Recently a friend sent me a reference to an article entitled "Silent Running: Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say." It was all a load of imigongo, decorated cow dung about which I have published remarks on the Internet, so I won't repeat them here. The fact that Bill Gertz wrote this is kind of a HUGE sign that it is PROBABLY a bunch of crap. Some of it is, anyway. Bill Gertz is the senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon, which you can read about here. He is the author of several questionably authoritative books about government conspiracy and corruption, such as:

Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security (1999)
The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America (2000)
Breakdown: How America's Intelligence Failures Led to September 11 (2002)
Treachery: How America's Friends And Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies (2004)
Enemies: How America's Foes Steal Our Vital Secrets-And How We Let It Happen (2006)
The Failure Factory: How Unelected Bureaucrats, Liberal Democrats, and Big Government Republicans Are Undermining America's Security and Leading Us to War (2008)

The photo with the article was an Associated Press stock photo of someplace with mountains. The one above is the "undetected submarine" at anchor next to a big city. Havana?

The story was picked up by other right-wing rags, so I don't know whether it originated from the WFB, or whether the WFB got it from another source. It was reported today by the London Daily Mail Online. These guys frequently copy from each other, using the phrase "has learned" to mean "read somewhere." I would have liked to have seen some independent confirmation.

Anyway, here is my reaction.

What the article said	My reaction
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.	Was it actually undetected, or was it just left alone. How do they know? Who confirmed this? How? How did the WFP learn about it - reading somewhere, somebody told them, messages from aliens in outer space, tea leaves? Was it really visiting Cuba, or just somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico? References?
It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.	What were the circumstance of the first? Has it happened before that? References?
The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.	What year? What dates? What "restricted airspace near Alaska and California" are they talking about? Why can't I find it on my aeronautical charts?
The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities - forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration's plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.	Which U.S. officials? How, exactly, were they "official?" Why weren't they named? Do they really know what's going on, or were they "official" street sweepers or sanitation workers? Are these deficiencies in "warfare" or "detection?"
The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.	This is probably true, since it makes sense that the Army and Air Force probably don't have this mission.
The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.	Another possibility is that it wasn't detected is because it wasn't THERE.
The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia's quietest submarines.	Again with the unnamed and undesignated "officials." Who the hell ARE these people, anyway? Again, was the sub visiting Cuba, which it has every right to do?
A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.	Who was she? Whose navy? Do "Navy spokeswomen" normally comment on fantasy bullshit?
One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.	Again with the unnamed and undesignated "officials." Who the hell ARE these people, anyway?
"The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews," said a second U.S. official.	Again with the unnamed and undesignated "officials." They're called "attack submarines" because they attack submarines (DUH!). Killing boomers is what attack submarines do, both theirs and ours.
"It's a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place," the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.	Yeah. That's right. If they made a lot of noise, they wouldn't be very effective. We all probably already know what a "boomer" is, but the turdbrains seems to think we need to be told. Again with the unnamed and undesignated "officials."
The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is home port to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.	This is true. The 2 SSGNs carry "conventional" warhead guided missiles and the 6 SSBNs carry nukes. You can read about them here.
"Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world's political-military stage," said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.	Norman Polmar is a noted naval warfare expert, but since no sources is given for this quote, it's not clear if he was talking about an actual event or a hypothetical situation. I think it goes without saying that "Russia is still a player on the world's political-military stage," It may be that the sub was just visiting Cuba. They do that.
"Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of 'showing the flag' that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces," Polmar said in an email.	"Showing the flag" is one of the purposes of naval fleets. One of Russia's client states is Cuba, that probably LIKES to have Russian naval vessels there every so often.
The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.	"Close to U.S. shores" is a relative term. The Russians have a right to be in international waters anytime they please. By itself, this is not significant.
Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.	Whether or not they "raised concerns" depends on what the "concerned" people did, not what the submarines did. There are people in the U.S. who are "concerned" about crop circles.
The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration's "reset" policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.	That is just the author's opinion, without a shred of evidence either way. If it was visiting Cuba, it's a routine matter that doesn't signify anything except that Russian sailors like to visit Cuba.
Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia's Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hard-line policies against the United States.	This is probably true.
Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "It's a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed 'reset' in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it's in Syria or here in our own backyard."	Cornyn is a Republican, up for reelection in 2014. 'Nuff said.
The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.	Shit, if they can't do the job, why spend any money on them? I think what he's saying is that the Navy is essentially like the TSA. I doubt that.
The Obama administration's defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.	Is this relevant? What are the new warships for? Would they find Akula class submarines that now go undetected (if there are any)?
The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.	This seems like the only relevant comment in this article so far.
In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the Arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on "enemy" strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.	Yup! That's what large-scale nuclear bomber exercises do. They don't just fly around making nice. Again with the unnamed and undesignated "officials."
Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.	Really? Who says?
A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets.	I can't find any news article about this that doesn't quote this article, so I can't independently verify this one way or the other. If the Bear was "met by U.S. interceptor jets" without further incident, I don't see anything "alarming."
That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.	I wonder what "was said" means in this context. Anybody can "say" things.
It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 type submarine or a more advanced Akula 2.	Wonder why. Maybe where they got their information was from somebody who happened to take a picture of the sub at anchor or tied up somewhere while the most of the crew were on shore leave.
It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe.	That seems to be a valid supposition, but I wonder whether they were "theories among U.S. analysts" or among the tin hat people who made this up.
Russia's chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis.	The Russians have been saying this for several years. Read about General Mikarov here
Makarov met with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. Dempsey questioned him about the Russian strategic bomber flights near U.S. territory.	Read about Dempsey here. This sounds like a normal discussion to me. It's what senior generals do when they meet each other.
The voyage of the submarine also could be part of Russian efforts to export the Akula.	Or, it could be pure fantasy, or something equally of no interest to the U.S.
Russia delivered one of its Akula-2 submarines to India in 2009. The submarine is distinctive for its large tail fin.	Right!
Brazil's O Estado de Sao Paoli reported Aug. 2 that Russia plans to sell Venezuela up to 11 new submarines, including one Akula.	Probably true, but is this relevant?
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow's military is working to set up naval replenishment facilities in Vietnam and Cuba, but denied there were plans to base naval forces in those states.	"Naval replenishment facilities" are places where they get fuel and groceries.
Asked if Russia planned a naval base in Cuba, Lavrov said July 28: "We are not speaking of any bases. The Russian navy ships serve exercise cruises and training in the same regions. To harbor, resupply, and enable the crew to rest are absolutely natural needs. We have spoken of such opportunities with our Cuban friends." The comment was posted in the Russian Foreign Ministry website.	Sounds reasonable to me.
Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez. The ships also stopped in Cuba.	One has to wonder if this is relevant to the Akula situation.
Russian Deputy Premier Dmitri Rogozin announced in February that Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030, along with new aircraft carriers.	Probably none of them are Akula class.
Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force.	That's 'cause they already have them.
The submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and are equipped with the SSN-21 and SSN-27 submarine-launched cruise missiles, as well as SSN-15 anti-submarine-warfare missiles. The submarines also can lay mines.	Nope. They can maybe can fire Sampson and Klub missiles, but SSN-21 is the designation for the USS Seawolf. There is no SSN-27 or SSN-15, and there are no Russian missiles named that. The SS-N-21 Sampson is submarine launched and has an operational range of 1600 miles. The SS-N-27 Klub is submarine launched and has a range of about 180 miles. Both carry conventional warheads.

