Black Sea Naval Actions

[Raellus]

I can't find any mention, at least not in the ref. manual's v1 history, of any naval actions on the Black Sea. The closest the v1 history comes is the Greek navy's attack on the Turkey-bound supply convoy on its way to Izmir by way of the Aegean, but that's on the other side of the Bosporus.

I reckon that there must have been some fighting between the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and the Turkish navy, but I'm not aware of any mentioned in canon. Am I missing something somewhere?

The Bulgarian and Romanian navies were tiny, but there probably would have been naval skirmishes, at least, between them during the first phase of fighting in Romania (12/20/1996- late summer, 1997). I suppose it's entirely possible that the Romanian navy, such as it was, was completely destroyed at anchor by Soviet Black Sea Fleet forces, and/or the Soviet Air Force. I can see why this might not have earned a mention in canon (given the insignificance of the Romanian navy), but it doesn't seem likely that Turkey/NATO would cede freedom of navigation in the Black Sea to the Soviets. Something's not adding up.

In a related current events story,

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...leet-last-week

-

[Targan]

The use of nukes over open waters might have been a bit more extensive or enthusiastic than nuking land targets. The Black Sea is big enough that the Soviets might have been happy enough to tac nuke any decent-sized enemy naval force it could identify.

[Legbreaker]

You've also got quite a choke point to navigate to get into the Black Sea. Sure you've got allied control of that, but just a couple of subs lurking at the eastern end, plus a determined sea mining effort would utterly scuttle any attempts to force your way in. Add to that the small issue of not actually controlling the Mediterranean end (Greece and Italy are very likely to have something to say about that little detail) and trying to send a decent sized fleet into the Black Sea becomes more trouble than it's worth. Even a single surface combatant is very unlikely to have much fun (and without supporting vessels will soon be on the bottom anyway).
A sub might get through, but again, you've got active PACT naval defence forces watching for something just like that.

As for the Romanians, well, they're much more a defensive force with very limited offensive capability. It's highly likely they'd be quickly eliminated but not before giving the Soviets a bloody nose. Interesting to note that they only had one Kilo class sub delivered in 1986. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11302.html

[Raellus]

If a non-Turkey NATO nation tried to force it's way from the Med into the Black Sea, it would probably be mentioned in canon.

The v1 history makes numerous mentions of Soviet and Bulgarian ground operations against Turkey, but nothing of naval actions. I'm not intimately familiar with all of the canon, so I wanted to ask the experts out there if it might have been mentioned in an another source.

Even if not, I figure that's most likely a case of omission on the writers' part than an indication that naval actions between Soviet Black Sea Fleet and the Turkish navy didn't occur at all. They probably thought most T2k refs/players didn't care if the Soviet and Turkish navies clashed once or twice in the Black Sea.

I suppose Targan could be right, though. Perhaps the Soviets just nuked the Turkish navy in the Black Sea. They nuked them on land, and besides Turkey, it was just SSRs all around so, why not?

As for the RNF, Romania's budget problems in the late '80s, I'm not sure that they could afford to put naval ships to sea very often or for very long. In my T2kU, Soviet BSF naval aviation Shturmovik squadrons sank most of the tiny Romanian navy at anchor. A Red Fleet Kilo class diesel submarine sank the lone RN frigate that managed to sortie.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, most of the canon materials focuses on ground forces rather than air and sea power - which makes sense anyway as ships and aircraft are both very resource hungry (just the amount of fuel they burn is horrendous!).

It's no surprise there's nothing mentioned about an attempt to break into the Black Sea - just the brief assessment I made in my previous post would be enough for even the most offensive minded commander to scrub the whole idea as suicidal. It'd be on par with dropping paratroops into Berlin in 1942 and expecting them to survive more than a day!

