Soviet navy question

So, i've been toying for a long time for a soviet military wank of some kind (better ships, better planes etc.), unfortunately never got around to post anything, it's all in my head. But i was wondering about the feasability of some ideas, so wonder what informed people here think.

First, the Sverdlov class cruisers of the fifties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlov-class_cruiser
In OTL they have tried to install the S-75 SAM on one, but it wasn't judged successful. On another they tried to fit P-1 Strelka (SS-N-1) missiles, but it wasn't judged successful either, so all these cruisers were left to serve as gun ships only (and not very useful), bar a couple modified for command and control roles. They also had very long active services.

But what if they press on anyway experimenting with newer missiles and actually have most or all Sverdlovs modified as cruise missile or SAM cruisers in the sixties with contemporary more successful SAMs like M-1 Volna (SA-N-1) and anti-ship missiles like P-5 (SS-N-3)? The americans modified in the fifties and sixties many of their gun cruisers as missile cruisers carrying variously Terrier, Talos and Tartar SAM missiles, and if anything, the soviet ships were in need of as many SAMs as they could get.

I have read that there were also proposals to modify one or more of the unfinished Sverdlov hulls as ASW helicopter carriers predating the Moskvas, though not sure what helicopter could they use in the early sixties (as the Ka-25 wasn't in service yet), maybe Mi-4? Could have couple of those AND two larger (as apparently they were judged too small in OTL) Moskvas in the late sixties.

Another thing concerns the Kievs (again), namely their configuration, i was toying with the plausibility of having them equiped with a ski-jump from the start. I have read about ski-jumps a little bit, and it appears the idea might have originated a early as 1952 from some USN study. But how well known was this idea in the 1960s, has it ever been publicly mentioned in some naval magazine or something? I suppose i could have an intrepid soviet scientist looks at the bow sheer of the initial Kiev project and say "hang on a second...", if this idea was not known or talked about in the western naval circles of the day.

Finally, how about a Yak-38 with two lift/cruise engines, sort of like Yak-36? In fact, there was such a project:
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/687/pics/1_17.jpg
The main drawback is of course that if one engine fails the thing will instantly start rolling very fast, maybe too fast for the pilot to have a chance to eject even with an automatic system, although i'm thinking it might be possible to have some kind of last ditch stabilization system taking power from the good engine to mitigate the rolling enough to give the pilot just enough time to eject. I'm also thinking that perhaps this configuration would also be better for rolling take-offs so it could carry a bit more, and in the air at least the thing should have fairly decent subsonic acceleration given that it would have two R-27V engines and a TW ratio well over 1:1, and perhaps it could be made a bit more maneuverable so at least it could hope to have a chance at subsonic speeds against opposing aircraft (like the Harrier did).

Thanks for any input.
 
Last edited:
Minor note; the Yak-38 OTL did have an automatic ejection system in case of engine failure (which was distressingly common, the Yak-38 was a bag of crap). Not having dedicated lift engines would definitely be an improvement, although I'm personally skeptical of the utility of VTOL fixed wing combat aircraft in general.
 
So, i've been toying for a long time for a soviet military wank of some kind (better ships, better planes etc.), unfortunately never got around to post anything, it's all in my head. But i was wondering about the feasability of some ideas, so wonder what informed people here think.

The first thing I thought of with "Soviet military wank" was "oh, quality control on their hardware is better and it all performs to its potential?"

With the Soviet navy, I've sometimes wondered how they would have done if they'd had better solid rocket technology - the liquid fueled missiles they used must have caused some beastly accidents.

fasquardon
 
The Soviets exported crazy numbers of AKs to anyone with cash or ideology.
What if they did something similar with naval hardware?
Dirt simple but rugged corvettes and short range subs. Cheap rockets and torpedoed to go with them. Sell to any 2nd/3rd rate power they can.
The NATO navies now have to allocate more ships to far corners of the world that could be watching the Soviets.
 
