The Insanely Armed, Briefly Feared, Abandoned Soviet Aircraft Cruisers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 жов 2021
- For decades, the Soviet Navy terrorized the NATO Allies in the ocean with a mighty carrier fleet.
In stark contrast to their American counterparts, the Russian aircraft carriers were equipped with so many weapons that they did not need escorts to carry out their dangerous missions.
However, once the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the legendary fleet began to wither away.
Although some of the vessels continued to serve under a different flag after being bought by other countries, others, like the Kiev-class carrier Minsk, suffered a different fate: becoming a theme park in China.
I was in the USN during the Cold War, these ships weren't exactly terrifying. We worried a lot more about the submarines.
I can assure you that Soviet subs were much more on our minds then the Soviet surface fleet.
Yea the Soviet carriers didn't terrorize anyone except the poor Russian sailors that served on them.
I think Trump is interested in buying it and turning it into an overpriced hotel.
In the late 70s, the Royal Navy sent a submarine to record Kiev. It was in the middle of an exercise with other Russian navy units. So they sailed in behind it, went underneath and 10’ below its keel, recorded it. Then they left, undetected.
"For decades the Soviet Navy terrorized the NATO allies on the ocean with mighty carrier fleet". NATO was much more worried about Oscar II class submarines than Kuznetsov and Kiev class, Aircraft carrying heavy cruisers.
The last time the Admiral Kuznetsov sailed, she got less than a day out of port, suffered a complete failure of her engineering plant, and, had to be towed back. That was 2015. She's been in drydock ever since.
Imagine how degrading it must have felt seeing your massive war machines purchased after losing, then being turned into a play zone for children lol
They may have been heavily armed so as to not need any escorts, but they did seem to have needed sea going tugs to bring them home due to faulty powerplants. Their carrier based planes couldn't (and still can't) take off with a full load of fuel and weapons rendering them as short range weapons at best. The mistake the Soviets seemed to have made was to attempt to spring a fully grown carrier fleet without taking the smaller steps necessary to acquire the expertise to design, build, maintain, arm, and man them for the long run. They were a solution in search of a problem and probably detracted more from Soviet naval strength than they added. Compared to the impressive Soviet submarine fleet they were nothing more than a side show.
And we wonder why Russia can even win against poor little Ukraine.
Having served in the UK navy during the the Cold War, I can promise you, no one was scared of the Soviet surface fleet, especially the carriers. They were all badly built and killed more of their own sailors than any enemy.
Main reason Soviet carriers were called "aircraft carrying cruisers" has nothing to do with their intended role. It was all due to treaties regarding the Bosporus straight. Treaties prevented aircraft carriers from crossing the straight, however cruisers were not barred. So they simply called their carriers cruisers so that they could enter and leave the Black Sea.
Back in 1985 I was on board the USS Kirk as we chased the Novorossiysk and its battle group from the Sea of Japan to somewhere near Hawaii. We got some nice close up views of the ship and its flight operations along the way... It was pretty cool.
A heavily armed Russian ship is not that terrifying. The Moskva is a perfect example of why these heavily armed ships are uniquely vulnerable due to their large armament load. A single ship cannot evade a multiple missile launch. One will get through, and when it does, the ship goes up like a fireworks factory.
Officially the 'aircraft carrying cruiser' designation is due to agreements that the navies would not bring carriers into the black sea. The Japanese are prevented from having aircraft carriers (by their constitution) so they have 'large aircraft carrying cruisers (initially referred to as large destroyers).'
They do look pretty badass. I like the different 'styles' of military design between the west & east
I'm not sure as to why, but seeing a "Red Bull" sponsorship umbrella just outside the Minsk is kinda funny. 🤔😳🤭
You are grossly overstating the psychological impact these vessels may have had on the U.S. Navy. It takes a lot to get USN staff worked-up over something like this.
"...among other powerful weapons."
That opening statement made me laugh. The Soviets had some scary stuff, but their “carrier fleet” wasn’t one of them.