Akula class - Significant dates
#	Project	Name	NATO	Shipyard	Laid down	Launched	Commissioned	Status
K-284	971	Akula	Akula I	Amur Shipyard	6 November 1983	16 June 1984	30 December 1984	Pacific Fleet. 2001 removed from service
K-263	971	Delfin	Akula I	Amur Shipyard	9 May 1985	28 May 1986	30 December 1987	Pacific Fleet, removed from active service, status unclear
K-322	971	Kashalot	Akula I	Amur Shipyard	5 September 1986	18 July 1987	30 December 1988	Pacific Fleet, removed from active service, status unclear
K-480	971	Ak Bars	Akula I	Sevmash	22 February 1985	16 March 1988	31 December 1988	Northern Fleet. removed from service 1998. Scrapping since February 2010.
K-391	971	Bratsk	Akula I	Amur Shipyard	23 February 1988	14 April 1989	29 December 1989	Pacific Fleet, removed from active service, status unclear
K-317	971	Pantera	Akula I	Sevmash	6 November 1986	21 May 1990	30 December 1990	Northern Fleet
K-331	971	Magadan (ex Narval)	Akula I	Amur Shipyard	28 December 1989	23 June 1990	31 December 1990	Pacific Fleet
K-461	971	Volk	Akula I Improved	Sevmash	14 November 1987	11 June 1991	29 December 1991	Northern Fleet
K-328	971	Leopard	Akula I Improved	Sevmash	26 October 1988	28 June 1992	15 December 1992	Northern Fleet
K-419	971	Kuzbass	Akula I Improved	Amur Shipyard	28 July 1991	18 May 1992	31 December 1992	Pacific Fleet
K-154	971	Tigr	Akula I Improved	Sevmash	10 September 1989	26 June 1993	29 December 1993	Northern Fleet
K-295	971	Samara	Akula I Improved	Amur Shipyard	7 November 1993	5 August 1994	28 July 1995	Pacific Fleet
K-157	971	Vepr	Akula II	Sevmash	13 July 1990	10 December 1994	25 November 1995	Northern Fleet
K-335	971 M	Gepard	Akula II	Sevmash	23 September 1991	17 September 1999	5 December 2001	Northern Fleet
K-337	971U	Kuguar	Akula II	Sevmash	18 August 1992	x	x	Not completed. Hull used for Yuri Dolgorukiy SSBN (project 955 Borei)
K-333	971U	Rys	Akula II	Sevmash	31 August 1993	x	x	Not completed. Hull used for Alexander Nevsky SSBN (project 955 Borei)
K-152	971I/09719	Nerpa/INS Chakra	Akula II	Amur Shipyard	1993	4 July 2006	28 December 2009	Pacific Fleet Has been leased out to India from the end 2011 to 2020.
K-xxx	971M	not named	Akula II	Sevmash	1992	x	x	Not Completed. Hull used for Vladimir Monomakh SSBN (project 955 Borei)
K-xxx	971I/09719	Iribis	Akula I Improved	Amur Shipyard	1994	x	x	Construction halted at 60% completion
K-xxx	971M	not named	Akula II	Amur Shipyard	1990	x	x	Sold for scrap
K-xxx	971M	not named	Akula II	Amur Shipyard	1991	x	x	Sold for scrap