[RN7]

Originally Posted by The Dark

A large part of the problems with the Kirovs were because the Soviet Navy never built land bases with proper support equipment for the KN-3 reactors, so the reactors had to be shut down in port. This perversely increased wear on components, because the shut-down/start-up cycle was more stressful than running the reactor at minimal levels.

The ambitions of the Soviet Navy were not matched by enough thought into how to support and supply such ambitions. The Soviet Navy was also largely manned by conscripts unlike the volunteer US Navy, maintenance must have been a nightmare for them.

Originally Posted by The Dark

If they had a pair of Uylanovsks plus the Kirovs, increasing reactor numbers from 8 to 16, they might build in the necessary support equipment to allow the vessels to run at minimal power in port.

They might have, but probably might not have.

Originally Posted by The Dark

Four reactors sounds problematic, but recall that the Enterprise used eight. The Kirovs were also excessively complicated (in my opinion) due to their odd nuclear-and-oil combination, where the Ulyas would be nuclear-only. The Ulyas would have only slightly more power than a Nimitz (1200 MW to 1100 MW for the pair of A4Ws). Lack of electrical power might actually be an issue, like it is now on the Nimitz-class. The reactors were third-generation (with block cooling systems and improved control rods), but tended to run hot, so cooling would also be an issue, particularly as energy demands rose at high speeds.

Only one Enterprise was built between 1958 and 1961. The US Navy had originally planned to build five Enterprise Class carriers but wisely waited until the twin A4W nuclear reactors were ready to be fitted into the Nimitz.

Originally Posted by The Dark

I'm not sure the Soviets ever planned going toe-to-toe with an American carrier group.

They would have eventually had too as the US Navy espoused an offensive minded and controversial approach to dealing with the threat of Soviet submarines to NATO shipping from the 1980's, by deploying US aircraft carriers groups across the GIUK Gap into the Norwegian Sea to strike against northern Soviet bases. The Soviets may not have ever planned to have gone toe-to-toe with American carriers but they would have had to, or retreat!

Originally Posted by The Dark

The surface fleet was primarily intended to keep enemy carriers out of range of the mainland with the threat of surface-to-surface missiles (at some point, advancing to using helicopters to provide over-the-horizon targeting), while the submarine fleet was a strike arm (ballistic missile subs) and a defensive arm that would be divided between striking at enemy carriers and protecting the boomers (attack subs). Honestly, even the "blue belt" theory espoused in the article doesn't make much sense, since a combination of hunter-killers, land-based aircraft, and missile-armed surface craft should be able to generate the same sort of bubble for boomers to vanish in.

In my mind the Soviet surface navy was designed to protect their boomers in regards to conflict with the US Navy. The only effective offensive capability they had against the US Navy were submarines and land based Tu-22M Backfire bombers with AS-4 (Kh-22) long ranged anti-ship missiles. Once NATO put up the GIUK Gap across the North Atlantic Soviet submarines and ships could not break out into the Atlantic undetected. Land based NATO AWAC's and long ranged fighter squadrons in Iceland and the UK also increased NATO's ability to detect and intercept Soviet Backfire bombers. Its effectiveness forced the Soviet's to develop longer ranged missiles for their boomers, with sufficient range to launch from the Barents Sea.

Originally Posted by The Dark

Interesting, the Ulyas are mentioned in a book I have, Norman Polmar's Guide to the Soviet Navy of 1986. The expectation at the time was that the lead ship would be either Sovetskiy Soyuz or Kremlin, that it would use a combined nuclear and steam power plant like Kirov, that it would be complete by 1990, and that it would carry 65-70 fixed-wing aircraft from the Su-27 Flanker, MiG-29 Fulcrum, Su-25 Frogfoot, and possibly Yak-38 Forger families.

I think its original name was Kremlin, but was changed to Ulyanovsk as Vladimir Lenin was born there. The air group of the Ulyanovsk would probably have been 68 aircraft (44 Su-33 (Su-27K)/Mig-29K, 6 Ka-27 ASW helicopters, 2x Ka-27P rescue helicopters).

Originally Posted by The Dark

However, even that would leave the Navy with a large majority of its aircraft being land-based. As of mid-1986, estimates were that the Soviet Navy had 155 carrier-based aircraft and 1,485 land-based aircraft, with 400 strike aircraft, 335 patrol/ASW aircraft, and 750 other aircraft.

In 1990/91 the Soviet Navy had 186 carrier based aircraft including 74 helicopters. The total Soviet Naval Aviation fleet included 1,469 fixed wing aircraft and 545 combat helicopters excluding transport and training aircraft.

Long Ranged Bombers: 356 (160 Tu-22M bombers, 6 Tu-22, 190 Tu-16 bombers)
Fighter Ground Attack Aircraft: 645 (80 Yak-38, 350 Su-17, 110 Su-24, 75 Su-25, 30 Mig-27)
Fighter Aircraft: 155 (85 Mig-23, 70 Mig-29)
ASW Aircraft: 198 (53 Tu-142, 53 IL-38, 92 Be-12)
ASW Helicopters: 287 (79 Mi-14, 93 Ka-25, 115 Ka-27)
Maritime Patrol & EW Aircraft: 105 (35 Tu-95, 40 Tu-16, 5 Tu-22, 10 Su-24, 15 An-12)
Maritime Patrol Helicopters: 20 (20 Ka-25)
Mine-Countermeasure Helicopters: 15 (15 Mi-14)
Assault Helicopters: 25 (20 Ka-27, 5 Ka-29)
Tanker Aircraft: 10 (10 Tu-16)
Transport & Training Aircraft: 445

Originally Posted by The Dark

I'm less sold on the utility of the Iowas against a Soviet carrier

The Iowa's would likely be never deployed against a Soviet carrier as they are battleships, unless the Soviet carrier was stupid enough to come within range of its main guns or substantial battery of Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles.

Originally Posted by The Dark

since the only air defense on the BBs were the four Block 0/Block 1 Phalanx and five Stinger launch positions, since Sea Sparrow couldn't be carried due to the overpressure from the 16" cannon. The Iowa would need assistance from escorts for air defense.

Yes and the Iowa would always be accompanied by air defence escorts, and would probably be also protected by the CAP of carrier based aircraft and submarines.

Originally Posted by The Dark

The Arleigh Burkes didn't start service until '91....

The Twilight War starts in 1996/1997.

Also other than using a nuclear weapon it would take an awful lot of Soviet hits to even disable an Iowa.

Originally Posted by The Dark

An interesting what-if would be the pair of "battlecarrier" proposals from the 80s for the Iowas. Martin Marietta suggested replacing the aft turret with hangars and launch/recovery areas for 12 Harriers. Naval Institute Proceedings was more ambitious, and wanted to put an angled flight deck in the rear to operate F/A-18s from. They still wouldn't make the Iowas incredibly useful, but they'd open up the possibility of an Iowa being deployed somewhere that needed the potential for air cover, but didn't justify a full fleet carrier.

I think that would be a waste of a perfectly good gun turret.