I think ultimately the Soviets, like any Russian state TBH, are at a major disadvantage re: geography. Even if the Soviets are able to build a fleet that can stand up to the RN, USN, or IJN on paper, they're going to have to split it between several theaters due to geography in a way that other powers simply don't. Relocating units between fleets is unreliable due to both the distances involved (esp. between Vladivostok and the Western bases) and geographic limitations (either easily blockaded straits in the Baltic and Black seas, or seasonal limitations in the White Sea). Realistically, to be able to match the IJN and RN simultaneously in capital ships, they'll have to maintain at least an IJN in the Pacific and an RN in the west, though destroyers and subs will be able to be 'reshuffled' at least to some extent. If they want to keep their fleet in anything resembling a reasonable size, they can have either Mahanian fleets-in-being in each theater but ones at a major numerical disadvantage, or focus on one theater at a time, which runs the risk of not having units where you need them, when you need them. In short, the reason the USSR can't be a naval power is the same reason Putin is desperately propping up Assad: the need for more strategically valuable naval bases.
With 20/20 hindsight, there might be one way to alleviate this to at least some extent, and that would be carrier groups. The carriers can be stationed at various ports and air wings can be stationed between carriers by flying under their own power across the vast expanses of the motherland. However, for a nation like the USSR, industrial output is a limiting factor a long time before manpower (i.e. the number of ships and planes will be a bigger consideration than the number of pilots) making the impact of even this approach limited. Might be interesting, if far-fetched, to see how navalized IL2s hold up though...