This of course raises the small question of what happened to the Soviet Black fleet? My thoughts are taken out by airstrikes, nukes and maybe subs (probably Turkish assets) with the remainder relegated to rusting wharf queens due to lack of fuel, ammunition, crew and spare parts (more or less what happened IRL to the Soviet Navy post USSR break up).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, most of the canon materials focuses on ground forces rather than air and sea power - which makes sense anyway as ships and aircraft are both very resource hungry (just the amount of fuel they burn is horrendous!).

You're right, but there brief descriptions of major naval engagements off Norway and the Kola Peninsula, and in the Aegean (the Greeks taking out a NATO fast convoy on its way to Turkey with supplies) so I don't know what to think about why no mention was made of naval warfare on the Black Sea.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's no surprise there's nothing mentioned about an attempt to break into the Black Sea - just the brief assessment I made in my previous post would be enough for even the most offensive minded commander to scrub the whole idea as suicidal. It'd be on par with dropping paratroops into Berlin in 1942 and expecting them to survive more than a day!

You're so right that I doubt anyone tried!

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

This of course raises the small question of what happened to the Soviet Black fleet? My thoughts are taken out by airstrikes, nukes and maybe subs (probably Turkish assets) with the remainder relegated to rusting wharf queens due to lack of fuel, ammunition, crew and spare parts (more or less what happened IRL to the Soviet Navy post USSR break up).

I think you're right. Did you read that article I posted the link to about B-1Bs training to take out the Black Sea fleet just last month? Bonkers!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Did you read that article I posted the link to about B-1Bs training to take out the Black Sea fleet just last month. Bonkers!

I read almost everything.
Also, fix the damn thread title will you? It's driving me mad!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I read almost everything.

That's not a yes.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Also, fix the damn thread title will you? It's driving me mad!

Oh, man! Thanks for catching that. I looked at it a bunch of times but didn't notice the mistake. My brain kept filling in the blank for me so I saw "Black" instead of "Back". Trippy!

-

[Raellus]

Someone else found this and pointed it out to me. From Mediterranean Cruise:

THE WAR

"As a member of NATO, Turkey had no objections to going
to war against its traditional enemy, the Soviets (the name
changed, but the hatred remained). The fact that the Greeks
were opposed to the war only made it that much more attractive
to the Turks. The whole affair was a formula for disaster.
Turkey's role in the war was limited at first. A few air strikes
against Soviet shipping in the Black Sea, and a naval sortie or
two into the same area-they always ended in disaster for the
Turkish forces, but the fact that they were striking at Soviets
was a pleasant thought to most Turks." (p. 35)

This gives me a little something to work with, so I'll take it.

[Southernap]

So in real life, from what I had read the US Navy wasn't interested until very late into the 1980s about going into Black Sea with anything. The transit thru the Dardanelles is very tight and restrictive water way, see this video of a tanker doing it, sped up footage. Note you can see this video of a submarine, probably a Type 209 in transit on the surface. Can you really imagine a 688 hull (LA class) or a 637 hull (Sturgeon class) trying to transit thru the area? They would have to surface and with potentially hostile forces along the shoreline with ATGMs or even land based AScMs, if not shore based artillery. Its dangerous and as the engagements off Yemen in the last decade have shown its dangerous to have a ship in range of shore based AScMs. Let alone minefields from either the Turks or the Greeks (or both) in the approaches to the straits?

In addition if you look up how the Turkish Navy is arranged from 1952 thru to even now. They are primarily aimed at their classic enemies of the Greeks and the Arabs on the Eastern Med. So most of their basing is in the Aegean and Eastern Med. There wasn't a feeling that anything in the Black Sea would last longer than an ice cube in the Sahara at high noon in the summer.

