NATO Crisis: Germany's Entire Submarine Fleet Is Paralyzed

Throughout 2017, America’s control of NATO policymaking has become more evident than ever, with the sole objective of war-making against Russia. NATO and Russia continue to build up arms, equipment, and troops along the eastern region of Europe, but there is a new development that has NATO worried.

Germany’s operational readiness of its entire submarine fleet is dead in the water.

Yes, you heard that correctly, Germany’s prized submarines are currently on maintenance calls or in desperate need of repairs.

On October 15, Germany lost the last of its submarines when the Type 212a vessel was performing a diving maneuver off the Norweigan coast when it suffered a catastrophic blow to one of its four fins after the submarine struck a boulder. The submarine was quickly rendered not operational and had to be towed back to the German port of Kiel for maintenance work.

In the latest operational summary provided by RT, there are six submarines in the German fleet and all are out of service. Two Type 212a vessels are undergoing scheduled maintenance, and will be redeployed in the second half of 2018, while another two are in a critical state for repairs, with no estimated time of completion. The fifth submarine, as we mentioned above, crashed in October. The sixth submarine was commissioned in October and is currently undergoing rigorous sea trials before it will become operational in May 2018.

Germany’s submarine fleet will be paralyzed for the next 4-5 months, which presents an enormous national security risk for the country. The submarines’ most fundamental feature is stealth, coupled with defense capabilities and surveillance, but as mentioned above, there is currently a major gap in Germany’s military defense at the moment, which we hope is not exploited by an adversary.

The German parliament’s Defense Commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels told ARD, “this a real disaster for the navy and it’s the first time in history that none [of the U-boats] would be operational for months.” Bartels blamed the lack of spare parts for the broken submarines with the lack of government funding. Ever since the Cold War, German authorities have decided against stockpiling spare parts due to its high costs.

But there is hope, according to the Bartels, the trend of underfunding the military “has been reversed” and the government is ready to spend money on the military. All it took was a broken submarine fleet and the Americans priming the world for war with Russia. He added, “it will take years” before the changes are noticeable, but that doesn’t guarantee the military will be able to operate all submarines at the same time. Stated by the ARD, the navy has three submarine crews, with new crews in training.

While the Americans pressure NATO for war with Russia, it seems as the German government has been more focused on providing safe spaces for refugees, rather than properly funding its military.

Comments

ebworthen Tue, 12/19/2017 - 02:22 Permalink

A security risk because they can't stop the Muslim invasion of Germany, or because the sub-mariners might go home to make a baby and attend church for a change?

fbazzrea Tue, 12/19/2017 - 02:29 Permalink

presents an enormous national security risk for the country. what a crock of neocon paranoia marketing for mo' money.bogeymen all around. underwater. in the skies. on the borders. the net. just no end to the evil empires comin' to get ya!more money! more power! more woar! more! more! MORE!!back on the farm... wtf is wrong with these bastards??!! commietose??"love is all you need..."--Fab Four

tbd108 Tue, 12/19/2017 - 02:31 Permalink

I was a submarine sailor in the Med during the Vietnam war and it was not a secret that the NATO submarine force was a noisy joke. Has that changed? I doubt it very much.

curly Tue, 12/19/2017 - 02:46 Permalink

Hey, but Mutti got them lots of immigrants for the hard-working natives to pay for.And they have lots of "green power".  When it works.  And more coal-fired plants, including lots of dirty brown coal, coming online to provide power when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow, and gotta provide power some way after shutting down all the nukes.There's that. 

Victor999 Tue, 12/19/2017 - 02:49 Permalink

What if Russia, or any of their other 'enemies' don't take advantage of this clearly important opportunity?  Does this mean that they are not really enemies?  Does it mean that someone has been pulling German legs for money all this time?  Does it mean that all this war and terrorism talk has been nothing more than a means to funnel vital funds away from public infrastructure and quality of life to funding profitable wars on behalf of a few elites instead?  Just asking.....

malcolmevans Tue, 12/19/2017 - 03:24 Permalink

 About that "buildup" of forces ready to invade Russia. One brigade and one battalion would just be a couple of road bumps for the Russian 1st Guards Tank Army.

taggaroonie Tue, 12/19/2017 - 03:28 Permalink

Justifications for hellishly expensive hardware and readiness are thin on the ground.Denmark is unlikely to 'take advantage' of the situation.Whatever security issues there may be, governments are precisely the wrong entities to decide what they are, or how to deal with them.This was first elucidated by Molinari's 1849 essay The Production of Security.

rtb61 Tue, 12/19/2017 - 03:33 Permalink

Underfund the military and fund infrastructure and the econmy and who wins. Keep in mind no nukes and fuck off you can not defend yourself against anyone, have nukes and you defence is down, tiny army, navy and airforce, as long as you have nukes.Pretty much the best very quite nuclear submarines armed with nuclear torpedoes and nuclear cruise missiles and everyone will leave you alone, in terms of direct invasion. One nuclear torpedoe will quite readily sink and entire US attack carrier fleet. Want to get close enough to launch nuclear cruise missiles, fire off a nuclear torpedoe in front of you in the general direction of the defending fleet, everything goes down, shock wave and emp, giving you clear sailing in or is that snorkelling in.No nukes and no matter how much you spend on defence, wake up to yourselves you do not have one, not even the start of one. Have nukes and subs and the rest counts for shite unless you want to play in wars overseas. Soldiers of course still are extremely useful in terms of natural disasters, many bodies working 24/7 to fix things up. If you want some of a conventional deterent than drones to take care of attacking well anything (using numbers ie 10 to 1, drones so much cheaper if they have no weapons but simply are the weapon, no different to a missile).Want to defend yourself, seriously, with the USA policy of sell your resources and labour to US corporations cheap or die, than you are stuck with nukes. It is the only realistic defence where Trump as an eg demands the US wins, dominates all spheres and that is up to and including the US vs the whole rest of the world.

rtb61 Tue, 12/19/2017 - 03:36 Permalink

Underfund the military and fund infrastructure and the econmy and who wins. Keep in mind no nukes and you can not defend yourself against anyone, have nukes and you defence is done, tiny army, navy and airforce, as long as you have nukes.Pretty much the best defence, very quiet nuclear submarines armed with nuclear torpedoes and nuclear cruise missiles and everyone will leave you alone, in terms of direct invasion. One nuclear torpedoe will quite readily sink and entire US carrier attack fleet. Want to get close enough to launch nuclear cruise missiles, fire off a nuclear torpedo in front of you in the general direction of the defending fleet, everything goes down, shock wave and emp, giving you clear sailing in or is that snorkelling in.No nukes and no matter how much you spend on defence, wake up to yourselves you do not have one, not even the start of one. Have nukes and subs and the rest counts for shite unless you want to play in wars overseas. Soldiers of course still are extremely useful in terms of natural disasters, many bodies working 24/7 to fix things up. If you want some of a conventional deterent than drones to take care of attacking well anything (using numbers ie 10 to 1, drones so much cheaper if they have no weapons but simply are the weapon, no different to a missile).Want to defend yourself, seriously, with the USA policy of sell your resources and labour to US corporations cheap or die, than you are stuck with nukes. It is the only realistic defence where Trump as an eg demands the US wins, dominates all spheres and that is up to and including the US vs the whole rest of the world. The US is straight up forcing global nuclear escaltion every country will need them to defend themselves from the US, the US nuclear umbrella is not a protection, it is a threat.