002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) (05/31/91)
From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn)
I don't think the Soviet Union has given up calling their largest ships
cruisers...I read in the Naval Institute "Proceedings" there was a flap when
one reporter called the latest TBILISI class an aircraft-carrier. The Navy
officially rebutted that, stating that it was more accurately an
"aircraft-carrying cruiser."
The agreements concerning ships passing through Turkey are quite official, and
as far as I've ever been told scrupulously adhered to by the Soviet Navy.
J. W. Cupp
--
UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!002 Naval Telecommunications Center
ARPA: humu!nctams!pnet16!002@nosc.mil Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
INET: 002@pnet16.cts.com
I am solely and personally responsible for the all of the content of the above
post. It is all merely my opinion, and not to be construed as anything else.budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (06/03/91)
From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) The treaty is the Montreux Convention of (I believe) 1937. Aimed at limiting the transit of 'capital ships' through the Bosphorus. At the time, the Soviets agreed because it kept British battleships <out> which was more important than keeping UR BBs (they didn't have any) in. As the Soviet Navy started growing, particularly after 1962, the negative side of the Convention started to appear to the Soviets. In 1937, 'capital ship' referred only to battleships but the definition came to apply to aircraft carriers in the US and UK context (strike mission). But the Soviets have doctrinally contended that a good share of their surface navy is there to protect the submarine fleet. Gorschkov made the point clear many times that the Germans screwed up by not providing any protection to their submarines (Hitler's promise to Raeder that Germany wouldn't go to war prior to 1945 is a germane but different story). So the Moskva and Kiev class 'carriers' are equipped for the submarine defense role. Which includes keeping P-3s, and other of our ASW assets from getting too pesky. And the Soviet surface fleet is equipped for ASW because they recognize that the biggest threat to their submarines are our submarines. Moskva's carried ASW helicopters; Kiev's have that and V/STOL (Forger) aircraft. No air superiority or strike aircraft to speak of. Consequently, all carriers in the Soviet navy has been designated as ASW cruisers. While it looks like an artifice to avoid challenging Montreaux directly, it is really quite legitimate in Soviet naval doctrine. Amiral Kusnetzov (sp?, renamed Tbilisi, renamed Breznev) is significantly different in that it can handle more conventional aircraft, but I don't believe the designation has changed.
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) (06/13/91)
From: Steve Creps <creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
There are three classes of Soviet ships that possibly can be
considered aircraft carriers.
The first, the Moskva (Moscow) class, is actually designated
(according to [1]) "helicopter cruiser (CVS)." This is clearly a
cruiser, as the forward half of the ship follows the traditional
cruiser design (it's not flat, and it has lots of weapons). The aft
half of the ship is a flat landing deck large enough for only helos to
take off or land (possibly VTOLs too, but it doesn't carry those). Its
weaponry consists of SA-N-3's, SS-N-16's, RBU-6000 ASW rockets, Ka-25's
(helos), and guns (57mm). Note that the "-N-" in "SA-N-3" and
"SS-N-16" means it's the naval version of a missile, not that it's a
nuclear weapon.
The next class, Kiev, can be considered an ASW CV at best (my
opinion). Source [1] calls it "aircraft carrier (CVSG)," which seems
to indicate "ASW aircraft carrier, guided missile." The Soviet Navy
calls them "tactical aircraft-carrying cruisers." Its armament
consists of SS-N-12's, SA-N-3's and 4's, guns (76mm max), 533mm
torpedoes, RBU-6000's, Yak-38A's and B's (aircraft), and Ka-25's and
27's. These ships are primarily ASW platforms, and would be no match
for any U.S. carrier, whether or not the two sides' support ships (CGs,
DDGs, etc) are considered (my opinion).
The third and most able class is the new Kremlin class. I'm not sure
of the current status of this class (I believe the first may have just
begun service within the past two years), or very many of its specs,
but it will be a larger nuclear-powered ship probably capable of
carrying some "real" aircraft.
Sources:
[1] _Modern_Naval_Combat_, David Miller and Chris Miller
--
Steve Creps
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (129.79.1.6)
{inuxc,rutgers,uunet!uiucdcs,pur-ee}!iuvax!silver!creps002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) (06/15/91)
From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) Your response falls into the easy pitfall known as "mirror-imaging." Simply put, it is wrong to apply western (i.e., USN) standards to the Soviet Navy. They are not the USN. It some respects, it's almost impossible to avoid a little mirror-imaging...that is, projecting one's own thought process onto another...but some of the sentences you wrote typify what I've heard from many people, and they are incorrect from the Soviet point of view. [Please don't read this as a personal attack. I'm only writing because they way you put it gets so widely espoused.] For instance, you say that the KIEV class "ASW Carrier" (your words) is no match for any U.S. carrier. I much prefer to call it an "Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" mainly because this is what the Soviets call it, and it is their ship. It wasn't built to take on a NIMITZ or AMERICA head-to-head. It was built to take fixed wing aircraft far to sea, where they can easily down unarmed, slow, and not-very-manueverable P-3's. Why shoot down P-3's? To protect Soviet SSBN's. Check out the other armaments, and you'll see that the KIEV is a pretty respectable ASW platform even without aircraft. Why ASW? To attack U.S. SSN's, and therefore protect Soviet SSBN's. The newer class, as has already been stated, is at sea, and is in training workups. It is not nuclear powered. Having a ship is one thing; having a large cadre of trained naval aviators is another. (Reference the Japanese Navy experience at the Marianas Turkey Shoot, followed by the battle of Leyte Gulf in WWII.) The Soviet navy is making steady progress towards full-fledged carrier aviation capabilities, but they still have a long way to go. J. W. Cupp UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!002 Naval Telecommunications Center ARPA: humu!nctams!pnet16!002@nosc.mil P.O. Box 55 INET: 002@pnet16.cts.com Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860 The above is merely my opinion, and not to be construed as anything else.
oyvinw@ifi.uio.no (yvin Wormn{s) (06/21/91)
From: \yvin Wormn{s <oyvinw@ifi.uio.no>
[On USSR carriers]
J.W.Cupp wrote that you cannot set USN standards on the Soviet Navy,
regarding the role and armament of the carriers. I totally agree,
and I think this is a good example of how you have to adapt the
equipment to the strategic situation (This is my scientific alibi :-)
Cupp mentioned the important protection of the Soviet SSBNs. I will
mention the protection of NATO shipping as well.
The USN carriers are supposed to extend air power out beyond the reach
of land-based aircraft. They are more or less a complete air force
on their own. In peacetime they can be spread around the world to
react to anysituation as fast as possible. In the now very unprobable
NATO-USSR war they can consentrate and move into important sea areas,
one of them off the coast of Northern Norway, to deny the Soviets
access there. They can't go too close to the coast, because then they
are vulnerable to landbased aircraft, and if they go even closer they
will be sunk by submarines. USN carriers need to be strong enough to
operate alone, and be able to fly different missions, on their own.
The Soviet then, do not have the need for global projection of
peacetime power (or rather the access to the sea this is dependent
on). In wartime they want to attack NATO shipping across the
Atlantic and on their side of the GIUK gap. What they lack is fighter
cover. Bombers can reach long from Murmansk, fighters can't. Now
they can put fighters on their carriers and escort the bombers
farther out. They can make do with a smaller and cheaper carrier,
and get the same number of fighters and bombers on target. If a
carrier is sunk it is a smaller loss. (Whoops, forgot, a US carrier
can't sink, sorry). The SSBNs are protected. All in all, the
Soviet carriers are suited to their mission.
\yvin oyvinw@ifi.uio.no