OT: Seven US aircraft carriers have been sunk in the past 30 years.

[Raellus]

Thanks for the info, RN7. I could have used this in my In Defense of the Red Army arguments.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...fense+Red+Army

At the height of the Cold War, the USN was no doubt the most powerful navy in the world, but it clearly wasn't the invincible juggernaut that we'd like to imagine. As these exercises clearly demonstrate, the USN was pretty conclusively not invincible and, at the very least, the Soviet Navy in its prime could have given it a seriously bloody nose or two. This is especially so if you add in the X-factor of command.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thanks for the info, RN7. I could have used this in my In Defense of the Red Army arguments.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...fense+Red+Army

At the height of the Cold War, the USN was no doubt the most powerful navy in the world, but it clearly wasn't the invincible juggernaut that we'd like to imagine. As these exercises clearly demonstrate, the USN was pretty conclusively not invincible and, at the very least, the Soviet Navy in its prime could have given it a seriously bloody nose or two. This is especially so if you add in the X-factor of command.

I think it's difficult to judge how the Soviet Navy would have fared against the US Navy in wartime has it never happened. Unlike the US Navy the Soviets used a large number of conscripts in their navy, although maybe not so many in their submarine service which was likely to have been the elite of their navy.

Known and covered up fatal accidents aboard Soviet submarines points to reliability problems and sub-standard levels of training, but Soviet nuclear submarine technology was advanced enough to cause NATO some headaches. From the late 1970's the Soviets incorporated light and strong titanium hulls on their nuclear submarines, which enabled smaller size, greater diving depths, reduction in radiated noise and increase resistance to torpedo attacks. Victor III, Sierra and Alpha Class nuclear submarines were faster, more maneuverable and deeper diving than any American submarine up to the Los Angeles Class. The Alpha Class with a lead cooled fast reactor had a top speed of well over 40 knots and a claimed dive depth of 800 meters, which alarmed the US Navy enough to develop the ADCAP torpedo program and the Sea Lance missile programs projects, and the British to develop the high-speed Spearfish torpedo.

However the Soviet were clearly intimidated by US Navy air power and had a very healthy respect for NATO submarines. Their two main assets for eliminating US naval air power were nuclear submarines and bombers with long ranged anti-ship missiles as they knew they couldn't match the US Navy carrier fleet in numbers or capabilities. Their first proper carriers; the Kiev's, were basically hybrid-missile cruisers with an air arm heavily biased towards ASW operations. In fact all major Soviet surface warships seemed to be defensively orientated and almost top heavy with either air defence or ASW weapons. When the Soviet started reaching parity with America across a number of military areas in the 1970's a more offensive mind set seems to have taken hold in Soviet naval doctrine. The Kuznetsov Class emerged from the drawing board in this period as did the Kirov class battlecruiser anomaly, which seems to have been designed to bludgeon its way out into the north Atlantic and eliminate the NATO threat to its emerging carrier arm and nuclear missile submarines.

Results from exercises with NATO and Western aligned navies may be a bit unfair on the US Navy. Smaller NATO navies are very professional and they can specialise more and their smaller subs are better suited for littoral operations, while their equipment and tactics are very different to the Soviets. In regards to US nuclear subs versus AIP diesel subs, generally once the US sub commanders learns the tactics of opposing AIP subs the results are more in favour of the US submarines.

[Raellus]

Perhaps I overstated my argument. I'm not asserting that the Red Banner Fleet would or even could spank the USN. I'm concluding that the USN wouldn't experience the cake walk some blindered superfans think it would.

It's true that the Soviet submarine fleet has experienced some catastrophic accidents but the USN has not been immune to embarrassing mishaps either. There have been several incidents where US subs have collided with each other or with surface combatants, and a couple of alleged incidents where US and Soviet/Russian subs have collided with one another. I went on a San Diego harbor tour last summer and saw a USN amphib being repaired after a USN destroyer collided with it (ending both captains' careers, according to the tour guide).

Also, about 7 years ago, an US ELINT/map exercise set in the Mediterranean resulted in a CVN and a couple of its escorts being 'sunk' by Libyan gun and missile boats.

And don't forget when the Tico-class missile cruiser mistook an Iranian airliner for an F-4 Phantom and shot it down.

