was told. Lets see,... OK found the conversation! Here it is:
"I’ve been in the Danish Navy for 35 years so I know the surrounding waters of Denmark. All submarines must be submerged when passing through Danish straits. A nuclear sub would normally require 20m below the keel submerged. That would make the required depth 30m under normal circumstances. If we reduce the depth of a conventional submarine. The depth below the keel would be 10m plus the height of Ambush 10m would then require 20m of water. The minimum depth in the deep water route is 19m as I recall. So in PD the submarine would have to rely on that no merchant ship would enter the route at the same time as I would expect a slow speed for safety precautions. Only the ship routes in Danish waters are guaranteed free of legacy sea mines."
So I have questions:
Some submarines have what’s known as a “hovering system”. It is designed to keep the boat stable in one location and motionless horizontally or vertically in order to launch ballistic missiles. Do Astute class subs have this capability, how is it achieved? Could that be done with attack sub?
Next question:
Is it possible to lower the need of the required depth below the keel which would be normally 10m with some exteral add-ons or modifications to avoid stuff to be sucked into cooling system (no idea how this works).
2. Passing undetected.. It happened at least once. Not with Russian but polish submarine during World War II. ORP Orzeł, after being detained in Tallinn, Estonia, escaped and arrived in England to become part of allied Navy to fight Germans.
According to the crew reports it has passed trough Danish straits undetected. They used a merchant ship as cover. Orzeł has sailed under the ship which prevented detection.
ORP Orzeł:
Length 84.00 m (275 ft 7 in)
Beam 6.7 m (22 ft 0 in)
Draught 4.17 m (13 ft 8 in)
Astute:
Length 97 m (318 ft 3 in)
Beam 11.3 m (37 ft 1 in)
Draught 10 m (32 ft 10 in)
I know, these subs are not comparable. It is just to show that something like that has been done in extreme need.
4. The DK/Int law says submarines "MUST pass surfaced". Logically that means there is a possibility that they could go also submerged, right? Why else would that be stated?
Was it not that DK PM Mette Frederiksen arranged very fast a meeting in London? I suppose something spooked Danes. Passing through territorial waters could do. If a sub enters your waters submerged it is considered a hostile act.
So next is not a question but a comment. There was a large amount of NATO exercises, Ambush was in NOR before with same ships which entered later in Summer/Autumn. I see a possibility for UK to "book" late night, no shiny moon, high tide window for passage between two friendly ships. That would minimize the risk.
Btw, I am HAPPY for your scepticism. IF the passage for UK sub if ruled out then there needs to be found better hypothesis for unexplained events I found. One does not need to scratch the whole research, yes?
Sweden in past had many instances where they were alarmed by some sub in their TZ. Example here:
https://www.ft.com/content/9bd892c2-5b7c-11e4-b68a-00144feab7de
Funny enough they have always blamed Russians who have in the area one Kilo class sub if I remember good. Journalists never dared to check where the RU sub was as far as I remember.
Anyway, thank for your input.
I don't know the PD of an Astute class submarine, but just looking at draft plus topside plus sail plus scope, you probably need keel depth of 60-70 feet.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Astute_%28S119%29#/media/File:Royal_Navy_Submarine_HMS_Astute_Returns_to_HMNB_Clyde_MOD_45153733.jpg
The top of the sail will be a little less than that, but you can't run with the sail awash because the boat will "broach" (get sucked up to the surface from Bernoulli effect and random wave wash). Also, you need to be able to see out of the scope, not have it down in some scope well.
Probably ~20m (if we must use communist metric units) just for the keel depth of the ship itself at PD. I don't think you need 20m under the keel. 10m or even 5m might be doable. I haven't done the theory to practice (grounding results in a green table) but I do know if you get too close (2m?) there's a danger of getting sucking into the bottom. Which is MUCH worse than just broaching momentarily. So you need something. Overall, probably need 25+m depth of water. 19m isn't going to work.
FYI, I also found this info online:
ReplyDeletehttps://danpilot.dk/media/1298/danpilot-stigsnaes-ensted-plus15m.pdf
Which indicates something like a 17.5-18.5m minimum depth to transit the Great Belt (this is the deepest channel...the Sound is much shallower). I think this is too shallow for a nuke boat at PD. You need to run it surfaced.
