WI: Carrier for Soviet Navy

IRL, in May 1925 Soviet Navy proposed converting the incomplete Borodino-class_battlecruiser Izmail into an aircraft carrier, and that proposal was approved by chairman Rykov in July; But subsequent Red Army's interference led to cancellation of that project in March 1926.

What would have happened if Red Army was not able to interfere?
 
The development of aircraft carriers as viable weapons for maritime conflict during the 20s and 30s required a good deal of effort, both in experimentation and development of naval aircraft and the carriers themselves. IMHO the USSR in the 20s and 30s simply did not have the resources to devote to this. Their shipbuilding industry was well behind the USA, UK, and Japan and their home built large vessels prior to WWI had not been "competitive". The strategic reality was that an aircraft carrier in the Baltic or Black Seas was just a floating target. In the North Sea, based out of Murmansk you at least had the possibility of getting to open ocean. The same holds true to a lesser extent out of Vladivostok, although passage through the waters between Kamchatka and Japan is potentially quite iffy and the infrastructure on the Soviet Pacific Coast to support a carrier is quite limited at that time. The overriding question for the pre-war USSR, and even Russia today is why. Less than three carriers means you don't have at least one ready/at sea at all times in peacetime, a one off is a prestige item. Furthermore in the pre-WWII period the USSR needs a navy only for coastal defense, the only potential use for longer range naval action is submarines either for anti-shipping or anti-naval use.

Assuming Stalin decides to go ahead with this you end up with a rather clunky and limited CVL equivalent. If they "adapt" land planes for use, you end up with some of the problems the Graf Zeppelin would have had with unsuitable aircraft. At most you get a plan to lay down some hulls for future use, which won't be completed by WWII and any carriers that do get completed (maybe a couple at most) get sunk rather quickly, unless they are in the Pacific in which case they don't do much until August, 1945 when if they are still functional they may support Soviet operations in the Kuriles. More likely the carriers get raided for personnel especially pilots for use against Germany and by August, 1945 are incapable of putting to sea.

Eventually any Soviet carriers still floating in 1945 are converted to razor blades, which the USSR actually has a need for.
 
The development of aircraft carriers as viable weapons for maritime conflict during the 20s and 30s required a good deal of effort, both in experimentation and development of naval aircraft and the carriers themselves. IMHO the USSR in the 20s and 30s simply did not have the resources to devote to this. Their shipbuilding industry was well behind the USA, UK, and Japan and their home built large vessels prior to WWI had not been "competitive". The strategic reality was that an aircraft carrier in the Baltic or Black Seas was just a floating target. In the North Sea, based out of Murmansk you at least had the possibility of getting to open ocean. The same holds true to a lesser extent out of Vladivostok, although passage through the waters between Kamchatka and Japan is potentially quite iffy and the infrastructure on the Soviet Pacific Coast to support a carrier is quite limited at that time. The overriding question for the pre-war USSR, and even Russia today is why. Less than three carriers means you don't have at least one ready/at sea at all times in peacetime, a one off is a prestige item. Furthermore in the pre-WWII period the USSR needs a navy only for coastal defense, the only potential use for longer range naval action is submarines either for anti-shipping or anti-naval use.

Assuming Stalin decides to go ahead with this you end up with a rather clunky and limited CVL equivalent. If they "adapt" land planes for use, you end up with some of the problems the Graf Zeppelin would have had with unsuitable aircraft. At most you get a plan to lay down some hulls for future use, which won't be completed by WWII and any carriers that do get completed (maybe a couple at most) get sunk rather quickly, unless they are in the Pacific in which case they don't do much until August, 1945 when if they are still functional they may support Soviet operations in the Kuriles. More likely the carriers get raided for personnel especially pilots for use against Germany and by August, 1945 are incapable of putting to sea.