That said, the US Navy did do a FON into the Black Sea in 1988. Here is some videos of the Russian/Soviet response to that:
Video 1
Video 2

From most of the Eastern Med is very hard to navigate large naval forces and it isn't very deep water in most locations (averages about 5k ft/1.5km; with the deepest is about 16k ft/4.8km near the waters off Greece) for reference the RMS Titanic is about 12.5k Ft/3.8km down in the Atlantic. From what I have read, the NATO and USN doctrine from the late 70s thru to the 80s; was to allow for the Soviet Black Sea Fleet sortie. Allow for Greece and Turkey fight in and around the Aegean using missile boats and their submarines to whittle down forces. After which what remained would be engaged by the US 6th Fleet, Italian and French Naval Forces arranged in various carrier battle groups (Around the Clemenceau, or CdG in French; and the Garibaldi in Italy). Using Italian and French land based air cover to help protect the fleet and cover the convoys operating in the Med. All while trying to contain the expect Soviet breakout from the Med into either the Indian Ocean or into the Atlantic.

All of which again, means why go into the Black Sea and the tight maneuvering areas of the Aegean, when you have more room even in the Eastern Med, with any sort of fleet?

Finally, remember that the Crimea was where the Soviets had their Black Seas fleet based Naval Aviation units that included long range bombers, such as the Tu-16s, Tu-22s, Tu-22Ms, Tu-95s. In addition to whatever was assigned to the PVO for strike and fighter aircraft. So honestly, why put any surface forces at risk to these missile carrying units that could maximize their load outs and their cycle times (launch, weapons release, recovery) from detection to missile firing?

[mpipes]

My Campaign History:

In late February 1998, a NATO carrier and amphibious group that includes the USS Kennedy, USS Truman, HMS Invincible, USS Kearsarge (configured as a sea control ship with 16 AV-8Bs and 8 AH-1Ws), Príncipe de Asturias, Foch, USS New Jersey, USS Salem, and HMS Belfast enter the Black Sea to execute Operation Black Devil. In conjunction with remaining Ukrainian, Romanian, and Turkish airpower, the NATO force essentially destroys the Black Sea Fleet, hunting down and sinking most of the remaining surface ships and putting the remaining naval bases out of action. Truman suffers serious damage, striking a mine, and HMS Invincible is torpedoed by a Tango, suffering significant hull damage requiring at least ten weeks in dry dock to repair. Belfast suffers a missile hit, causing damage to her upper works, and Salem suffers minor damage from three hits from 150mm gun rounds. Several other ships are damaged as well. Ukraine launches a ground offensive at the same time into Crimea, but it is unable to make much headway against stubborn Soviet resistance.

[Raellus]

@Southernap: Thanks for the info, insight, and resources.

Based on the preponderance of the evidence, it looks like Med Cruise got it right.

I never envisioned a NATO foray into the Black Sea, nor a Red Fleet sortie out of it. In either case, I think the interloper would get their hat handed to them or, even if they succeeded, strategically, it wouldn't be worth the cost in losses.

I think it's most plausible that Turkey and the Soviets spar a bit at sea after Turkey's invasion of Bulgarian Thrace on Christmas Day, 1996, resulting in limited naval engagements in which the Soviets come out on top.

The Greeks declare war on Turkey in January '97. As you pointed out, the pre-war Turkish navy was more oriented towards and focused on the Med. That's where their focus would return, and remain, after fighting breaks out on Cyprus.

I think the NATO of T2k would essentially cede the Black Sea to the WTO and focus on regaining control of the Med (from the Italian and Greek navies).

[Legbreaker]

Yes there's not much point in NATO trying to take the Black Sea. I personally can't see any great advantage in doing so, but there's a whole lot of disadvantages. Sure it'd be nice to control it, but the cost...