Interesting idea about cheap export subs and corvettes, they did export in fair numbers the Osa class missile boats (which were quite revolutionary in naval warfare), you mean something larger than that? Afaik larger anti-ship and anti-air missile ships were exported in only small numbers, among others the WP navies imo could have used such ships, if only to divert NATO resources (which get us back to using relatively older but still useful hulls refitted with modern electronics and missiles). Also a cheap, capable export sub in the sixties could be useful, something like a Kilo but 20 years earlier.
 
The first thing I thought of with "Soviet military wank" was "oh, quality control on their hardware is better and it all performs to its potential?"

With the Soviet navy, I've sometimes wondered how they would have done if they'd had better solid rocket technology - the liquid fueled missiles they used must have caused some beastly accidents.

fasquardon

Well, regarding the quality spect, a rhetorical question would be if for example they'd have built the T-34s with nice weldings and careful attention to finishing, would it have worth it?

My "wank" idea deals with some capability improvements, perhaps fairly minor but which imo would give tangible results, like the MiG-21P with four missiles from the start (which means more kills in ME and Vietnam, so better performance in local conflicts), Su-7B with a bit more range and even IFR, certainly IFR from the start for all new tactical aircraft of the seventies (Su-17, MiG-27, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-24, Su-27) and similar stuff. If anything, my angle is these relatively minor improvements would have NATO spend a lot more against the real or perceived threat (i think they would go nuts imagining hordes of IFR equipped MiGs and Sukhois attacking deep behind the front line, probably have them spend a lot more on SAM defence for rear areas or something) while it would hardly cost the soviets more. Also these relatively minor improvements and better showing in local wars might make their gear more exportable, so they could make more money out of it if they'd actually try to make some profit out of it rather than just give, give, give in the name of socialist brotherhood and all that.

Anyway, i'm drifting away from the navy issues, to get back to the Kievs i wanted them with a ski jump and Yak-36M initially (first two), then possibly an uprated MiG-23K and then MiG-29K (last two), with the first pair upgraded along the same lines. Overall, much more useful and capable (and sellable!) ships imo.
 
Last edited:
First, the Sverdlov class cruisers of the fifties:

In OTL they have tried to install the S-75 SAM on one, but it wasn't judged successful. On another they tried to fit P-1 Strelka (SS-N-1) missiles, but it wasn't judged successful either, so all these cruisers were left to serve as gun ships only (and not very useful), bar a couple modified for command and control roles. They also had very long active services.

The S-75 (SA-2 "Guideline", SA-N-2 "Guideline") required beam-riding, which proved difficult on a rolling ship. I don't know what the problem with the SS-N-1 ("Styx") was, probably the range was shorter that the 152mm cannons. The SA-N-1 "Goa" would probably have worked, and I'm surprised this wasn't tried. I also wonder why the SS-N-3b "Shaddock" wasn't tried either...
 

Deleted member 9338

The Soviets exported crazy numbers of AKs to anyone with cash or ideology.
What if they did something similar with naval hardware?
Dirt simple but rugged corvettes and short range subs. Cheap rockets and torpedoed to go with them. Sell to any 2nd/3rd rate power they can.
The NATO navies now have to allocate more ships to far corners of the world that could be watching the Soviets.

They did, they were called OSA I/II
 
Going on Friedman NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE, USSR had a decent offensive naval capability though into the 1970s utilizing SOSS surveillance in locating enemy shipping/convoys so BEAR bombers & SSM UBOATS & SSM surface raiders can interdict them effectively. Tattletales were a critical link until those could be trawlers right up to fast warships. Sverdlov had the speed & endurance to force the GIUK gap disguising SSGN @ FLANK SPEED. There survival would also depend of AAA capability .If SAMS were too difficult many more AAA mounts may neutralise attacks . To help survive against intercepting enemy surface fleets. To that end -thousands of SSN-2 were mounted on small fast attack boats and out of reach enemy. That costly assets would have been better mounted on numerous DD and cruisers that at least could project into ARTIC ocean and south of the GIUK gap.

Sverdlov could mount 12-16 such missiles along the hull sides instead of the twin 4" guns which might be better mounted in place ot the triple 6" turrets.
 
Top