My speculation is that US and UK nuke subs are built for open ocean use (unlike diesels which have some provisions for "bottoming" like upper hull SW inlets). I wouldn't be that worried about pulling crap in though as long as you don't scrape the hull or settle on it. Can station a watch stander at the strainers for the seawater systems and just flush/switch frequently. The grounding risk is higher concern than crapping up the main condensers. Also don't forget collision risk. At PD, the sub is responsible not to hit other ships since it alone knows the situation. And it has limited ability to maneuver because of speed and channel restrictions...and in this case can't even go deep to avoid a collision.
The discussion of hovering has nothing to do with the submerged transit. And you don't need an automated system. Good diving officer can handle the boat at PD and during James Bond style divers ops at the mining site. Automated systems make noise and are for boomer f&@s.
The salinity (overall and variations of it) while on station where the bombs were placed would be a concern but not impossible to deal with. Could lighten ship, have the diving officer practice, etc.
Again, I think it would be a spectacular Tom Clancy adventure and is a lot of fun to think about. But I seriously wonder if it's even feasible. And if feasible, if advisable. If you had to use a sub, you'd be better off using one home ported in the Baltic (Russian, Polish, etc.). And the only advantage the sub really gives you is 100% stealth while doing the diving. Everything else about it is a pain in the ass. Just use a surface craft, darkened ship, with the engines off. Or even on station visibly, but sans transmitter (sorry OSINT weenies, ships turn that stuff off all the time if they are smuggling or doing military missions). Or the BALTOPS22 Sy theory.
Again, I am not 100% saying UK nuke sub is impossible. I don't know enough. But you should be asking yourself the questions I'm asking.
Really can't get much further on this without buying the bottom chart(s) for the different passages around Zealand. I'm not going to do that. You're the one wedded to the UK sub theory. That's your next step. Spend some money and buy the best nautical charts you can. They should have detailed soundings and should indicate the shipping channels.
You can check the tides also. I don't think they will help you. I don't have a year's worth of data (have to buy that too probably), but just looking at todays high tide and it is very small (less than a m).
https://www.tideschart.com/Denmark/Zealand/Vordingborg-Kommune/Vordingborg/ [Not sure where that is on Zealand versus the channel, but...]
Even looking at record tides (which happened during storm surges) and they were under 2m.
https://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/Rapporter/2021/DMI_Report_21-28.pdf
Vordingborg is situated at the south of Zealand, just at the waterfront.
DeleteDon't know if that is comsidered s long distance from the bombing. Approx 300 km. At almost strait line at 55degrees
Dear Mortymer,
ReplyDeletewith great appreciation for your work I'd like to add some food for thoughts:
1) Regarding an UK sub secretly operating in the Baltic Sea the "how did it come there" is crucical! -Phps the Brits remembered Guenther Prien's daring raid into Scapa Flow in WWII? As everyone is concentrating on the Øresund strait, why not use the Lille Belt (not so the shallower Store Belt) for sneaking into the Baltic Sea? The naval maps show abt min +20 m dephts, so (in case of HMS Astute, hull diameter 10.7 m) it would be only necessary to camouflage the bridge. - How's about an unsuspicious trawler, built around the sail of the sub? Too much cloak & dagger story? Nobody will care for a fishing boat cruising there. Or why not a merchant ship with hollowed out belly cruising through the normal routes?
As far as for the hydrophone structures positioned there on the sea bottom you can have a temporarily "malfunction" or scheduled services. The sub doesn't have to run on its own engines there - the masquerade on the surface may tow it forward - at least for some time within range of those sonar watchposts. Nobody will know that there was any sub passing by. Sounds a bit like James Bond? Who am I to know. The Brits are very creative in these things.
Look for "sudden" relieves of high ranking commanders in Danemark and Sweden, shortly after the event. Wasn't there smth in Sweden? I am sure that Danish politicians would have been furious at their military as well if things like these happen, and they are left out from the info-pipeline.
2) All done by a midget sub. At least the transportation of the explosives. From nearby harbors Gdansk or Koszalin.
Even Kiel would be thinkable, where a new Israeli Dolphine sub has been completed and has been undergoing tests. Btw. there's a Kiel Canal (11 m depth, for ships with draught up to 9.50 m, or 31.2 ft) directly connecting North and Baltic Seas.
If you really want it - it would be possible!
Happyness
FS3
Surfaced transit is definitely possible, physically (after all, there are port visits).
DeleteI don't know about the transformed bridge. I guess it's conceivable. Still seems very Rube Goldberg versus just using a dive boat.