[Raellus]

There's another reference in canon that implies Soviet dominance of the Black Sea by

"The best Soviet troops had been shipped further south to Bulgaria and by May had managed to halt the Turkish drive." (emphasis added)

-v1 ref's manual, p. 25

Technically, one can "ship" things by land or by air, but I take this word to signify its more traditional meaning of "move by sea". Since the Romanian army hadn't collapsed yet- that wouldn't happen until September- the most logical way for those Soviet troops to have gotten to Bulgaria is by sea. This would strongly suggest that the Turkish and Romanian naval presence in the Black Sea had been eliminated by May, 1997.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It's worth noting that this time period is also when the Soviets were experimenting with ekranoplans (chiefly on the Caspian Sea), so it would seem the Soviets were paying a lot of attention to maritime actions in that part of the world.
Given that situation along with the lack of significant mentions in canon. I think you have a lot of leeway for the Black Sea area.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Soviet Minister of Defence, Dmitriy Ustinov, authorised a programme of 120 Orlyonok-class ekranoplans to be built for deployment primarily on the Black Sea and Baltic Sea. The number was later reduced to approximately 20-30 but when he died in 1985, the project was cancelled with only a few ekranoplans of various classes having been completed.

[Raellus]

Great suggestion. I'm a big fan of Soviet ground-effect aircraft. There was just something about them that I found scary, as a late Cold War kid. I'll definitely include mention in my write up of Black Sea naval actions.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I didn't hear much about the Soviet ekranoplans until the the mid-1990s and the lack of information made them very mysterious which just served to make them seem very exotic.
It'll be great to see something that makes use of them and taps into the mystery surrounding them (when something gets called the "Caspian Sea Monster", it practically begs to be used in a scenario or two!).

That'll be a nice counter to the handful of people who talk about them as failures because it's a "plane that can't fly properly" (yes I have seen this type of comment on some videos, they described ekranoplans as failures because they could only fly a few metres above the ground - missing the entire point of a ground effect vehicle).

[RN7]

The narrow strait called the Bosporus and Dardanelles that links Europe with Asia, and the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Sea, is under the complete control of Turkey and NATO.

It is very hard to force the Bosporus/Dardanelles. The Byzantines held it for centuries until the Turks captured Constantinople (modern Istanbul) which straddles both sides of the Bosporus in the late 15th Century that led to the formation of the modern nation of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. The Russian have wanted to control the Dardanelles ever since but have never been able to capture it. The British Empire tried to capture it in the First World War. It led to the disaster known as the Gallipoli Campaign. Australia and New Zealand still shake their heads in dismay at the number of casualties it cost.

The Black Sea is also quite small in area compared with the Mediterranean. It can easily be dominated by airpower. The southern shore is under NATO control, the northern shore is under Soviet/Russian control. Any large naval force than enters the Black Sea would be quickly taken apart by land based air forces, but there could be some smaller naval actions with patrol boats and fast attack craft along the coasts of Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and maybe the Ukraine, Russia and Georgia.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I didn't hear much about the Soviet ekranoplans until the the mid-1990s and the lack of information made them very mysterious which just served to make them seem very exotic.
It'll be great to see something that makes use of them and taps into the mystery surrounding them (when something gets called the "Caspian Sea Monster", it practically begs to be used in a scenario or two!).

That'll be a nice counter to the handful of people who talk about them as failures because it's a "plane that can't fly properly" (yes I have seen this type of comment on some videos, they described ekranoplans as failures because they could only fly a few metres above the ground - missing the entire point of a ground effect vehicle).

Hot off the digital press:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...on-the-caspian

And I included one in my current T2k-related project.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Nice!
For myself, once information began appearing on the internet about ekranoplans I went on a mad spree looking up everything I could find about them. This lead to wandering through a whole field of Wing In Ground-effect vehicles. While we typically hear about the Soviet WIG vehicles, there's a slew of designs in the civilian world that we rarely hear about.

China has also experimented with wing in ground effect craft but on the civilian front (some designs are however, offered for police or military maritime operations).
Where it gets interesting for us as gamers though, is that Germany also designed some small WIG craft for civilian use. The first design was produced in 1970 and the second design in 1977. Further developments were pursued up to the early 2000s but some of those designs were produced in the 1980s and early 1990s. The company behind all this, Fischer Flugmechanik, was located in Mönchengladbach in West Germany and as far as I have checked, they were still in business after 2011.

