Ηistory of Soviet Navy

I would say neither. It was more an "instrument than a navy".

They just had to sunk aircraft carriers and protect nuclear subs.

All navies have denial capabilities. If you can fight in open sea you can defend you coasts.

Soviet used navy and airforce to protect ground forces. US uses navy like it's an lonely army that have to bombs evry single tank without the need of using ground forces.

Russian Navy can't fight in open seas unlike Soviet Navy rest they can defend very well. Thats why US Navy is pushing for to combat in littoral waters ( this is where US Navy believes their brute force will help )

max steel wrote:Russian Navy can't fight in open seas unlike Soviet Navy rest they can defend very well. Thats why US Navy is pushing for to combat in littoral waters ( this is where US Navy believes their brute force  will help )

and USSR did not need a sea control navy anyway

How good was the sea denial capability of the Red navy in the mid 80s ? I mean the SSGN, AVMF and rocket ships had the capabililty to deny enemy amphib landings on multiple fronts simultenously e.g coordinated assaults on Balatic, Black and Pacific coasts ?

nastle77 wrote:

max steel wrote:Russian Navy can't fight in open seas unlike Soviet Navy rest they can defend very well. Thats why US Navy is pushing for to combat in littoral waters ( this is where US Navy believes their brute force  will help )

and USSR did not need a sea control navy anyway

How good was the sea denial capability of the Red navy in the mid 80s ? I mean the SSGN, AVMF and rocket ships had the capabililty to deny enemy amphib landings on multiple fronts simultenously e.g coordinated assaults on Balatic, Black and Pacific coasts ?

Very good !!

First you had to fight their big ships in open seas. Then you have to go throught long range aviation attacks. Then small ships with missiles and Su-24 and coastal missiles, kilos... So amphibious landing were impossible on USSR.

Moreover to go to the baltics you need to go in baltic sea, look on a map there is just one way to go there so enemy naval forces are detected a the biggining. Idem for black sea. In the pacifique, there is a lot of ice during most of the time, most of ships can't oparate there.

Multiple landings against USSR is not a good idea as you will send fewer ships on every landing than in on big landing. And the advantage will be to soviet forces as they are on their soil and have more troops, aviation there.

Isos wrote:

nastle77 wrote:

max steel wrote:Russian Navy can't fight in open seas unlike Soviet Navy rest they can defend very well. Thats why US Navy is pushing for to combat in littoral waters ( this is where US Navy believes their brute force  will help )

and USSR did not need a sea control navy anyway

How good was the sea denial capability of the Red navy in the mid 80s ? I mean the SSGN, AVMF and rocket ships had the capabililty to deny enemy amphib landings on multiple fronts simultenously e.g coordinated assaults on Balatic, Black and Pacific coasts ?

Very good !!

First you had to fight their big ships in open seas.  Then you have to go throught long range aviation attacks. Then small ships with missiles and Su-24 and coastal missiles, kilos... So amphibious landing were impossible on USSR.

Moreover to go to the baltics you need to go in baltic sea, look on a map there is just one way to go there so enemy naval forces are detected a the biggining. Idem for black sea. In the pacifique, there is a lot of ice during most of the time, most of ships can't oparate there.

Multiple landings against USSR is not a good idea as you will send fewer ships on every landing than in on big landing. And the advantage will be to soviet forces as they are on their soil and have more troops, aviation there.

How good was the su24 fencer in the antishipping role ? I mean did it have standoff ASM like the backfires ?
And if it's weapons were close range wasn't it vulnerable to SAM carried by escorting destroyers?

They have kh-31 : >100km range. Simple bombs too.

SAM were not as good as today. Look at Falklands war. But most of the job wold have been done by TU-22s and Tu-95.

Isos wrote:They have kh-31 : >100km range. Simple bombs too.

SAM were not as good as today. Look at Falklands war. But most of the job wold have been done by TU-22s and Tu-95.

true was there a antishipping version of Tu 95 too ? I mean the Bear G what the NATO calley could carry kh22 right ?
Also in the 80's the kh29 or AS14 was a much more widely used ASM , how would you rate that against warships ?
Probably against corvettes and frigates without sophisticated SAM it probably has a chance ?

Under Admiral Gorshkov the Soviet Navy became primarily a sea control navy. This was achieved by maintaining a presence off the territorial waters of potential enemy countries, and a presence off, and within, the territorial waters of friendly countries such as Cuba, and other countries that were favorably disposed to Soviet Union. The fleet was also configured to control the sea by interdiction of enemy forces by the heavy cruisers, either the hybrids with a rear flight deck for helicopters, a sort of revival of the IJN Mogami heavy cruisers, and the heavy missile cruisers and all the various types of destroyers and frigates that accompany them, and of course the attack submarines and anti-ship missile submarines. The Baltic Fleet was to actively destroy NATO naval forces in the Baltic and create conditions for large scale amphibious landings, tho GSFG would likely have swept along the coast before any amphibious landings were needed. Perhaps the best example of this sea control philosophy was the creation of the project 949A Antei class submarines specifically designed to destroy American carrier task forces.

