The Soviet carrier program, starting in the 1960s with the Moskva-class helicopter carriers, never quite reached the stage of supercarriers - but the designs were there, and the Ulyanovsk was undergoing construction before the collapse of the Soviet Union. What would it take to have a more successful Soviet (or Russian) carrier program, one that ends up operating supercarriers?
AH Challenge: More successful Soviet/Russian carrier program
- Thread starter anon_user
- Start date
sharlin
Banned
It would require a serious doctrinal shift for one thing. The soviets concentrated heavily on ASW with the adoption of the bastion concept. I think Gorshikov wanted carriers but was denied because they were too expensive to design. If the Soviets had managed to get the Graf Zepplin home instead of her sinking then who knows, using her as at least a starting off point would be something.
Actually I have something from an alternate navy the soviets made. I did not make this, got it from another forum, can't remember what one though.
If you want I can send you the whole thing.
[FONT="]This naval policy study was undertaken by Admiral Gorshkov in 1960 to advocate a new strategy for a new Soviet Navy. Gorshkov managed to get close to Khrushchev by advocating a new ‘mobile missile navy’. Gorshkov warned in the future ICBM bases could be knocked out by American missiles. By 1965 the Soviets had recognised than nuclear warheads on submarines and ships could be anywhere in the world and could strike any target on earth from any direction. The 1960 Naval Plan had several aims (these are not listed in any order of importance); [/FONT][FONT="]
1) To create the most powerful navy in the world. Not by sheer numbers but by having the best equipped warships armed with powerful missile systems. The West would not catch up with SSMs until the late 1960s.
2) To operate across the globe to support Communist friends and deny free passage to Western shipping. Bases were created between 1967 and 1982 in Syria, Egypt, Cuba, Vietnam, Cape Verde, Angola, India and Iran to give global coverage with a massive merchant fleet supplying ships mid ocean and abroad. Nuclear powered carrier groups would be created to hunt down Western Carrier Groups. The main purpose was to operate from bases in Africa and the Middle East to close off all trade routes through the Red Sea and the Cape to effectively cut the world in half and cut off the West’s oil supplies.
3) To destroy any NATO vessels operating east of the Greenland, Iceland, Scotland line and to cut off all reinforcement from America.
4) To offer nuclear deterrent to NATO with large SSBN forces operating across the globe.
6) To hunt and destroy Western SSBNs outside territorial waters and far from home if so required.
7) From 1973 to create and protect Arctic ‘bastions’ for Soviet SSBNs to operate without fear of destruction.
[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]Reinforcement of sea denial by powerful air forces able to operate across the globe, in peacetime to track SSBNs and surface groups. [/FONT][FONT="]
This document would form the basis for all Naval procurement and operations until 1991.
Khrushchev blocked any carrier construction but sanctioned a powerful submarine fleet and by the end of his reign the Red Navy had politically manoeuvred him into ordering a powerful surface fleet, especially after the emergence of two RN carrier groups armed with supersonic strike aircraft and escorted by excellent cruisers and the newer Nimitz Class supercarriers . This plan upset the VVS the most losing its strategic role and new bombers. While it gained the Naval Air force fighters it lost all the Tu-22M Backfire production to the Navy (but got the better Tu-160 Blackjack) and some 60 Su-24 Fencer. The Army lost some funds but sharing SAM technology helped the Navy and the Army (who gained in some radar technology and overseas prestige), and relations did not sour too badly.
[/FONT]
Actually I have something from an alternate navy the soviets made. I did not make this, got it from another forum, can't remember what one though.
If you want I can send you the whole thing.
[FONT="]This naval policy study was undertaken by Admiral Gorshkov in 1960 to advocate a new strategy for a new Soviet Navy. Gorshkov managed to get close to Khrushchev by advocating a new ‘mobile missile navy’. Gorshkov warned in the future ICBM bases could be knocked out by American missiles. By 1965 the Soviets had recognised than nuclear warheads on submarines and ships could be anywhere in the world and could strike any target on earth from any direction. The 1960 Naval Plan had several aims (these are not listed in any order of importance); [/FONT][FONT="]
1) To create the most powerful navy in the world. Not by sheer numbers but by having the best equipped warships armed with powerful missile systems. The West would not catch up with SSMs until the late 1960s.
2) To operate across the globe to support Communist friends and deny free passage to Western shipping. Bases were created between 1967 and 1982 in Syria, Egypt, Cuba, Vietnam, Cape Verde, Angola, India and Iran to give global coverage with a massive merchant fleet supplying ships mid ocean and abroad. Nuclear powered carrier groups would be created to hunt down Western Carrier Groups. The main purpose was to operate from bases in Africa and the Middle East to close off all trade routes through the Red Sea and the Cape to effectively cut the world in half and cut off the West’s oil supplies.