These smaller WIG craft make for some unusual vehicles for the PCs for a particular adventure or as something a little strange for the PCs to stumble across.
Some links for those who want to find out more or want to convert some of these smaller WIG types to game stats (although the early designs were typically two or four place only, they could carry approximately 200kg of cargo): -
Fischer Flugmechanik
http://fischer-flugmechanik.com/site...enu=background
https://sites.google.com/site/hoverwingwigcraft/Home
Data sheets
https://archive.is/20130927225354/ht...datasheets.htm

[Raellus]

Do any of our naval experts here happen to have a list of Soviet Black Sea Fleet vessels c. 1988 (i.e. late Cold War)? I've done a bit of internet sleuthing and haven't had much luck. Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

And I'm just going to repost this here, as the Hurricane was, at one time, based in the Black Sea:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...uan-hydrofoils

-

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Do any of our naval experts here happen to have a list of Soviet Black Sea Fleet vessels c. 1988 (i.e. late Cold War)?

I got a copy of IISS: The Military Balance (1989) here and it lists the following (I kept the original format, put the cited text in italics, with brackets and regular text used for my notes).

BLACK SEA FLEET: (HQ Sevastopol): (97,000). [The number seems to give total personnel]
BASES: Sevastopol, Balaclava, Poti, Odessa.
SUBMARINES: 28: tactical 26: 2 SSG, 24 SS; other
roles: 2.
PRINCIPAL SURFACE COMBATANTS: 65: 10 cruisers,
18 destroyers, 37 frigates.
OTHER SURFACE SHIPS: 80 patrol and coastal
combatants, 63 mine warfare, 15 amph, some
I 50 spt and misc. ["spt" stands for support here.]
NAVAL AVIATION:
105 cbt ac; 80 cbt hel. ["cbt ac" for combat aircraft, "cbt hel" for combat helicopters.]
BOMBERS: 80: 2 regt with 40 Tu-26; I with 25
Tu-16; I with 15 Tu-22.
ASW:
AIRCRAFT: 25 Be-l2.
HELICOPTERS: 80: Ka-25, Ka-27, Mi-14.
MR/EW:
AIRCRAFT: 40: 25 Tu-I6, 10 Tu-22, 5 An-12;
HELICOPTERS: 5 Ka-25.
MCM: 5 Mi-14 hel.
TANKERS: 5 Tu-I 6.
NAVAL INFANTRY:
I bde: 5 bn: 3,000.["bde" stands for brigade, "bn" for battalion, the number is again for total personnel.]

I also have the 1990 issue, but not 1988. Unfortunately cruisers, destroyers and frigates were not differentiated. You could check for the Russian and Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Navy) and deduce from there. The Ukrainians didn't build anything major since then and the article on the Russians has dates of commission listed. The old types today were the newish types back then. But that's as accurate as I can give you.

[Raellus]

Thanks, Ursus. That's a helpful start. I'd like to get a ship class (eg Krivak, Udaloy, etc.) breakdown, if possible. Actual ship names would be ideal, but that might be asking a bit much.

-

[Mahatatain]

This may not be particularly relevant for this discussion but, regarding Turkish naval forces in the Black Sea, are you aware of Bartin Naval Base?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart%C4%B1n_Naval_Base

I suspect that any subs based there wouldn't have lasted very long against the Soviet Black Sea Fleet though.....

[Raellus]

Thanks, Mahatatain. I did not know about that place. The v1 timeline has Turkey attack the Warsaw Pact (Bulgaria) first, so it's likely the Turkish Navy sortied all of their operational subs first, but I imagine the Soviets would go after that sub base sooner or later. I wonder how they'd try to take it out. Earth penetrator bombs? Nuclear torpedo? AFAIK, there's no canonical nuclear target list for Turkey.