Bottom line is, the USN is not invulnerable and error-proof. A particularly well-led Soviet naval force could wreak havoc on a poorly-led American/NATO one. The law of averages would result in at least a couple of significant Soviet naval victories in a WWIII scenario. To think otherwise would fall into the trap of hubris and we all know where that leads. That's my argument.

[RN7]

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.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

And don't forget when the Tico-class missile cruiser mistook an Iranian airliner for an F-4 Phantom and shot it down.

oddly enough, that event occurred 25 years ago today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Raellus]

I still have a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Quito to my international (mostly American) school warning parents, staff, and students of possible retaliation for the airliner incident. Those were some pretty tense times. EDIT: I just took another look at it and it was dated September 22, 1987, so it must have been about some of the 'tanker wars' stuff that preceded the IA shoot-down incident. Still, the Soviets weren't America's only antagonists during the '80s.


The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

[Adm.Lee]

The "Boomer" timeline sets the big/final North Sea battle as part of NATO's June '97 offensive towards Murmansk from far-northern Norway. No mention of anti-air activity in Norway, but it's certainly possible. Or, NATO pulled a lot of air into the Central Front battle, since that's getting towards its climax in eastern Poland in June as well.

Originally Posted by Raellus

The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea. Control of the Norwegian Sea was a fundamental naval priority of NATO and the Soviet Union, as although a general war such as the Twilight War would not be won in the Norwegian Sea it could easily be lost their.

Until the development of nuclear submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles the Norwegian Sea and the northern polar region were of limited importance to all major powers. By the Twilight War period it had become highly important to the strategic interests of the United States, the Soviet Union and their allies. The dynamics of anti-submarine and ballistic missile technology had also led to a constantly evolving significance of the region.

When the Soviet first deployed ballistic missile submarines they had to reach launching positions in the western Atlantic to strike the continental United States. NATO stopped them in their tracks when they established the GIUK Gap. This forced to Soviets to develop longer ranged missiles which enabled them to fire from the Barents and Polar seas. By the late 1980's Soviet submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles were considered first strike capable, and 75% of their SSBN's could reach any target in the USA, Western Europe, Japan, and China from launching positions in Arctic waters, and in the case of the Typhoon and Delta IV from beneath ice packs. Although this lessened the importance of access to Atlantic waters for Soviet nuclear forces, controlling the Norwegian Sea remained highly important. To maintain the capability to launch a nuclear attack or counter strike on the USA the Soviet Navy had to protect these strategic assets by devoting a major part of its attack submarines, surface vessels, and aircraft to be used in an anti-submarine role. It also led to the development of several new types of attack submarines and cruise missiles to tackle increasingly more advanced US and NATO naval forces in the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic. The Soviets also had to defend their homeland through control of the Norwegian Sea, and in wartime it was necessary to be able to cut the sea-lanes of communication between North America and Europe and attack and destroy NATO forces.

For NATO it pushed its naval priorities beyond the GIUK Gap and into the Norwegian Sea and the Arctic. US and British nuclear submarines were now tasked with hunting Soviet SSBN's in northern waters and tackling improving Soviet attack submarines and anti-submarine defences. Changing US Navy naval strategy from the early 1980's based on the principals of deterrence, forward defence, and offensive warfare also proposed sending US carrier battle groups into the Norwegian Sea to strike at Soviet bases in the Kola Peninsula. This put further pressure on NATO to defend these expensive and irreplaceable assets, and meant that control of the Norwegian Sea was more important. Also if NATO lost control of the Norwegian Sea then Norway and probably Denmark would be lost too, allowing the Soviets to force the GIUK Gap and gain access to the Atlantic to cut sea lines of communications. Losing control in the Norwegian Sea makes it almost impossible for sufficient surveillance in this area, and would allow the Soviet Union access to Norwegian airfields from which they can operate bombers and fighters. If the Soviets also gained control of Iceland then almost any important part of Europe will be within range of Soviet bombers.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by RN7

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea. Control of the Norwegian Sea was a fundamental naval priority of NATO and the Soviet Union, as although a general war such as the Twilight War would not be won in the Norwegian Sea it could easily be lost their.

Given that the Soviets struck first in this theater, I suspect there was plenty of action, it just didn't get mentioned?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea.

Me too. Perhaps the Battle of the Norwegian Sea was a series of linked battles, kind of like those surrounding the campaign for Guadalcanal, albeit covering a shorter period of time. More likely, it was a multi-day battle involving multiple task forces, a-la the Battle of Leyte Gulf.