3) To destroy any NATO vessels operating east of the Greenland, Iceland, Scotland line and to cut off all reinforcement from America.
4) To offer nuclear deterrent to NATO with large SSBN forces operating across the globe.
6) To hunt and destroy Western SSBNs outside territorial waters and far from home if so required.
7) From 1973 to create and protect Arctic ‘bastions’ for Soviet SSBNs to operate without fear of destruction.
[/FONT][FONT="]
This document would form the basis for all Naval procurement and operations until 1991.
Khrushchev blocked any carrier construction but sanctioned a powerful submarine fleet and by the end of his reign the Red Navy had politically manoeuvred him into ordering a powerful surface fleet, especially after the emergence of two RN carrier groups armed with supersonic strike aircraft and escorted by excellent cruisers and the newer Nimitz Class supercarriers . This plan upset the VVS the most losing its strategic role and new bombers. While it gained the Naval Air force fighters it lost all the Tu-22M Backfire production to the Navy (but got the better Tu-160 Blackjack) and some 60 Su-24 Fencer. The Army lost some funds but sharing SAM technology helped the Navy and the Army (who gained in some radar technology and overseas prestige), and relations did not sour too badly.
[/FONT]
Last edited:
It also would prabably have been helped if the USSR had some experience with carrier aviation prior to and/or during WW2. During the 1939-1940 Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Russians did make some overtures to Germany regarding obtaining plans, etc for the Graf Zeppelin, which in a way is like the blind leading the blind, given how little Germany itself knew about carriers and naval aviation.
A better (but purely speculative) possibilty is for the Russians to obtain the loan an older fleet carrier or escort carriers from Britain or the US under lend-lease, together with appropriate aircraft and crew training. Since they did receive a Revenge-class battleship and assorted crusiers and destroyers this way, it's not out of the question that they might have gotten an older fleet carrier or a couple of escort carriers. Even if the ships themselves were returned after the war, their design plans and their aviation complement could have formed the nucleus of an immediate post war carrier program, had Stalin wanted to go that way.
To me the 1970's carrier program always seemed poorly conceived, based as it was on dual purpose ships that could never project the kind of airpower a western fleet carrier could - and at least until the Varyags came along with theur Su-27s would even be unable to mount any useful task force protection.
A better (but purely speculative) possibilty is for the Russians to obtain the loan an older fleet carrier or escort carriers from Britain or the US under lend-lease, together with appropriate aircraft and crew training. Since they did receive a Revenge-class battleship and assorted crusiers and destroyers this way, it's not out of the question that they might have gotten an older fleet carrier or a couple of escort carriers. Even if the ships themselves were returned after the war, their design plans and their aviation complement could have formed the nucleus of an immediate post war carrier program, had Stalin wanted to go that way.
To me the 1970's carrier program always seemed poorly conceived, based as it was on dual purpose ships that could never project the kind of airpower a western fleet carrier could - and at least until the Varyags came along with theur Su-27s would even be unable to mount any useful task force protection.
Super Carrier designs of the 80's&90's featured bulky top heavy designs,Were Catamaran Style Dual Hull Aircraft Carriers ever considered by any nations?I think they could offer tremendous advantages in Stability,Deck space&Number of Runways able to launch or retrieve Aircraft.USSR had A lack of warm water ports,But the Soviet Union had Microwave gun technology.They were not man portable due to power requirements,But maybe Mains fed large emitters in harbours&on Nuclear Aircraft Carriers to break&melt ice?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=16
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=16
Just WHY would the Soviets do this? It would almost certainly wind up in a naval arms race with the US which it would be bound to lose. The US has a longer and better naval tradition, more ships to begin with, more ports, better technology, better logistics and better trained crews. To pay for it the USSR would almost certainly have to give up tanks, APC or aircraft. All much more useful for a land based power like the USSR.
sharlin
Banned
They were in an arms race with the USN anyhow, just look at the soviet fleet and the size of it. Getting their hands on the Graff Zepplin would have been an adequate start, its more the political will to build the carriers than the financial issues at the time. If Gorshikov could impress upon the Kremlin not only the advantages of carrier programme in military terms but diplomatic ones as well. If the USN can have a carrier battlegroup, so should we!
You could imagine a 1980's CBG from the Soviets, one CVN at its heart, one Kiev class and a Kirov as well as a Slava or two and accompanying cruisers and destroyers. Have them sail to a hotspot or show the flag overseas and it sends a strong message.
You could imagine a 1980's CBG from the Soviets, one CVN at its heart, one Kiev class and a Kirov as well as a Slava or two and accompanying cruisers and destroyers. Have them sail to a hotspot or show the flag overseas and it sends a strong message.
