Romanov Ascendant: What if the Soviet Union survived?

[Rajveer Naha]

There is one obstacle to massive protests forming is that the Red Army doctrine was to enter the city deep in the night and by morning soldiers used to be everywhere and warnings to stay indoors blared on loudspeakers. This strategy didn't work out in OTL several times because of lack of political will which is undoubtedly preset ITTL. This allowed only small protests to form. But given that bullets were flying it is highly unlikely that anyone would charge at the crowd. People flee as soon as bullets fly and if the troops maintain cohesion then the crowd can be broken up into smaller and more manageable units.

I am curious from where does this underground network of Islamists enter th Soviet Union. Certainly China has brains to not allow them to operate from its territory. Soviets are already fighting in Afghanistan so militants entering from there is bound to be low. The northern Tajiks, Uzbek and Turkmens in Afghanistan were quite pro Soviet.

 

[Justinian]

There is one obstacle to massive protests forming is that the Red Army doctrine was to enter the city deep in the night and by morning soldiers used to be everywhere and warnings to stay indoors blared on loudspeakers. This strategy didn't work out in OTL several times because of lack of political will which is undoubtedly preset ITTL. This allowed only small protests to form. But given that bullets were flying it is highly unlikely that anyone would charge at the crowd. People flee as soon as bullets fly and if the troops maintain cohesion then the crowd can be broken up into smaller and more manageable units.

I am curious from where does this underground network of Islamists enter th Soviet Union. Certainly China has brains to not allow them to operate from its territory. Soviets are already fighting in Afghanistan so militants entering from there is bound to be low. The northern Tajiks, Uzbek and Turkmens in Afghanistan were quite pro Soviet.

Typically that would be the case, but I would chalk it up to two main factors, the first being the command cells and then the organizations that the KGB didn't get (Because of the haste of Operation Chesma or because they kept themselves too well hidden, it's generally a variety of possibilities), the only information that they had was that acts of terrorism were conducted in Baku, not that a mass protest was planned. The second was the policy of the military, to use Armenian units, rather than Azeri; the subtext is that Yanayev and Grigorev knew the likely consequences of this, but wanted to make a statement to the silent majority of Baku, of what could happen if you openly disregard the authority of the Communist Party. There is a minor parallel to the OTL events of Black January. I do agree with you on the logic, typically people will run when bullets start to fly, but factors to consider are that at that point

1. Rubber bullets were already fired all day, from saiga semi automatic shotguns. And live rounds were fired from the building, as warning shots so there was an element of desensitization. Then there was also confusion, gas and smoke were going all around. Smoke from the molotovs, burning buildings, the gas especially.
2. At the moment that the radicals/militants/terrorists or etc attacked and the soldiers fired at the crowd, the vast majority of the crowd tried to escape and ran into streets covered with troops that detained or arrested them, or did in fact manage to get away. Most soldiers only fired in the general direction of those they perceived to be attacking them, but some went wild and fired in the direction of the fleeing crowd which amounted to many of the casualties.

Then we get the inevitable results of people being penned in, stampeding and soldiers going wild with batons.

What I wanted to illustrate in 'Bold Meetings', that many of these homegrown organizations, that either radicalized over time, or were radicalized with the aid of foreign intelligence. Charismatic figures selected out of cadres to create cells, CCTV surveillance hadn't become universal as it will in the Soviet Union in time, but taking from a history of dissenters in the 70s and early 80s, I reasoned it would be possible for these organizations to exist and become magnets for the disaffected. People who had fallen through the cracks of surveillance, either by oversight, compliance or incompetence, that had lost family to prosecution or etc. People like the Azeri in the story who had simply become disaffected. I like what I said to TerenceofGod, If even ten percent of the population is radically against you, and one percent of them are willing to be violent, that's a very strong recruiting ground.

Imagine what that Azeri in the story is going to do or would do if his brother was killed, despite his lack of politics, just because he wanted to see a spectacle and got caught up with the crowd. I like the ambiguity of that character and the possibility, was he the man who bombed the refinery, one of those who headed to the mountains, or one of the devoted who got gunned down molotoving a BMP?

