WI Kynda class cruisers

I had an old reference book that said yhese ships weren't the most seaworthy so were based in the Baltic. That would also likely suit their capabilities as other ships took on more oceanic roles. Iiuc this wasn't unusual for 60s era soviet ship, the Moskva helicopter ships were kept on a very short leash in the Black and medditeranean seas.

It might also be worth pointing out that the Soviet Union operated its ships very differently than the western navies. They used conscription for a large amount of their crews, likely had lower availability rates (50% rather than 75%) and the med fleet spent a good deal of time anchored in international waters. My guess is that these factors also played a role in keeping the kyndas in service despite their problems.
 
How long do you think it will take for e.g Baltic fleet to deploy to Pacific ?

yes backfires and even the Badger Gs are a big threat esp since they can easily be short ranged fighters escorted if they are just hitting targets around Jap Isles, but the Japanese airforce also has F-15s so it would be a balanced fight

why do you say only 6 DDG for air defence ?
Well the voyage of the damned took 224 days, but that's besides the point. Nuke boats, assuming nobody cared about keeping quiet, 10 days. Realistically, surface units of the Baltic fleet, going long way around Africa, less than 60 days, possibly as little as 30

The issue with Backfire is trying to kill them with 70km range Sparrow rather than 190km Phoenix, given that you have to intercept them 600km out to stop Kh-22 from being launched

JDS Amatsukaze (1965), JDS Tachikaze(1976), JDS Asakaze (1979), JDS Sawakaze (1983), JDS Hatakaze (1984), JDS Shimakaze (1987), that makes 6 by my count, everything else before Kongo in 1993 only has Sea Sparrow at best and that's point defense rather than air defense
 

destiple

Banned
^ And that AIM-7 is SARH and AIM-54 is ARH

you are right apart from these 6 all the rest of 25 DDG/FF carried sea sparrow
 
Last edited:

destiple

Banned
I had an old reference book that said yhese ships weren't the most seaworthy so were based in the Baltic. That would also likely suit their capabilities as other ships took on more oceanic roles. Iiuc this wasn't unusual for 60s era soviet ship, the Moskva helicopter ships were kept on a very short leash in the Black and medditeranean seas.

It might also be worth pointing out that the Soviet Union operated its ships very differently than the western navies. They used conscription for a large amount of their crews, likely had lower availability rates (50% rather than 75%) and the med fleet spent a good deal of time anchored in international waters. My guess is that these factors also played a role in keeping the kyndas in service despite their problems.
Moskva were built for bastion defence and ASW against western SSN, SSBNs rather like the Kievs so I doubt they were intended for very long oceanic cruises

regarding sea worthiness , that is what I was trying to say when I mentioned that pretty much all soviet rocket cruisers were more built to act like mobile , well defended, floating missile batteries than geared towards long term naval deployment.
Red navy had blue water ships but no blue water capability
 
Top