If you are going to operate out of a Baltic port than there are lots of options (surface craft, homeported diesels, etc.)
A nuclear sub could be operating there for months...
DeleteThey could work submerged for a long time, known record was some 3m, limit is supplies, it is easy to take extra divers in a short night on a meet-up with a ship.
There does not seem to be very elaborate cover-up with extra structure built around the sail. IT is possible that UK just asked DK for its Astute (Ambush or Astute) to pass with no official record at night to make a special operation listening RU or something.
We know that UK 2 subs were operating in June in North Sea.
16 June 2022 - Royal Navy's cutting-edge £1.3bn submarine takes to Mediterranean for first NATO mission
The submarine was formally commissioned in September 2021. It joined its sister vessels – HMS Astute, Ambush and Artful – on the front line for the first time in January, spending months in the depths of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Fresh from its deployment to the Arctic, in which it carried out a number of missions including sub-surface stealth raids with Royal Marines Commandos, sister submarine HMS Ambush joined Audacious as it limbered up for full operations off the Scottish coast. The two submarines went head to head in underwater battles in a range of warfare scenarios..."
What if they declared one sub and two went in?
After the NS bombing the UK would get political cover so UK could just ask for a small favour: "Btw, our sub is still in Baltics. Thanks!" The argument is simple, if you can cover for NS why not to cover for the sub?
I tried to track where UK attack subs were>
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/02/tracking-astute-submarines-in-2022.html
NOTE - Denmark announced shortly after investment in anti-submarine tech:
ReplyDelete"Thales will work with OMT to develop a new approach in the designing of modular Combat platforms, providing its Anti-Submarine Warfare and Mine Warfare technologies to these new vessels."
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/countries-europe/denmark/press_release/thales-and-cubedin-sign-memorandum-understanding-develop-use
-
NOTE NEWS AFTER: 'Outrageous': Brussels sparks fury as it blocks export of nuclear defence tech to UK
"The UK needs a so-called specialised isostatic press to maintain its nuclear arsenal, which includes the Trident II D5, the Royal Navy's ballistic missile system with a range of over 4,000 nautical miles ... deployed on UK submarines."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1701362/brussels-belgium-uk-nuclear-deterrent-nato-isostatic-press
---
Btw, after other duties I returned to research and writing.
Here is some info I am just looking at trying to find out more about depth of passage routes:
https://danpilot.dk/pilotage/transit-pilotage/
The article describes 4 possibilities of Great Belt - Transit routes and the Sound 2 routes..
I have found it through this pdf
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/86/6885.pdf
and then noticing the "Route T" has minimal depth 17m. The article mentions that the Great Belt has been in history dredged several times and it does have minimal depth of 17m.
-
Here is Danish maritime authority about the Route T:
http://us.lodstilsyn.dk/496/strait-regime-for-the-great-belt-(route-t)
http://us.lodstilsyn.dk/489/pilotage-service-providers
Good description on DK maritime authority:
NAUTICAL INFORMATION
https://dma.dk/safety-at-sea/navigational-information
EXAMPLE:
https://dma.dk/safety-at-sea/navigational-information/new-shipping-routes-in-kattegat-and-skagerrak
FURTHER
https://dma.dk/safety-at-sea/navigational-information/new-shipping-routes-in-kattegat-and-skagerrak/route-a-and-b-between-hanstholm-and-skagen
e.g. Route A and B between Hanstholm and Skagen
"Route A is located 16 nm from the coast and has a least depth of 23 metres at mean low water springs, extending for a distance of 1 nautical mile on either side of the centre line."
https://dma.dk/safety-at-sea/navigational-information/new-shipping-routes-in-kattegat-and-skagerrak/dw-routes-between-laesoe-og-anholt-and-east-of-grenaa-
"DW-routes between Læsø og Anholt and east of Grenå"
The minimum water depth in these routes is 19 meters.
---
More about New shipping routes ->
https://www.soefartsstyrelsen.dk/Media/4/1/NewShippingRoutes.pdf
GOOD summary:
"The recommended Route A holds, according to available charts, a minimum water
depth of 23 metres and recommended
Route B holds a minimum water depth of
14 metres.
Route S, the route between Skagen and
the entrance to the Sound, is recommended for ships with a draught of 10 metres
or less.
The existing Route T will change slightly.
This route is recommended for all traffic
between Skagen and the Great Belt and
for ships with a draught of 10 metres or
more, to and from the entrance to the
Sound.