On how they managed to get in, the CIA took advantage of preexisting smuggling routes, or the bribery of border guards or customs officials. The Turkish border especially, where in some instances tunnels could even be dug. China probably wouldn't have participated in such a direct aggression, especially as they weigh their options between the West and the Soviets. In Afghanistan, infiltration would be possible to some extent, although it would have to be well done, coordinated and at night, the Soviets were doing less to control the actual countryside, relying on air and artillery bombardments usually to manage the resistance there. But overall, it is as you said, the Soviets aren't really going to have that much of a problem in central Asia.

 

[Justinian]

Janes Defence 1993
The last few years have radically altered the progression and deployment of military technologies and equipment, on the land, sea and air fronts. In this post we'll examine what the continued conventional and nuclear arms race has resulted in. Firstly, I'd like to thank 22000 Kevin, for help on this, I was never as informed on naval matters as land or air. The Soviets had embarked on a naval build up, to create a force capable of challenging the the US in blue waters in some fronts, as well as to increase their force projection capabilities. The mainstay have been the Kirov Class Nuclear battlecruisers, so addition to the four that were built OTL, two additional were deployed, along with another two slated for finishing in 1994. The US kept it's Iowa Class Battleships in response, but these are becoming increasingly outdated, and instead the US focused most of it's naval procurement budget on an additional Nimitz Class Carrier to be named in honour of Ronald Reagan. One additional Ticonderoga class cruiser was also ordered. The Soviets planned a modernization of their Moskva Class Cruisers, but this was delayed to 1995 due to delays in the Yak-41 VTOL Aircraft program. To much American dismay, the Soviets had successfully launched two of the three Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers by 1993. The third was delayed due to reductions in the budget, and to commit more resources to the development of the supercarrier Ulyanovsk, which was nearing completion.

The Soviets continued their work on the Borei class, to compliment their nuclear arm, to be completed by 1997. One of the biggest divergences was their deployment of additional Akula Class attack submarines, managing to commission 16 by 1993, the later ones being even more advanced than their earlier variants. They were also retrofitted with MGK-540K sonar systems, the product of a more robust Soviet computer industry. They were more than a match for the Los Angeles Class, which led to the US Navy requesting and getting 5 additional Seawolf Class attack Submarines, the most advanced and expensive hunter killer Submarine in the USN's arsenal. But they wouldn't be ready until at least to 1998. Despite all of this, the USN still had dominance of the world's oceans, and the Soviets could only hope to be a regional foil, or to project power, increasingly making brash displays of their new ships on tours to Cuba, Venezuela, and implicitly to the eastern Mediterranean, even docking at Latakia in Syria. Israel was increasingly pressured, and with a less than sympathic president like Perot and unrest in Egypt, they had to maintain their vigilance more than ever.

US 'Keyhole' Satellite Photos of Soviet Naval construction

In the realm of aircraft, Soviet Engineers, Scientists and Technicians in the various design bureaus and closed cities worked tirelessly and around the clock analyzing the remnants of the captured F-117, F-15s, F-16s and of course the Apache. Even more importantly an AIM-120 AMRAAM that been fired by an American F-15 at a MiG-25, missed and landed in the desert, while it was in horrible condition, it provided insights that would prove crucial to the development of the Vympel R-77.

The Soviets continued both the production of a navalised variant of the MiG-29 and the SU-33, to be the mainstay of their carrier fleet in addition to the Yak-41.

The Soviets made great strides in the development of their stealth fighter program, aided by their dissection of the F-117, along with continued funding and personal interest from the General Secretary. Slated for it's maiden flight for the 1995 Victory parade, the MiG-37 (The Project 1.44) was the world's second stealth fighter.

