Alt Postwar Soviet Navy

[uk 75]

I am delighted that others are already making good use of the Alt 60s US Navy thread. It probably needs a balancing thread to cover the Soviet Navy, which for both the USN and the RN was "the enemy fleet in being".
After the fifties scare surrounding the Swerdlow class cruisers, the nuclear submarine force came to represent the main threat from the Red Navy.
Some modest but dramatic looking classes of ship appeared in the 1960s.
The Kynda class missile cruisers with their huge surface to surface missile tubes.
The two Moskva class helicopter ships led to endless speculation about possible Soviet carriers. The first VSTOL fighter shown in 1967 encouraged such worries.
The Kresta class were seen at the time as additional surface warfare threats, though they were actually more ASW units.
The Krivak class with their large missile tubes and gun armament seemed much more modern and capable to journalists than the modestly armed Leanders and Knoxes.
We know from other threads that the Soviets had their own share of funsome unbuilt projects, so over to you...

 

[Dilandu]

We know from other threads that the Soviets had their own share of funsome unbuilt projects, so over to you...

Well, I have an idea of making the M-11 "Storm" SAM system into the universal, multi-purpose missile system. Lets look at some data:

* The V-611 surface-to-air missile of the "Storm " have length of 620 cm, diameter 60 cm, finspan 140 cm and weighted 1844 kg.

* The RPK-1 "Vihr" anti-submarine rocket have a length of 600 cm, diameter 54 cm, mass 1800 kg. The rocket is unguided, launched from its own dedicated rail launcher.

It looks like it is perfectly possible to fit RPK-1 rocket on the "Storm" magazine and rail launcher, with just a simpler adapters.

* 9M79 "Tochka" battlefield ballistic missile have a length of 640 cm, 65 cm diameter and 1544 cm wingspan. I.e. it could fit into slightly modernized "Storm" magazines.

In essense, my idea was to make M-11 "Storm" a universal missile launch system, capable of firing anti-air, anti-submarine, and land attack missiles. In 1960s, it would gave significant advantage in fhnctionality (and help to deviate from over-specialization in Soviet doctrines)

 

[isayyo2]

Wasn't there also a 203mm naval piece designed in conjunction/competition with the AK-130?

 

[Dilandu]

Wasn't there also a 203mm naval piece designed in conjunction/competition with the AK-130?

Presumably, navalversion of Pion 203-mm self-propelled gun, yes.

 

[Archibald]

Shame the Forger was that bad. The Soviets had a spy at Avro Canada in the days of John Frost WS-606A, imagine if Yakovlev had made it work...

 

[Hood]

The Kresta class were seen at the time as additional surface warfare threats, though they were actually more ASW units.

The Kresta I was indeed a mini-me Kynda (half the missile complement), but the Kresta II was an ASW unit with Matel'.

I'm not sure what I would do too differently.
During the 1960s the Soviets developed a whole range of quite impressive designs from the Kashin to the Nanuchka and many of the older destroyers were heavily rebuilt during the 1970s. The seemed to grasp the ASW role fairly quickly in response to the NATO SSBN threat, hence the increasing shift to helicopter carriers and ASW cruisers, but still leaving ample room for surface strike capability.
Saying that, the Moskva's had big room for improvement. Their hullform was rather flawed and they were poor seaboats. Perhaps a slightly smaller ship or one with a more conventional hull and layout may have allowed another one or two ships to be built instead of the first Kievs. Even some Sverdlov helicopter cruiser conversions would have been useful assets.

I think my main focus would be to get more standardised ships for the 1970s underway, instead of the Sovremenny and Udaloy and the multiple small fast attack craft. And also to develop a more standardised family of SAMs and SSMs.
I do like Dilandu's M-11 system idea. During the Cold War, NATO intelligence believed the RPK-1 to be based on a FROG-series rocket. The RPK-1 always seemed to be rather wasteful in terms of having its own dedicated twin-arm launcher and magazine. Although intended for cruisers it took up a lot of space and weight and a dual-use M-11 magazine would have made more sense.

 

[Dilandu]

One other thing that I considered; missile rebuilds of "Sverdlov"-class cruisers. There was an attempt to modernize one cruiser ("Dzerjinsky") to carry medium-range S-75 SAM (as M-2 "Volkhov-M" navalized system), but the results were far from satisfactory. The V-753 missiles were developed for land-based system, used quite nasty oxidizer - red fuming nitric acid - and while was quite efficient, was not exactly suitable for naval deployment.

But there were some air-breathing missiles, developed for S-75 SAM in 1950-1960s. Ramjet-powered 17D was developed in late 1950s and tested in 1960-1962. While PVO strany did not consider it advantageous enough to continue development (it was supposed to have much longer range than standard rocket-powered missiles, but actually have only marginal advantage), it actually may be very advantageous for the Navy:



The kerosene-fueled, air-breathing ramjet missile would be much simpler to handle onboard the ships, than rocket-powered one with toxic oxidizer.

