View Single Post
  #17  
Old 07-02-2013, 10:29 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

In a general war scenario such as the Twilight War, NATO's primary maritime objective would be to secure the North Atlantic for shipping to resupply Europe from North America. The primary obstacle to that would be the Soviet Northern Fleet.

The traditional answer in the past two world wars to the problem of protecting merchant shipping against submarines has been the convoy system. However merchant ships are now larger and faster, and establishing protected shipping lanes across the Atlantic would also be necessary in addition to a more traditional convoy escort system. Also the Soviet Union is a land power like Germany, and like Germany is at a geographical disadvantage in the Atlantic against naval powers such as Britain and America. The Soviets only access to the Atlantic is through the narrow and heavily defended Kattegat at the mouth of the Baltic Sea and through its own Arctic coast. Aware of Soviet physical difficulties in accessing the Atlantic from the north, NATO established a naval defensive line know as the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), to bottle the Soviet's up.

The GIUK Gap seriously eroded any Soviet effort to break out into the Atlantic undetected. NATO implanted mines, moored torpedo systems and monitoring devices such as SOSUS on the seabed linked to processing data stations. Allied with active NATO ship, submarine and aircraft patrols across the GIUK Gap made any undetected breach of the gap near impossible. Land based AWAC and long ranged F-15 and Tornado fighter squadrons in Iceland and the UK also increased NATO's ability to detect and intercept Soviet long ranged naval bombers. Its effectiveness also forced the Soviet's to develop longer ranged missiles for their SSBN's, with sufficient range to launch from well behind the barrier in the Barents Sea.

The US Navy, being what it is, also espoused a second more offensive minded and controversial approach to dealing with a Soviet threat to NATO shipping. Deploying powerful US aircraft carriers groups to strike against northern Soviet bases, through sending carriers across the GIUK Gap and into the Norwegian Sea. The Norwegian Sea was an area were Soviet naval forces would be very active, and where NATO forces could not guarantee the carriers protection. Basically the US Navy was advocating sending its most expensive assets into a hostile environment and looking for a fight.

Despite the defences of the GIUK Gap the Soviets possessed a number of non-nuclear options for disrupting NATO naval and merchant shipping in the Atlantic. In addition to its large fleet of nuclear and diesel attack submarines, it had a large number of reconnaissance aircraft and land based naval bombers with stand-off missiles and a highly developed mine warfare capability. Also it was developing carrier based airpower and had many escorts with powerful anti-ship missile and ASW capabilities, personified by the massive Kirov Class.

Soviet submarines carried an array of weaponry in addition to torpedoes that were a threat to NATO naval forces. Akula, Charlie, Sierra and Victor III Class nuclear submarines carried SS-N-7 (P-70), SS-N-9 (P-120) and SS-N-15 (RPK-2) anti-ship missiles, while the Oscar Class carried SS-N-19 (P-700) dual nuclear/conventional cruise anti-ship missiles with a range of 600km at Mach 2.5. From the late 1980's the Soviet Navy started fitting out Akula, Sierra and Victor III Class submarines with SS-N-21 (RK-55) cruise missiles with a range of 3,000km. Many Soviet destroyers, cruisers and the ASW carriers were also fitted with SS-N-12 (P-500) anti-ship missiles and SS-N-14 (RPK-2) ASW missiles. The Kirov Class carried SS-N-14 and 20 launchers for the long ranged SS-N-19 missile.

The most formidable threat to US carrier groups were from the supersonic Tu-22M Backfire bombers with AS-4 (Kh-22) long ranged anti-ship missile. The Tu-22M has a combat radius of 2,400km when fully armed, and the AS-4 air launched missile was capable of being launched at high or low altitude modes with conventional or nuclear warheads. With a maximum range of 500- 600km and capable of making terminal dives from high altitudes at speeds of Mach 4.6 it was a devastating weapon designed to annihilate US Navy aircraft carriers. Until the end of the Cold War NATO intelligence believed the maximum speed of the AS-4 was only Mach 2.5. The Soviet Navy also deployed Tu-16 bombers with AS-6 (KSR-5) cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads. The AS-6 was considered a scaled down version of the AS-4, and it could only reach speeds of Mach 3.5 with 2,200ibs warhead.

My own assessment of a naval war in the North Atlantic is that US aircraft carrier would be relatively safe from attack south of the GIUK Gap, as NATO ship and land based air and ASW assets would be too powerful for Soviet long ranged bombers to penetrate. However Soviet submarines would likely try and force the Gap in numbers to break out into the Atlantic from the north. Most would be detected and forced north and some will be eliminated, but some will get through particularly as we now know that Soviet nuclear submarines were secretly surveying paths through and around NATO ASW defences in waters near Greenland and Canada for decades. Conversely NATO nuclear submarines would also be very active north of the GIUK Gap, and will likely cause disruption to Soviet surface and submarines operations in northern waters. Soviet nuclear submarines and major surface warships will be priority targets for NATO sub commanders and they will certainly get some long before they move south.

Penetrating the Norwegian Sea to strike at Soviet bases would be a very risky strategy for US aircraft carriers for a number of reasons already mentioned. Theoretically US aircraft carrier air wings have the capacity to deal with Soviet bombers. F-14's on CAP close to their maximum ranges are capable of keeping Tu-22M 's with AS-4 at bay, while an F/A-18 has the range to engage Soviet warships and submarines equipped with SS-N-19 before they are in range to fire at US carriers. Land based AWAC, tankers, long ranged fighters and US anti-ship and long ranged land attack cruise missiles will also widen the ability of NATO to cope with Soviet air threats. Carrier based ASW along with land based P-3 and Nimrod aircraft, towed sonar, and sonar arrays of individual escort ships and also escorting nuclear submarines will also be a formidable threat to attacking Soviet submarines. But the Soviets will attempt to breach these defences with a combination of saturation submarine, surface warship and bomber attacks.

In the mid 1980's the North Atlantic Maritime Balance was numerically in favour of NATO.

The US Navy deployed 5 large aircraft carriers, 49 nuclear attack submarines and 90 escort ships. The British had 3 ASW carriers, 12 nuclear attack submarines, 14 diesel submarines and 46 escort ships. Other NATO powers could also add 57 diesel submarines and 107 escort ships. The Soviet Northern Fleet had 2 ASW carriers, 71 nuclear attack submarines, 54 diesel submarines and 85 escort ships. NATO airpower was also superior and could draw on non-naval air assets.
Reply With Quote