At Route T, two deep-water routes – “Kattegat North” and “Kattegat South” – are
established. They are recommended for
ships with a draught of 10 metres or more.
The minimum water depth in these routes
is 19 metres."
The Danish Geodata Agency has also a good overview of different routes:
ReplyDeletehttps://eng.gst.dk/danish-hydrographic-office/nautical-charts/new-shipping-routes-and-updated-charts
NOTE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- A route
- Recommended route
- 23 metres at MLWS (mean low water springs), extending for a distance of 1 nautical mile on either side of the centre line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am suggesting that we could conclude that there is 23m+
Another detailed description is here with maps:
https://www.soefartsstyrelsen.dk/Media/637977139358837038/Navigation%20through%20Danish%20Water%20version%2015%20(SEP%202022).pdf
The 23 m ("A") is before you get to Zealand. The deep water route around Zealand (Great Belt, "T") is 19 m. See this pdf. Read the whole thing. Look at the map.
Deletehttps://dma.dk/Media/637643511955073403/NewShippingRoutes.pdf
It's too damned shallow to get through submerged.
Returning to the original:
ReplyDelete"You need 10 fathoms at least, for a nuke boat at periscope depth. More likely 15 fathoms."
What we see above is 23m min:
10 fathoms = 18 m
15 fathoms = 27 m
So I suppose we could conclude that the passage is dangerous, very risky but still doable. Yes?
**********************
I suppose as a next step we need to find out then RN sent last time hydrographic ships into Baltic Sea, in operation:
HMS Scott (H131) - a deep-water survey vessel
HMS Echo (H87) - a multi-role survey vessel
HMS Enterprise (H88) - a multi-role survey vessel
HMS Magpie (P294) - a coastal survey vessel
No. Submerged nuke sub transit is not feasible (90% Bayesian certainty.)
Delete1. You are misreading that snippet about 23m ("A"). That is the approach path from the Kattegat. The actual Great Belt passage is 19m depth ("T"). Read the whole pdf report (I linked it) and look at the actual map.
2. 10 fathoms was a while ago comment and an absolute bare minimum for keel depth of a generic nuke sub and being overgenerous in your direction. Looking at the pictures of the Astute, it looks like ~70 ft keel depth when at PD. You need at least 10 feet under that. (And that is extremely aggressive, but exploring options.) So 80 ft overall. (24m, 13 fathoms). And the channel is actually 19 m. Even if I'm wrong and PD is 65 feet (I doubt it, that boat is deep draft and has a sizeable sail, but fine). And we go with 5 feet sounding under keel (ai yi yi), you're still looking at 70ft overall (12 fathoms, 21m). 19m is just too shallow.
3. Add onto that the collision dangers when running slow speed at PD in a shipping channel. It's insane.
4. Surfaced transit is physically possible (of course), but would take some extreme measures to hide the boat.
5. You are in love with this theory of yours, but are not thoughtfully testing it, adversely.
6. You've also never conned a nuke sub at PD. (I can tell.) That's not the end of the world. But you should be a little wary of what you don't know and go bounce ideas off of actual current serving officers. Dunning Kruger syndrome. You don't even know what you don't know.
7. It was fun reading/chatting. And I actually think citizen sleuths and Internet communities can do a lot of useful decoding. Look at Russiagate for instance. But, I'm going to break comms and go deep. Not learning much new from you and get tired of your lack of self doubt.
You made very good argumentation for a Astute class sub to pass submerged being very difficult or not feasible. Thank you again for engaging and explaining so thorough fully and patiently.
DeleteIn the past US had a mini-nuclear-sub NR-1 (Navy Reactors-1) which was spoken about only years later. Also used for shallow waters operations.
I find it hard that UK, with the main navy challenger Russia would leave out the "stealth-dagger capability for Baltics" once they retired conventional subs and they would just need that now when they knew about the NS issue for years.
So, we could then perhaps exclude the "traditional submerged passage" and try to find how else that could happen. I have insufficient knowledge, do agree with your rationale in principle yet I am unsure about the "how".
I think that it was in 2018 that UK has bought 3pcs of mk-11 which fit in the Chalfont DDS bay. And the DDS could be brought to the place by different means, usually mounted on Astute class but could also be transported by plane (or else?).