-

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thanks, Mahatatain. I did not know about that place. The v1 timeline has Turkey attack the Warsaw Pact (Bulgaria) first, so it's likely the Turkish Navy sortied all of their operational subs first, but I imagine the Soviets would go after that sub base sooner or later. I wonder how they'd try to take it out. Earth penetrator bombs? Nuclear torpedo? AFAIK, there's no canonical nuclear target list for Turkey.

-

It's quite a small base I think so my guess is that the Soviets wouldn't waste large munitions on it. I think that the Soviet military would be able to destroy any Turkish subs before they returned to that base to rearm after completing their pre-emptive missions. Essentially I see Turkish subs in the Black Sea as having a short lifespan so once they are destroyed why bother to knock out their base?

[Ursus Maior]

Back in the day, every military base was worth a nuke or two, at least air-delivered tactical nukes or by cruise missile. The amount of warheads available was insanely high, so usage was practically mandatory according to the aphorism "use it or loose it".

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thanks, Ursus. That's a helpful start. I'd like to get a ship class (eg Krivak, Udaloy, etc.) breakdown, if possible. Actual ship names would be ideal, but that might be asking a bit much.

-

Wikipedia is a good place for research here as all Soviet/Russian types of destroyers have a total list of produced ships with names and yards available. Yards almost ever give away the fleet, it's noted if otherwise. So for 1988-1990 timeframe we have:

Destroyers

• Kotlin-class: Byvalvyy, Besslednyy, Burlivyy, Blagorodnyy, Blestyashchyy, Plammeny, Naporystyy (all ASW-variant), Bravyy (SAM-variant Type 56K, not the the Type 56A SAM variant, not sure what's the difference, though).
• Kashin-class: Komsomolets Ukrainy, Soobrazitelnyy, Provornyy, Krasny Kavkaz, Reshitelnyy, Strogiy, Smetlivy, Krasny Krym, Sposobnyy, Skoryy (all baseline Project 61; note: Orel, later Otvazhny sank in 1974 after a missile fire accident), Stroynyy (decommissioned in 1990), Smyshlenyy (both Project 61MP; note: Smelyy was leased in 1988 to Poland, becoming ORP Warszawa), plus Sderzhanny (Project 61M).
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanin-...stroyer-class: Gnevnyy, Upornyy, Boykiy. The latter two were decommissioned in 1987 and 1988 respectively.

Not totally sure if the count adds up with that of Military Balance, though. There might be a difference there of 1-2 vessels.

Frigates

I presume Military Balance lists corvettes as frigates, at least when it comes to the Soviet Union. Denominations vary a lot in navies. The problem is, the USSR built a lot of ship types and often several iterations of the same type for different tasks. Also, they built stuff that looks funky to Western analysts or gamers like me, e. g. a hover craft corvette, which might qualify as a coastal combatant, but at 1,000+ tons might also be to large for that. So, I cannot really tell you what Military Balance counts as what. Wikipedia has a nice list of ship types however.

• Project 1135 (Krivak I): 7 ships, names as per link.
• Project 11351 Nerey (Krivak III): 9 ships, names as per link above.
• Bora-class hovercraft: the aforementioned fast-attack hover corvette; 1 commissioned in 1989, 1 to follow in 1992.
• Grisha-class corvette: At least 3 were in service in the Russian navy after 2000 and they were of the Grisha I and III classes. Probably more were built for the Black Sea Fleet.

The lack of modern Udaloys and Sovremenny destroyers is immediately noted, but can be explained by the disadvantageous position of the Black Sea Fleet, which indeed has everything to do with the Black Sea itself. It's a marginal sea that locks the USSR from accessing the Mediterranean Sea, which itself is marginal as well, but of course of huge strategical importance. Also, the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits governs access to and from the Black Sea and puts limits on what the Soviets could transit to and from the Black Sea without infringing upon the sovereignty of Turkey. Turkey itself had a Black Sea presence, but was hardly in a position to attack the USSR by amphibian operations. So, the Black Sea Fleet became somewhat of a stepchild of USSR naval plannings.