The first were the YF-22 and YF-23, developed for the USAF. With a lot of contention, the YF-23 was selected to go into mass production by 1994. The future F-23 was slightly more advanced than the MiG-37 by a considerable margin, but the latter plane was helped by the capture of American avionics as well as the strong soviet computer industry and military-industrial complex. The Soviets had made brief forays into designing a flying wing type stealth bomber, which never left the drawing board. Instead, a stealth based replacement for the TU-22 was envisioned, called the Sukhoi T-60S.

The next update will detail the developments of land vehicles and infantry weapons...

 

[panpiotr]

interesting update!

 

[Lascaris]

The first were the YF-22 and YF-23, developed for the USAF. With a lot of contention, the YF-23 was selected to go into mass production by 1994. The future F-23 was slightly more advanced than the MiG-40

How come you jump from MiG-31 to 40 and how come MiG uses an even number? Assuming Izdeliye 33 became TTL MiG-33 as low cost supplement to Su-27/MiG-29 I'd expect Project 1.44 to become something like MiG-35.

And what's going on with the European aircraft industry? Presumably Rafale, Typhoon and JAS-39 are all entering service in their original schedules and numbers but with a continued cold war I'd think that development of follow on 5th generation designs is a given. Technologically you have of course both the British and the French delving into such even in OTL (although preciously little is known about the French unlike say Replica) but the politics should be interesting...

 

[Borya]

How come you jump from MiG-31 to 40 and how come MiG uses an even number? Assuming Izdeliye 33 became TTL MiG-33 as low cost supplement to Su-27/MiG-29 I'd expect Project 1.44 to become something like MiG-35.

And what's going on with the European aircraft industry? Presumably Rafale, Typhoon and JAS-39 are all entering service in their original schedules and numbers but with a continued cold war I'd think that development of follow on 5th generation designs is a given. Technologically you have of course both the British and the French delving into such even in OTL (although preciously little is known about the French unlike say Replica) but the politics should be interesting...

even for bomber or ground support. odd for fighter.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

great update. As I read it I had the voice of the late Sir Peter Alexander Ustinov who narrated Wings of the Red Star in my head as I read it.

 

[Justinian]

How come you jump from MiG-31 to 40 and how come MiG uses an even number? Assuming Izdeliye 33 became TTL MiG-33 as low cost supplement to Su-27/MiG-29 I'd expect Project 1.44 to become something like MiG-35.

And what's going on with the European aircraft industry? Presumably Rafale, Typhoon and JAS-39 are all entering service in their original schedules and numbers but with a continued cold war I'd think that development of follow on 5th generation designs is a given. Technologically you have of course both the British and the French delving into such even in OTL (although preciously little is known about the French unlike say Replica) but the politics should be interesting...

I think by the mid 90's, the MiG-35 designation may have been reserved for a planned upgrade of the MiG-29 which would have been in the cards. MiG 40 seemed like a radical jump, but 37 is a little more reasonable.

The European 4.5 Gen fighters are all entering service on their original schedules, with slightly larger numbers than OTL, because that initial budget reduction never occurred. I think the future is definitely further collaboration, just as the EU further develops and the economies of western Europe further integrate. A Pan European 5th Gen Fighter could start to see the light of day post 1995 or 1996 at least in terms of planning and funding.

 

[Lascaris]

I think by the mid 90's, the MiG-35 designation may have been reserved for a planned upgrade of the MiG-29 which would have been in the cards. MiG 40 seemed like a radical jump, but 37 is a little more reasonable.

The European 4.5 Gen fighters are all entering service on their original schedules, with slightly larger numbers than OTL, because that initial budget reduction never occurred. I think the future is definitely further collaboration, just as the EU further develops and the economies of western Europe further integrate. A Pan European 5th Gen Fighter could start to see the light of day post 1995 or 1996 at least in terms of planning and funding.

The problem remained to get the French and British aircraft industries to actually cooperate between themselves. Which on occasion was doable as seen with Concorde and Jaguar but otherwise both sides wanted to be the ones in the driving seat behind any European program...

 

[jessicajsscjs]

Wonderful TL!

 

[Justinian]

The problem remained to get the French and British aircraft industries to actually cooperate between themselves. Which on occasion was doable as seen with Concorde and Jaguar but otherwise both sides wanted to be the ones in the driving seat behind any European program...