Call me hard headed or stubborn but your suggested possibility that surface-down approach was used is imho a hard sell, because:
1. The amount of time needed for finding the right spot, for being locked using some hovering in the place, anchor marks, lead rope weights?
2. Two different locations. Two different times.
3. The time needed for dives and decompression would be in many hours, the chance to be discovered unacceptable, a risk to mine just a few pipes would be fatal blow.
4. NS was supposed to have some active/passive sensors, how would a surface ship knock them out? How would one know those bottom streams and currents without proper checking before? The saboteur had to look for best spot for long, have good (most likely own) data.
5. To bring such heavy explosives to exact dark locations isn´t trivial operation. To obtain them as well. Once the investment is done, proper testing is needed in depths. Some underwater explosives/demolition team was studying the case for long - I think it is called operation Tapestry in UK to evaluate what is needed to defuse a threat like old mine. The teach had to be perfect, the proper light was needed in such depth. So a usage of some drone for "last mine delivery" would be very useful. Not a "by hand" light stuff job.
6. SWE, DK, GER, US and RU assets seemed to look for something under. Even US suggested they would help with checking hydroacoustic sound thought their DB and their analytics.
7. Just imagine what contingency they had to have in place would surface boat be checked by patrol, SWE or DK guard? Just that innocent check would blow the cover, what would divers do if coast guard approaches? Surface due to lack of oxygen? What if they need to decompress?
I was just reading the
The DDS (13m long, 3m diameter) when fitted does accommodate 20 divers and their equipment or SDV... Astutes have supposedly lock-in-lock-out transfer trunk permanently installed inside the sail that allows divers to in/out while submerged.
I was just reading the book "Combat Divers: An illustrated history of special forces divers" it well describes the capability and purpose of these teams and their tech. To me it is a match. Best match. PLus looking at the map, locations are where the "Bornholm deep" is deepest so most suitable for a sub.
DeleteI am not "in love" with my hypothesis, as any work I have done, I go deep and I complete, deliver. Every single time. I suppose it is some intellectual challenge or just a normal middle age dude trying to share what I see/think, down the Earth, pretty straight forward, no excuses.
Anyway, if the part of the theory is simply wrong then, it must go, one must using the same verification/validation like in science or analysis must be done until the most approximate sequence of events is revealed. Same as I have been doing on many projects in past. So no biggie.
The is not sufficient info, evidence in public domain yet official investigators do have lots of real admissible evidence. We have to suffice what is in public domain and simple deduction, detailed slow work.
One great argument is enough to shoot any carefully studied event. The hard passage of Astute takes away just that part and replaces it with a question mark.
I mean there could be many explanation to it. We just do not know. We most likely excluded "secret submerged passage as too risky and unfeasible".
The simplest could be just UK asking top secret night passage for their sub to collect critical info about RU near St. Petersburg or something. There could be many. Or there is some undeclared minisub. Or the sub was somehow masked. Or else...
Of course, we do have to consider surface approach, and also other Baltic states yet I have offered deduction about it. That No EU country, no Baltic Sea country would try to piss others on the main naval EU artery. That risks naval blockade and bad relations...
Which reminds me, Belgium later in November started to block some nuclear tech needed for UK submarines:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1701362/brussels-belgium-uk-nuclear-deterrent-nato-isostatic-press
"The UK needs a so-called specialised isostatic press to maintain its nuclear arsenal, which includes the Trident II D5, the Royal Navy's ballistic missile system with a range of over 4,000 nautical miles"
I wonder why.
HMS Echo H87, one of the Royal Navy's two 'Echo' Class Hydrographic Oceanographic Survey Vessels, is seen returning to Devonport Naval Base at Devil's Point after a 2 year deployment to the Baltic and Mediterranean on 15th August 2019.
ReplyDeletehttps://warshiptv.weebly.com/hms-echo-h87.html
--
Interestingly the HMS Enterprise (H88) is just NOW passing DK straights (I took screenshot)
--
January 2021 - HMS Echo hunts down historic ordnance on Baltic operations with Lithuanian Navy
Equipped with a hi-tech sonar suite, HMS Echo is used for a variety of operations from gathering oceanography data to supporting submarine operations.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/january/21/210121-hms-echo-and-lithuanian-navy
---
Royal Navy’s ocean survey vessel HMS Scott extended in service
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-ocean-survey-vessel-hms-scott-extended-in-service/
-
Publicly available information shows the vessel’s deployments in 2021 appear to have been spent in the Baltic and home waters, searching for WWII-era unexploded munitions on the seabed.