Eventually any Soviet carriers still floating in 1945 are converted to razor blades, which the USSR actually has a need for.
I'd disagree. Pre WWII Stalin wanted a blue water navy to project power, ergo carriers to provide his battleships and battlecuisers with aircover. Thus a carrier makes some sense. Most likely it or they would survive WWII if completed, 66% of the prewar Soviet Battleships and 75% of their prewar cruisers survived the war

Any Soviet Carrier that survives WWII is not getting made into razor blades, not at least until there are replacements. Carrier aviation is a tough capability to learn and relearn, if a Soviet carrier survives they are at least going to keep it as a training vessel to preserve that knowledge, that and use it to show the flag in newly independent third world countries

It is useful as it allows the USSR to skip their OTL awkward Moskva-Kiev-Kuznetsov-Ulyanovsk progression, with a clunky limited CVL to start with, they can get a mediocre ASW carrier in the 60's, a mediocre general purpose carrier/good ASW carrier in the 70's and a functional but mediocre supercaarrier in the 80's
 
Yes, Stalin "wanted" a blue water navy. What he would have gotten was a "blue water" navy that projected the image of power. Even at its height the Soviet Navy was not projecting power. Yes it had ballistic missile submarines, but those were deterrent assets like long range nuclear bombers and ICBMs. Use that power and the world including the USSR burns. The Soviet Navy had a few obvious missions:

1. Protect the USSR against sea borne air or amphibious attacks, denying the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, and near waters of the North Sea and Sea of Okhtosk to NATO and allies.
2. Be able to close the Atlantic bridge to NATO at least long enough for WP land forces to achieve their goals
3. Protect Soviet boomers against NATO attack and hunt NATO boomers
4. Either control the Eastern Med or make it heavily contested for a specified period
5. Use naval assets outside of the European theater for commerce raiding and disruption of trade (surface or subsurface units)
6. Support amphibious operations against Norway and along the Baltic

Naval assets, ships/subs/aircraft to perform those missions is what the USSR NEEDS, in contradistinction to what Stalin or anyone else WANTS. The USSR can accomplish all of those missions without an aircraft carrier, all of the missions where air support is needed can do quite nicely with the appropriate land based aviation assets. In the 1920s, 1930s, and from post WWII to the present the USSR has never been in a position to devote the assets towards building 3-4 carriers, aircraft for them, providing proper escorts and supply ships to be able to sustain 1-2 carrier task forces IF they were not going to rob the army and air force to do so.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
IRL, in May 1925 Soviet Navy proposed converting the incomplete Borodino-class_battlecruiser Izmail into an aircraft carrier, and that proposal was approved by chairman Rykov in July; But subsequent Red Army's interference led to cancellation of that project in March 1926.

What would have happened if Red Army was not able to interfere?

Can this carrier be turned into an amphibious assault ship in the 60s ?
Large complement of helicopters and capacity to take upto 500 marines
 
Can this carrier be turned into an amphibious assault ship in the 60s ?
Large complement of helicopters and capacity to take upto 500 marines

I don't know. Maybe?
As long as it has survived to this point, and carrier conversion was actually done, it might be possible...
 
At the time of completion, likely land-based options for carrier service are going to be biplanes like the Polikarpov I-3, the Grigorovich I-2 or the parasol monoplane Tupelov I-4. Some biplanes like the Polkarpov I-5 were a real handful for pilots, and I don't think would be suitable for carrier service.

By the late '30s, as performance increases in aircraft, most land-based designs will be unsuitable for carrier service. The Soviets might be looking for a license for something like the Sea Gladiator of the Fiat CR42 Falco. Or maybe even something from the Germans given the Molotov-von Ribbentrop agreement. I'm not sure what the Soviets would do for attack types.

My initial thoughts,
 
At the time of completion, likely land-based options for carrier service are going to be biplanes like the Polikarpov I-3, the Grigorovich I-2 or the parasol monoplane Tupelov I-4. Some biplanes like the Polkarpov I-5 were a real handful for pilots, and I don't think would be suitable for carrier service.

By the late '30s, as performance increases in aircraft, most land-based designs will be unsuitable for carrier service. The Soviets might be looking for a license for something like the Sea Gladiator of the Fiat CR42 Falco. Or maybe even something from the Germans given the Molotov-von Ribbentrop agreement. I'm not sure what the Soviets would do for attack types.

My initial thoughts,

Well come Lend lease, presumably USN types.
 