[Raellus]

Thanks so much, Ursus. I really appreciate you going to all that trouble.

I went through my copy of Encyclopedia of Warships (Robert Jackson, 2006) last night and found references to the following vessels also being part of the Black Sea Fleet during the late Cold War period.

2 Sverdlov class gun cruisers: Admiral Ushakov,
1 Kynda class rocket cruister: Admiral Golovko
2 Slava class guided missile cruisers: Marshal Ustinov*, Admiral Lobov**

X Mirka I & II class FFLs (apparently all of them served in the Black Sea)

2 Alligator Class landing ships

For submarines, I found a Tango prototype, a Whiskey 'Twin Cylinder', and a Kilo fitted with pumpjet propulsion. I doubt that's it. I'll have to poke around some more on Wikipedia and see what else I can dig up.

*According to Wikipedia, the Marshal Ustinov is part of the Northern Fleet and the Moskva is part of the Black Sea Fleet, but that is current operational status.

**This vessel was ceded to Ukraine upon dissolution of the USSR (where it is known as the Ukrayina)- I'm assuming that the Soviets would have held on to it had the USSR not dissolved.

-

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thanks so much, Ursus. I really appreciate you going to all that trouble.

I went through my copy of Encyclopedia of Warships (Robert Jackson, 2006) last night and found references to the following vessels also being part of the Black Sea Fleet during the late Cold War period.

2 Sverdlov class gun cruisers: Admiral Ushakov,
1 Kynda class rocket cruister: Admiral Golovko
2 Slava class guided missile cruisers: Marshal Ustinov*, Admiral Lobov**

X Mirka I & II class FFLs (apparently all of them served in the Black Sea)

2 Alligator Class landing ships

For submarines, I found a Tango prototype, a Whiskey 'Twin Cylinder', and a Kilo fitted with pumpjet propulsion. I doubt that's it. I'll have to poke around some more on Wikipedia and see what else I can dig up.

*According to Wikipedia, the Marshal Ustinov is part of the Northern Fleet and the Moskva is part of the Black Sea Fleet, but that is current operational status.

**This vessel was ceded to Ukraine upon dissolution of the USSR (where it is known as the Ukrayina)- I'm assuming that the Soviets would have held on to it had the USSR not dissolved.

-

The Marshal Ustinov was pretty certainly not part of the Black Sea Fleet as the local shipyard there had built Dzerzhinsky, Admiral Nakhimov, Mikhail Kutuzov and started Admiral Kornilov (never finished). The three Sverdlovs of the Black Sea Fleet had mixed service lives. Kutuzov was - officially - only decommissioned in 2000, but I don't know in what state. Certainly she had no battle value by then. Dzerzhinsky was decommissioned in 1989. That's about as long as I could imagine for a gun cruiser. Actually, it's 25 year to much...

There could have been a couple of Mirka-class frigates in the Black Sea by then, but I have nearly not info on that class. Also, it's funny they would be classed as frigates. At under 1,200 tons fully loaded, it's hardly in the ball park of even contemporary frigates. But hey, they got a radar, a HMS, a dipper, torpedoes, RBUs and four (!) 76 mm guns. So I guess they count. Mirkas were exclusively built in Kaliningrad, though. So, I don't know if any made the transfer.

The other cruisers were the Admiral Golovko (Kynda), the flagship fleet of the Black Sea Fleet back then. Then the Moskva (Slava), which is still in service today. The main force in the Black Sea Fleet were three of the seven Kara-class guided-missile cruisers, Nikolayev, Ochakov, Kerch and Azov. The other three went to the Pacific fleet. The Karas were essentially enlarged Kresta II-class cruisers and at 8,000-10,000 tons they packed quite a punch.

Submarines: I have no clue as my data is sparse there. But they built Tangos in that lake and I know of some Kilos. So my bet is on those plus Foxtrots and Whiskeys, because there were 250+ Whiskeys built by the USSR and I'll be damned if none made it to the Black Sea.