(HMS Echo)
https://www.naval-technology.com/features/uk-sets-new-sea-survey-target-weeks-after-decommissioning-hms-echo/
-
9 Feb 2021
https://www.bairdmaritime.com/work-boat-world/specialised-fields/marine-research-and-training/maritime-archaeology/royal-navy-ship-surveys-two-wwii-wrecks-in-baltic-sea/
---
Survey ship HMS Echo has been in the Baltic Sea with the Lithuanian navy on operations to hunt for historic ordnance.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/january/21/210121-hms-echo-and-lithuanian-navy
-
... we can see that RN (but also other navies) do map Baltic Sea floor to have updated data.
RN updated list of survey vessels:
ReplyDeleteHMS Scott (H131) - an ocean survey vessel
HMS Enterprise (H88) - a multi-role survey vessel
HMS Echo (H87) - a multi-role survey vessel
HMS Magpie (H130) - a coastal survey vessel
HMS Gleaner (H86) - a coastal survey vessel
HMS Roebuck (A319) - a coastal survey vessel
HMS Hecla (A133) - a coastal survey vessel
DENMARK has conducted in 2020 and 2021 a New Depth Database
https://iho.int/uploads/user/Inter-Regional%20Coordination/RHC/ARHC/ARHC12/ARHC12_2022_B3_EN_NATIONAL-REPORT_DK%202022.pdf
A mini submersible or ROV would make a lot of sense, particularly to move the explosives around. It could be done with divers alone (assume the masses have bouyancy devices to help maneuver them). But it is a lot of diving under adverse conditions. Doing it with ROVs or divers assisted with ROVs or even small submersibles (designed for manipulating things, at least to maneuvering them around) would make the total dive time less and the project more manageable.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really familiar with current capabilities. Knew the old North Island DS(R)Vs. They are really designed for deeper operations but would be fine. And are relatively quiet as they are on battery.
The only big advantage of having the mother ship be a submarine is not showing on the surface. But I'm skeptical of maneuvering a nuke sub through the straits, undiscovered. Think some sort of ship with light cover would make sense: merchant, fishing, or even very large yacht, (bigger than the sailing boat!) would make sense. You could do the dives at night and loiter during the day. Oliver OSINT is crazy with the tracking blabla. People turn that stuff off all the time. I think the BALTOPS would have been great cover.
The one thing stopping me is that the US figureheads seem so flat in their denials and laughing at Hersh (who is way over the hill for this sort of story). Then again, I get the impression that they know more than they are saying. Maybe they know who did it. Or maybe some of the technical details of the Hersh story are incorrect--I get the impression he talked to someone who knew more about the planning than about the final operation, so those parts of his story may be more speculative (by the source). But who knows.
I'm intrigued by the two different locations. And the two different explosion times. I could see the different timing being based on a screwup (needing to dump another bouy). But I don't understand the different locations so much. That was planned, why?
The location of the explosions...very close to, but carefully outside the 12nm limit makes me think a state actor did the dirty. I don't think the (hypothetical) Ukrainian sailing party would have been so precise and fastidious about not blowing up some of the pipes that were just inside the limit. (But I'm speculating.)
I think it's a big shame, how we still don't even have a good, precise diagram of the details. Just a diagram of exactly were each pipe is broken (whole sections were torn out). Think there might be some clues in that. Investigators are definitely being very slow and non-transparent.
Here on my blog there is a enough data for a coherent story for be formed or just simply a fact-based chronology. Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing out that Sy Hersh story is more about the planning than the execution. That is a good observation.
There were many other NATO exercises, other than Baltops. The timing of that one is off. I would more focus on the German lead Northern Shores - trying to find out why it has been extended and why it has been enlarged. Was it ended after a unsuccessful protection of pipelines?
There are many places where one can enter the story, I believe that my research has been completed, the UK is at fault, the Germany and allies tried to protect pipes but failed.
The story, each part, must be consistent. Germany, if alarmed had to react to it in a rational manner. They had to form opinion who could be that. I have highlighted how Germany said "new challenges, new ACTORS".. So yeah, the UK as prime suspect is very consistent.
Or take Liz Truss, remember the video of her at meeting where a presenter faints, makes big noise and she gets really scared?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sWoxdNgGNI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmscqr8UCzQ
Liz Truss telling this at UN assembly 21-09-2022, just 5d to the sabotage:
06:00 min: "...Secondly: We are CUTTING OFF toxic power of pipelines from authoritarian regimes and stregthening our energy resilience..."