At the time of completion, likely land-based options for carrier service are going to be biplanes like the Polikarpov I-3, the Grigorovich I-2 or the parasol monoplane Tupelov I-4. Some biplanes like the Polkarpov I-5 were a real handful for pilots, and I don't think would be suitable for carrier service.

By the late '30s, as performance increases in aircraft, most land-based designs will be unsuitable for carrier service. The Soviets might be looking for a license for something like the Sea Gladiator of the Fiat CR42 Falco. Or maybe even something from the Germans given the Molotov-von Ribbentrop agreement. I'm not sure what the Soviets would do for attack types.

My initial thoughts,

Why wouldn't Soviets design their own carrier-based plane by late '30s, if a carrier of their own is available?

Also, assuming the conversion is done prior to the start of Spanish Civil War, could it's availability change events there?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
A carrier without proper escorts is more of a liability than asset esp when its airwing does not include substantial strike and AsW aircraft
 
Why wouldn't Soviets design their own carrier-based plane by late '30s, if a carrier of their own is available?

Also, assuming the conversion is done prior to the start of Spanish Civil War, could it's availability change events there?

If the Soviets just sail a carrier task force off the coast of Spain and start conducting air strikes some shit is going to go down.
 
Less than three carriers means you don't have at least one ready/at sea at all times in peacetime, a one off is a prestige item.

That argument gets pitched a lot and while it is to some extent true it is a little over done. The French only have one carrier right now and they use her operationally quite a bit. Granted they also have a robust training relationship with the US Navy that allows them to train their pilots at Pensacola and when CDG is in dry dock they can send Rafale and E-2 squadrons to the US to maintain currency on a US carrier which they do on a regular basis.

There is also the fact that there are several carrier operating countries in the world right now and only the US has three or more. Most of the rest have only one.
 
Well come Lend lease, presumably USN types.

I would think so, but types would be restricted by the size of the elevators and height of the hangar. We might be waiting for the F4F-4 for a fighter, or TBF for a torpedo bomber....

Why wouldn't Soviets design their own carrier-based plane by late '30s, if a carrier of their own is available?

They certainly could, but they were focused on land-based fighter that seem ill-suited to carrier conversion. A wholly new, effective carrier fighter and bomber are possible, but we have little idea how that would look given the historical Soviet designs of the late '30s/early '40s.

They weren't afraid to approach foreign powers for help; my guess is they still might do so.

Regards all,
 
The fact that the French use US facilities and carriers for their naval aviators when the CDG is unavailable makes the point. Naturally in a crisis or war you can surge forces and reduce downtime etc. Even during WWII once the USA had built up the carrier force a little, some were away from combat working up new air units, getting heavy maintenance etc. The UK will, sooner or later, have two carriers. The CDG does not usually go all that far from the Med. If your maintenance is top notch you can manage to keep one carrier at sea if you have two, expecting one carrier to be available more than half time is unrealistic in peacetime. Don't forget some of the "at sea" time is training for the crew and the air wing.

Given the costs of building and maintaining a carrier and the associated air wing, if the USN thought it could get the same at sea availability with two carriers to have one at sea rather than 3:1 it would happen that way. It is worth noting that even those countries with a robust aeronautical industry purchase some of their carrier aircraft from the USA or other major carrier nation, or in some cases co-produce US designs +/- local modifications. There are lots of examples of naval aircraft successfully used for land based units, very few the other way around (I would state that both the Sea Hurricane and Sea Spitfire were desperation moves with severe deficiencies).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, it would actually rival the much (and entirely reasonably) despised Alaska Class CB for the biggest waste of steel in the era. The Soviets needed a carrier less than a salmon needs a drum kit.
 
Well, it would actually rival the much (and entirely reasonably) despised Alaska Class CB for the biggest waste of steel in the era. The Soviets needed a carrier less than a salmon needs a drum kit.
Well in fairness some of the design concepts for the Alaska's were fairly reasonable for what they ended up doing, ie the variants with 22 twin 5"/38 turrets aka the Atlanta writ large especially if they had stuck a second rudder on it
 
Last edited:
Top