GarryB wrote:

Also in the 80's the kh29 or AS14 was a much more widely used ASM , how would you rate that against warships ?
Probably against corvettes and frigates without sophisticated SAM it probably has a chance ?

It would lack raw range, which would mean it would have to be launched from too close a range... but its 320kg HE warhead would have been devastating to any size ship... it has a semi shaped charge 318kg HE warhead designed to undermine the concrete foundations of heavy bridges... so as I said... a ship would feel it... even the biggest of ships.

The most likely weapon it would use would be the Kh-59 and Kh-59M... known in the west as AS-13 and AS-18. These are 115km range and 250 km range tv guided missiles with a datalink system that feeds a video image that the missile sees of its target back to the launch aircraft. the crewman then puts the crosshair on the target to be attacked and then the missile hits what it has been aimed at...

The US equivalent is SLAM and SLAM-ER respectively.

indeed so the kh29 maybe useful in ambush situations in the littorals , fiord's and waters where the su24 is more likely to encounter enemy transports , troopships or escort destroyers where they cannot employ their long range SAM effectively maybe because of thr background clutter.
A San Carlos bay like situation ?

when was the Sunburn started being used on the Tarantul class missile ships ?
I mean 12 Tarantul III class ships were in commision by 1990 but did they have the Sunburns at that time ?
Reason I ask as the Database for soviet missiles in 1989 lists only 80 Sunburns in their inventory and at that time there were 9-10 Sovremennys in the fleet as well

GarryB wrote:The first 10-11 Tarantula class boats had an older rocket powered version of Moskit... it wasn't until the next vessels entered service they had the combined rocket ramjet powered Sunburn....

Ok thanks but they were never armed with SSN-7 ?

The SSN-16 Stallion RPK-6 and RPK-7 was a dual ASUW and ASW weapon ? Was this the principal ASUW weapon of Victor III/Alfa/Akula/Sierra class ?

It was explained here on this forum that RPK6/7 was only assigned a ASW role in SSN so what was their principal anti-surface ship weapon

Two nice videos of soviet ships operating in open sea. There is even the moskva cruiser (helicopter carier not slava class). Not the subject of the thread but I had to put it somewhere

I am surprised there isn't a dedicated thread for the history of the Russian/Soviet navy, so i decided to make one.
Let's start with a documentary from the 70s.

How capable was the Soviet navy in interveing in the third word Regional conflicts during the late cold war?
Any examples of that ?
I've heard in Angola the Soviet kresta 2 class cruiser provided fire support against the rebels
What would be the composition of a typical expeditionary Force if a intervention in a third world country is required ?assuming the other superpower and first-rate nato countries are not the adversaries

nastle77 wrote:How capable was the Soviet navy in interveing in the third word Regional conflicts during the late cold war?
Any examples of that ?

The examples i can recall, was when the Soviet navy went the gulf when Iran tried to blockade it and when they went to assist India against the U.S navy during one of the wars against Pakistan.

This guy from Buzzfeed spotted this. Its a lot of documents!

Jason Leopold‏Verified account @JasonLeopold

Wow! CIA Releases Declassified Documents on the Cold War Soviet Navy

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/cia-analysis-soviet-navy

I notice that the kynda class cruisers were operational till the end of 1990

what was the purpose of keeping an old ship like that operational till then ? when all equivalent enemy ships were armed with Harpoons which was superior to shaddock in all except range ?

The only purposes I could think of was

1-Kynda would be used as "single shot " ships will launch all their 8 missiles way outside the range of Harpoon and then hopefully try to run like hell for homeport or would soak up Harpoons intended for more modern ships

2-They could be used in ASUW role against those surface ships NOT armed with Harpoon or other ASM, so they cannot return fire

3-They will use their legacy shaddocks in a land attack role ?

4-They were reserves that carried Nuke armed Shaddocks which could in a salvo wipe out a flotilla of ships if successful or perish trying to do so

any thoughts ? ideas ?

nastle77 wrote:

2-They could be used in ASUW role against those surface ships NOT armed with Harpoon or other ASM, so they cannot return fire

3-They will use their legacy shaddocks in a land attack role ?

any thoughts ? ideas ?

One of these ships was deployed with Soviet Navy Task Force during 6 day war in 1967. There were many spots that they could be deployed in supportive roles

Hey all

I heard a story that a typhoon class submarine was picked up on a P3 Orion sonar in 1988 in the Fiordland region of New Zealand .

The sub was on its way to Antarctica but decided to hide here.


Im not too sure on these claims but wondering if someone has anything to confirm or debunk this claim.

I just saw this article and did the Soviets know about this: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/how-a-british-submarine-spent-hours-under-a-russian-aircraft-carrier