You are too wedded to your hypothesis. It might be right. But it also might not.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDEL4Ty950Q
Lets recap:
ReplyDelete1. WHO
- There is tons of clues about UK being prime suspect
- No other country comes close with fingerprints all over, just reread my blog and see, it is all there for all to see
- Conclusive, character, digital, Circumstantial, some physical (fast diver dip excluded, most likely hyperbaric chamber needed), even state or hired deep divers DO have to FOLLOW certain regulations.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/diving/acop.htm
So a Hersh story that During the Baltops somebody would fly in, then take small boats and go far from hyperbaric is just idiotic).
2. HOW
- We do not know UK capabilities, in past minisub etc were secret, just look at HI Sutton, he has on his blog and YT channel some really good stuff. Unfortunately he has blocked me shortly after I asked him kindly if there was a possibility that UK sub/minisub could have been involved. No explanation. No insults, I just tried to ask for his educated opinion. Odd is he, a UK citizen, has not engaged much in the mystery which is suspicious.
3. HMS S120 Ambush
We do know that Astutes have capability, one returned in first week of October, had its cargo bay covered, work on the sail, it takes about a day to install Chalfont.
Therefore - Investigation-wise it MUST be considered as a suspect unless it has alibi that it was in some other area. It could get there somehow with knowledge of UK officials or without. We can not ask officials about this.
4. Distamnce:
The distance between Bornholm port and Clyde base in the UK is approximately 665 nautical miles. Ambush class subs speed: 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph), submerged. A submarine speed of 30 knots is equal to approximately 34.52 nautical miles per hour (nm/h) or 55.56 km per hour (km/h).
Therefore, it would take approximately 19.27 hours for a submarine traveling at a speed of 34.52 nautical miles per hour to cover a distance of 665 nautical miles.
With the technical difficulty and at a slow speed easily a week. NS affair happened on 26/09.
Here is one good candidate. Why to exclude it? Just because WE have eliminated that it can not got in the area undetected? What it was known that it operated there on some other mission?
Btw, if a state actor did it and it attacked RU asset, most likely it has deployed most of its assets on the sea for that time. UK deterrence subs deployments were changed/extended, more were at seas.
And Trident cought fire 6wks ago from 8th of Nov 2022 ...
Coincidences?
8th of November minus 6 weeks = 27-09-2022
ReplyDeleteNS bombing = 26-09-2022
I'm sure there was a hyperbaric chamber available during BALTOPS as there were several countries diving. That's a standard contingency. You don't need to have it in the dive boat, per se. Just rapid access to it. And there were all kinds of helos around during BALTOPS. I used to stand duty officer for a major undersea command and we had a list of all the chambers in the city (military/non) and there was an understanding that in a diving emergency, all were available. Presumably routine decompression would just be done by wait during ascent. The rationale for the chamber is for emergencies. You fly the injured man in and have him ride the chamber. Potentially with a doctor thrown into it. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAgain, you make too much soup from too few onions. You try to validate your ideas, rather than testing them. And you don't consider multiple hypotheses.
Now...perfidious Albion is a reasonable choice. But not certain. Get off the jump to conclusions mat. Step back.
Let me focus on the main point I see in your comment "Hyperbaric Chamber Being "available"
DeleteCorrect me if my thinking is wrong or too off please.
The destruction of NS pipelines is a very complex diving mission which involves several teams of divers.
[There are other parts of the whole "Operation" are from political, economical, etc... Huge multi-level resources were applied from putting other subs to sea, to preparing energy policies, etc... THEREFORE The mission is "No-Fail-Allowed" and "Top-Critical". Money is NO issue. Best is utilized.]
The were 2 blows, one smaller (high pressure in 1 line) then NS operator lowered pressure pre-emptively in others as well, enough charged had to be applied would pressure drop to minimum. This means heavier charges and simultaneous explosions, done at the same time via line or separate charges (?) and "fail-safe" backup charges would 1 fail.
I also assume that there was some "work" on pipelines where they were connected, it is possible that charges were put under so some digging or removing the cover from where sections are connected.
If a diver gets "the bends" from diving to 100 meters deep water, they should be treated in a hyperbaric chamber as soon as possible to prevent further damage and potentially life-threatening complications. IMHO the chamber had to be on the place as close to the action as possible.