Do you think it would be possible they would be able to cooperate? Maybe along the lines of the F-35 program, but in a tighter European style. The boogeyman of the Soviets could make for powerful motivation. As fighters become more advanced and expensive it would become clear that a national program couldn't achieve the necessary scale. Especially since by the mid and late 90s the west would be well aware that the Soviets were fielding Stealth Fighters.

 

[Have Blue-117]

This is just my suggestion but I don't think the British and French can reconcile national differences that come with preserving domestic aviation industries wrt to combat aircraft. I would keep the Rafale and eventual Typhoon separate aircraft but maybe change up the consortiums, have Spain, Belgium, and Greece buy the Rafale as they were already users of French combat aircraft (Dassaults bribery can help here too) while keeping the Typhoon a British and Italian project only as they seem to work well together and it wouldn't be delayed as much. Have Germany split from the Typhoon like they considered and buy either Gripens or the Hornet 2000 (they caused most of the Typhoons delays anyway). Fifth generation aircraft will run into the same problems because Britain and France both have domestic industries they want to preserve and it would be easier to accept that and have them work on separate programs to minimize delays and preserve the manufacturing in both nations.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

This is just my suggestion but I don't think the British and French can reconcile national differences that come with preserving domestic aviation industries wrt to combat aircraft. I would keep the Rafale and eventual Typhoon separate aircraft but maybe change up the consortiums, have Spain, Belgium, and Greece buy the Rafale as they were already users of French combat aircraft (Dassaults bribery can help here too) while keeping the Typhoon a British and Italian project only as they seem to work well together and it wouldn't be delayed as much. Have Germany split from the Typhoon like they considered and buy either Gripens or the Hornet 2000 (they caused most of the Typhoons delays anyway). Fifth generation aircraft will run into the same problems because Britain and France both have domestic industries they want to preserve and it would be easier to accept that and have them work on separate programs to minimize delays and preserve the manufacturing in both nations.

Agree with this I'd say the Germans should buy the Gripen. Also did the Falklands war still happen and is the Royal Navy returning to large carriers since the Russians have two carriers with at least 2 more building or are they gonna go the OTL route? If they stay VSTOL carriers maybe the supersonic harrier is built since the yak 41 is still in development

 

[Lascaris]

Do you think it would be possible they would be able to cooperate? Maybe along the lines of the F-35 program, but in a tighter European style. The boogeyman of the Soviets could make for powerful motivation. As fighters become more advanced and expensive it would become clear that a national program couldn't achieve the necessary scale. Especially since by the mid and late 90s the west would be well aware that the Soviets were fielding Stealth Fighters.

It depends really. First of all what IS the European reaction in the first place? And what is the American reaction beyond F-23? Just a few thoughts. I'm assuming that decisions in 1985-87 remained mostly

1. With the cold war going at full pace, there are no delays due to economic factors for Rafale. So it enters service in 1996 with the original 300+ orders. With it in service and continued cold war it has a near certain export customer in Europe in Greece and I think also a possible export customer in Belgium. JAS-39 remains also on schedule for 1998? What happens with Eurofighter though? Quite a few delays are due to the German re-unification yes, but another sizeable factor was the Germans insisting on different avionics and things being stalled from the disagreements. That's likely still happening but with Soviet armour in the inter-German border is a serious matter. Serious enough for Eurofighter even to collapse with the Brits ans Italians splitting from the Germans? Not impossible.

2. What IS the European reaction to Soviet stealth in the first place? We know a likely British response in BAe Replica and BAe P.125 (though note the TTL the Britisg still need a follow up to Tornado F3). The French FACE a single engined plane and probably some short of two engined follow up to Rafale, the latter potentially a heavily modified Rafale (after all Dassault did have this tendency to evolve new designs from her previous ones, not as entirely clean sheet ones). I could be wrong but a "stealth Rafale" derived from the existing design might be more practical than doing the same from Eurofighter. But this could be actually a problem. When the French show up with "hey here we have the stealth Rafale D(iscret) that will be ready for 2005 also please pay for our new one engined stealth fighter" the Eurofighter nations might not be entirely amused even if it's actually the most practical early response to 1.44 and one is certainly needed. I discount the Swedish since they are still strictly neutral. They will develop their stealth plane... then keep it mostly to themselves.