Well for one Microwave Emitters at the Harbours/Ports would extend the time such Ports are usable, Thereby maximising existing USSR assets/resources. The Catamaran Carrier Concept is more of A thought exercise Im curious about to be honest, But even so, If the concept is A good one I dont see why it wouldnt be tried? Anyway lets be realistic the US & USSR ended up in Arms races over pretty much every Tech&Weapons System proposed or fielded. ^_^"
Compared to the USN it was a joke. The USN was always considerably more powerful than the Soviet one. Add fleet carriers and the USN starts expanding.
sharlin
Banned
The USN was actually extremely worried about soviet missiles and submarines. Until the advent of a large number of AEGIS ships the USN or any NATO surface force would have suffered terribly under a rain of AS-6's or SS-N-19's from a Oscar or two.
The Soviet fleet was always playing 2nd fiddle to the army or airforce but it was by no means a joke.
The Soviet fleet was always playing 2nd fiddle to the army or airforce but it was by no means a joke.
Depends on what you mean by threat. Could it have done some damage to the USN? Yes Did it have a prayer against it in an all out naval war? No
sharlin
Banned
In an all out naval war of course not, but as part of a broader strategy, yes.
Lets say that the soviets do a Red Storm Rising and WW3 kicks off but remains non nuclear. A carrier battlegroup hiding off iceland would certinally become the target for every allied SSN/SS they had but it would help to protect the bombers as they head over into the atlantic. Heck if it sailed to oppose a NATO Convoy then it could be very effective. Aircraft and missles in one package would mean it would need eliminating but its taking it out thats the problem.
The soviets were not trying to smash the USN, they were going to try and smash convoys and reinforcements. Sink enough of them and you alter the whole strategic balance.
Lets say that the soviets do a Red Storm Rising and WW3 kicks off but remains non nuclear. A carrier battlegroup hiding off iceland would certinally become the target for every allied SSN/SS they had but it would help to protect the bombers as they head over into the atlantic. Heck if it sailed to oppose a NATO Convoy then it could be very effective. Aircraft and missles in one package would mean it would need eliminating but its taking it out thats the problem.
The soviets were not trying to smash the USN, they were going to try and smash convoys and reinforcements. Sink enough of them and you alter the whole strategic balance.
wolf_brother
Banned
There are no winners in an all-out war between the USA and the USSR, so your point is a moot one. The important thing here is the USN viewed the Soviet Navy as a viable, and large, threat.
Snake Featherston
Banned
The Soviets never really needed a large navy, Russian imperialism in general doesn't really allow for or call for one. Russia's a land power and so long as it has no real ice-free ports then a large navy is an expensive luxury it would neither need nor afford. The Soviets at least understood this quite well.
The German's absolutley refused to help the Soviets here, but they themselves were dependent on getting help from the IJN. However, the IJN wasn't giving the KM their latest information and experience.
If the Soviets had invaded Japan proper they might have gotten their hands on a damaged CV or CVL (Junyo, several Unryu's or even Hosho). And they would have grabbed any carrier aircraft they could get their hands on as well as any engineers, pilots or naval personnel.
Even so carrier operations are difficult and this isn't something you can just throw together and expect to work, let alone work well...
The Soviet Union does not have to build A massive navy though. The great thing about Aircraft Carriers whether conventional or Catamaran style is that they grant Force Projection & act as Force Multipliers for the Country they represent. With just 2 to 4 Carriers the Soviet reputation&influence can expand greatly.
Red eagle
1945 instead of Cesare, the USSR gets the incomplete Aquila as a war compensation. They finish it and by 1947 it's flying a CAG of 19 La9K and 16 Il10TK. In 1954 it goes back to service after being rebuilt with an angled deck operating nalvalized MiG17 and Tu91. Does so well in exercises that the USSR builds 3 more CVA. The vessels, generally similar to the rebuilt Eagle and Ark Royal are ready in time for the Cuban Missile Crises. They operate navalized MiG19SFK and Tu91M. The Cuban missile crises gets way hoter... It still falls short of all out war, but the few air battles btw MiG19 and F8 are later turned into both a Russian and a US movie.
1945 instead of Cesare, the USSR gets the incomplete Aquila as a war compensation. They finish it and by 1947 it's flying a CAG of 19 La9K and 16 Il10TK. In 1954 it goes back to service after being rebuilt with an angled deck operating nalvalized MiG17 and Tu91. Does so well in exercises that the USSR builds 3 more CVA. The vessels, generally similar to the rebuilt Eagle and Ark Royal are ready in time for the Cuban Missile Crises. They operate navalized MiG19SFK and Tu91M. The Cuban missile crises gets way hoter... It still falls short of all out war, but the few air battles btw MiG19 and F8 are later turned into both a Russian and a US movie.