As a result of these preconditions more deep divers were used. I assume 3 teams. Two main teams, each for 2 lines of one pipeline and one backup tam... Something like 6 per team A, B and C (not full, substitute driver, navigator and 2 divers would some get in trouble). Estimating 16 divers. E.g. If a minisub was used then: 1 diver and 1 navigator and then 3-4 explosive specialists, 6 in one team.
The chamber had to be able to contain the whole team of 6 would a "rescue C team need to get them out for some reason.
As for the "Now...perfidious Albion is a reasonable choice. But not certain. Get off the jump to conclusions mat. Step back."
DeleteI had that "mode" early on. Very neutral. It is 5 months. You may notice that I have added under the title in mid February:
"Case solved - Investigation concluded (for me)."
Now I am just filling gaps. See the main thread
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/02/what-happened-around-26-09-2022.html
Or:
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/02/suspects-of-nord-stream-job.html
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/02/suspects-of-nord-stream-job.html
Note that I am WAY behind official investigators.
Note that my investigation shows that most EU leaders KNEW about who did it VERY very shortly afterwards.
The more I look into it I see that several top "players" KNEW or assumed that UK was PLANNING to do that (Biden, Marcon, someone in Germany had to know as they run own mission to protect pipelines...), there were actions to STOP the sabotage, well that is quite telling, then I see more how the POLITICAL part has been shaped. It is actually quite funny that with so many clues, fingerprints, all over the public is so slow into focusing. How easy it is to confuse public and put them off balance with confusing muppet stories ;o)
There would have been a plan for emergency use of the chamber. Like I said, they would not use it for planned decompression (done with a wait stop during ascent). During BALTOPS, this would have been easy since there were so many ships, so much diving, etc. There was a plan for everybody diving on how they could go to a chamber if needed (not just spooky stuff, but various countries diving). Maybe a chamber on one of the ships (easy with all the hulls out there, way more room than on a yacht...if not a ship configured with one, could have one there temporarily). They would have thought through contingencies even to the extent of medevac. A chamber might not be the only thing you need...
DeleteDoing it on a sailboat (which I still think is crazy) would have been much more risky. No helo/helo pad. The little chamber that Billy discovered isn't suitable for having a doctor to "ride the chamber" and tend to the injured man. I mean the sailboat plan is at least physically possible (which nuke passage of the straights is probably not...still waiting for those detailed bathy charts). But it would have been hella risky with all kinds of failure modes. The thing is just so radically tiny to actually run the whole op from there that I think another ship, ROV, etc. needed.
You continue to be too certain of yourself. I am not an expert but have way more relevant experience in subs and diving. And I am less certain than you are. This is classic Dunning Kruger.
DeleteAlso, just because you've spent 5 months speculating doesn't mean anything. Just because you are sick of having a hypothesis, doesn't mean it's time to shift your Bayesian prior. That is classic confirmation bias. You need to let information drive things. Not your speculations that you keep repeating to yourself.
Challenge is on. Thank you.
DeleteHave a look at the "criminal profiling" under the post I remade:
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/02/about-who-is-terrorist-state-and-about.html
Then look again on the original post about UK not liking Nordstream:
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/01/boris-johnson.html
I also added a new info-post about "Operation Tapestry"
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-operation-tapestry.html
And I started to tackle countries...
First the UK-FRA relationship:
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-uk-and-french-relationship-around.html
Then I will do UK-NOR, UK-GER, UK-USA, UK-EU,...
Sorry for the form, I will do edits later on, I focus on the content and linking events for now.
I repeat: My investigation has concluded. My prime suspect is a UK small team.
Btw, about having "1 hypothesis" (now).
DeleteMy very first onw was that it was Ukraine, then Ukraine and Poland in some sort of cooperation. Then of course I played with the idea of US being behind. So originally I run many hypothesis simultaneously.
I moved forward writing down in Word doc a short summary to sort my Thoughts out, a tiny mental exercise I sometimes do to focus.
Here it is redone into a post:
https://nordstreambymortymer.blogspot.com/2023/01/100-shades-of-nordstream-sabotage.html
In it I run without a motive kind of Hercule Poirot, Agatha Christie's style, lol, collecting suspects into one room and checking who has actually the alibi, who has the capability, freedom to act, without first trying to find a motive (there were several and it is still unclear why they did it).
So without even realizing what I was doing I ended up with: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. "– Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ... kind of funny realization.