3. What is the US doing besides F-23? Agile Falcon and Hornet 2000 have already been mentioned, A-12 is likely still a mess but I'm certain that you have MRF (single engine stealth replacement for F-16) and A/FX for the navy going at full speed. How are the Europeans affected by these? If Britain or Germany decide to join MRF for example or even A/FX for the British...

4. What is happening to European integration? This is still Europe of the 12. The only likely additions with the cold war continuing are... Malta and Cyprus. The Scandinavians and Austria are out, the East Europeans are Soviet satellites... so is EU going for closer faster integration? That's entirely possible in my opinion... but Britain will NOT be amused. So what's really happening to Europe?

 

[VPrinciples]

When exactly does Romanov took power? In 1984 or in 1985?

 

[Justinian]

When exactly does Romanov took power? In 1984 or in 1985?

March-April 1985

 

[Justinian]

It depends really. First of all what IS the European reaction in the first place? And what is the American reaction beyond F-23? Just a few thoughts. I'm assuming that decisions in 1985-87 remained mostly

1. With the cold war going at full pace, there are no delays due to economic factors for Rafale. So it enters service in 1996 with the original 300+ orders. With it in service and continued cold war it has a near certain export customer in Europe in Greece and I think also a possible export customer in Belgium. JAS-39 remains also on schedule for 1998? What happens with Eurofighter though? Quite a few delays are due to the German re-unification yes, but another sizeable factor was the Germans insisting on different avionics and things being stalled from the disagreements. That's likely still happening but with Soviet armour in the inter-German border is a serious matter. Serious enough for Eurofighter even to collapse with the Brits ans Italians splitting from the Germans? Not impossible.

2. What IS the European reaction to Soviet stealth in the first place? We know a likely British response in BAe Replica and BAe P.125 (though note the TTL the Britisg still need a follow up to Tornado F3). The French FACE a single engined plane and probably some short of two engined follow up to Rafale, the latter potentially a heavily modified Rafale (after all Dassault did have this tendency to evolve new designs from her previous ones, not as entirely clean sheet ones). I could be wrong but a "stealth Rafale" derived from the existing design might be more practical than doing the same from Eurofighter. But this could be actually a problem. When the French show up with "hey here we have the stealth Rafale D(iscret) that will be ready for 2005 also please pay for our new one engined stealth fighter" the Eurofighter nations might not be entirely amused even if it's actually the most practical early response to 1.44 and one is certainly needed. I discount the Swedish since they are still strictly neutral. They will develop their stealth plane... then keep it mostly to themselves.

3. What is the US doing besides F-23? Agile Falcon and Hornet 2000 have already been mentioned, A-12 is likely still a mess but I'm certain that you have MRF (single engine stealth replacement for F-16) and A/FX for the navy going at full speed. How are the Europeans affected by these? If Britain or Germany decide to join MRF for example or even A/FX for the British...

4. What is happening to European integration? This is still Europe of the 12. The only likely additions with the cold war continuing are... Malta and Cyprus. The Scandinavians and Austria are out, the East Europeans are Soviet satellites... so is EU going for closer faster integration? That's entirely possible in my opinion... but Britain will NOT be amused. So what's really happening to Europe?

1. I'd say that the Rafale may even enter service sooner, circa 1994 or 1995, with perhaps more than the original orders. Sweden being 'neutral' and not prioritizing military spending to the same degree would result in the JAS-39 coming into service as in OTL, but facing stronger competition. Now the funny thing about the reunification is that is actually ended up costing the west German government billions upon billions, they do in fact have the resources to work with the British, Italians and Spanish. The performance of Soviet fighters in the gulf war would be perceived as similar to the MiG-21s in Vietnam, as dangerously close to equal to NATO level. The Soviet Tank armies in East Germany, Czechoslovakia are armed with newer and better tanks, artillery and etc than those Iraq used to great effect against the US armed proxies, which is something I'll get more into with the land update. But the threat is as severe as ever, and the RAF is even still a factor, especially now that the Soviets have perceived carte blanche to support terrorism in the west. I think all of these threats would encourage cooperation, rather than the splitting, the Panavia Tornado is a good fighter but was becoming outdated, even if modernized.

2. The initial impulse for the Europeans to Soviet Stealth is in my opinion further cooperation, that even France will eventually be pressured into joining. The Stealth Rafale may be touted as an initial solution to the MiG-37/1.44, Europeans will generally have to accept the fact that they will be without a stealth fighter at least into the early 2000s which will increase the push to work together.

I'm going to get into the development of European politics later, but essentially I'll sum it up that there are two distinct factions on both the left and right wing developing. On the right are the conservatives, usually working with liberals or christian democrats who are pro European integration, and vehemently oppose the Soviet Union on ideological and geopolitical grounds. On the left there are the moderate social democrats vs the radical social democrats/socialists and actual communists who are interested in improving relations with the Soviet Union. But disturbingly for the both sides, increasingly radical nationalist populist parties are becoming an element, ala Le Pen in France, disturbing the carefully created legislative coalitions. But essentially it can be very broadly simplified that in European countries politics are increasingly either (Pro Integration, Anti Soviet Union) or (Anti Integration, with differing opinions on the Soviet Union), the former have the political edge but are losing it in France and Italy. But overall, integration of economies and further military integration are being touted as the only way to maintain a free, independent and democratic Europe. This force is overriding the initial impulse of countries to protect their own aviation industries at all cost, but of course will lead to political crisis and controversy that we will get into in the future.

I'm thinking that these political forces will force through a pan European Stealth Fighter, of both single and dual engine variety, with a carefully constructed plan to give equal subsidies and business to make it politically palatable. It may be first thought to go along the lines of a competition where BAE or Rafale, or etc try to submit, but when this becomes obviously too time consuming and expensive, it's just agreed to collaborate on the development.

3. The US is definitely pushing hard to get the F-23 into service as fast as possible, and there is an initial impulse of developing a navalised variant as a replacement for the F-14. That in addition to approving the F-16G with several more expensive improvements, while also continuing with the A-12 program, which would have been fought for, however with President Perot in charge, and the economy becoming more sluggish as the defence expenditures balloon, any notion of a stealth replacement for the F-16 in the form of a single engine MRF would be delayed at least until the late 90s or another president. Perot is of course facing a political mess and US politics is definitely ready for another update soon too.

4. I kind of touched on that in my answer to 3, there is the impetus for growing integration in response to the 'other', especially as the Soviets start to increasingly 'integrate' their states. (Single currency and economic system in Eastern Europe may be on the cards, but we're still away from that) But it's lending further impetus to growing populist nationalism and it is worth an update in itself.

 

[Justinian]

Agree with this I'd say the Germans should buy the Gripen. Also did the Falklands war still happen and is the Royal Navy returning to large carriers since the Russians have two carriers with at least 2 more building or are they gonna go the OTL route? If they stay VSTOL carriers maybe the supersonic harrier is built since the yak 41 is still in development

Basically everything happened as it did OTL until April 1985, so the Falklands War did occur. I'd ask your opinion, would the RN be capable of developing a nuclear powered carrier in the late 80's/early 90s with hopes on getting it out by 2002 or 2003?

 

[Virginia Liberal]

I believe they could, if they would is another question. You'd need someone with more knowledge than me. @Peg Leg Pom would be a good person to ask.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I don't see the RN building a Nuclear carrier in the 90's. Politically it would be a nightmare and a real problem financially. At that point in time if Britain is going back to conventional carrier ops they're going to build something like a conventionally powered Charles de Gaul or a CATOBAR Queen Elizabeth,