So my idea is to rebuild some of late-series "Sverdlov"'s as single-ended missile cruisers, with two M-2 "Volkhov-M" launchers and two control stations instead of rear turrets. They would be equipped with 17D ramjet-powered missiles, for area air defense functions.

And there are five incomplete "Sverdlov"'s hulls, works on which stopped in 1959, close to 70-80% completion. They could be used as basic for double-ended missile cruisers; with four M-2 "Volkhov-M" instead of forward and rear turrets, or maybe with a combination of M-2 and M-1 "Volna" short-range, low-altitude systems.

 

[Grey Havoc]

So my idea is to rebuild some of late-series "Sverdlov"'s as single-ended missile cruisers, with two M-2 "Volkhov-M" launchers and two control stations instead of rear turrets. They would be equipped with 17D ramjet-powered missiles, for area air defense functions.

And there are five incomplete "Sverdlov"'s hulls, works on which stopped in 1959, close to 70-80% completion. They could be used as basic for double-ended missile cruisers; with four M-2 "Volkhov-M" instead of forward and rear turrets, or maybe with a combination of M-2 and M-1 "Volna" short-range, low-altitude systems.

I can just imagine the horrified reactions of western naval staffs!

Saying that, the Moskva's had big room for improvement. Their hullform was rather flawed and they were poor seaboats. Perhaps a slightly smaller ship or one with a more conventional hull and layout may have allowed another one or two ships to be built instead of the first Kievs. Even some Sverdlov helicopter cruiser conversions would have been useful assets.

If I'm not mistaken, the original Moskva design would have been quite seaworthy. However the hull design of the first two in the class was greatly simplified in order that they could be built in a shorter timeframe. Further units from the planned third ship (assigned the name Kiev) onwards would have had the original hull design, but procurement of additional units was unexpectedly put on hold indefinitely. The official reason given was that the class would be less effective against SSBNs armed with the new Poseidon missile that was scheduled for introduction in the early 1970s than they were against Polaris armed boomers (which had to get a lot closer to Soviet territory in order to be able to service a lot of their targets). The real reason was that the aircraft carrier advocates within the Soviet government and defence establishment been able to successfully get the resources intended for further Moskvas reallocated to the Project 1143 'heavy aviation cruiser' program, which they saw as a important stepping stone on the path to a full nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier. In something of a dark irony, the name Kiev was shortly thereafter reassigned to the first of class of Project 1143.

Not building further Moskva-class helicopter cruisers had come to be seen as a mistake by the Soviet Navy brass by the late 1970s, but attempts to get follow on designs approved (including nuclear powered) effectively got bogged down in committee I believe.

 

[Dilandu]

I can just imagine the horrified reactions of western naval staffs!

Well, a double-ended cruiser, with four fire control channels, capable of tracking four targets simultaneously & guide two missiles per each... as USN learned in Vietnam, you should not underestimate "flying telegraph poles")

 

[uk 75]

Thanks everyone. I had hoped that the Soviet Navy would generate some good stories and info.
The ships were impressive enough in real life but some of your suggestions cry out to be drawn by some of our friends here and on Shipbucket.

 

[uk 75]

This old thread seems more relevant after the sinking of the Slava class Moskva and the reliance of the Russians on frigate sized ships.

I also think I should have widened the scope so am renaming this thread from alt 1960s to alt Post war.

This should allow discussion of subs vs surface ships and the battleship debate. As you know I love broad interpretations of my threads.

 

[lancer21]

One other thing that I considered; missile rebuilds of "Sverdlov"-class cruisers. There was an attempt to modernize one cruiser ("Dzerjinsky") to carry medium-range S-75 SAM (as M-2 "Volkhov-M" navalized system), but the results were far from satisfactory. The V-753 missiles were developed for land-based system, used quite nasty oxidizer - red fuming nitric acid - and while was quite efficient, was not exactly suitable for naval deployment.

But there were some air-breathing missiles, developed for S-75 SAM in 1950-1960s. Ramjet-powered 17D was developed in late 1950s and tested in 1960-1962. While PVO strany did not consider it advantageous enough to continue development (it was supposed to have much longer range than standard rocket-powered missiles, but actually have only marginal advantage), it actually may be very advantageous for the Navy:

View attachment 659879View attachment 659880

The kerosene-fueled, air-breathing ramjet missile would be much simpler to handle onboard the ships, than rocket-powered one with toxic oxidizer.

So my idea is to rebuild some of late-series "Sverdlov"'s as single-ended missile cruisers, with two M-2 "Volkhov-M" launchers and two control stations instead of rear turrets. They would be equipped with 17D ramjet-powered missiles, for area air defense functions.

And there are five incomplete "Sverdlov"'s hulls, works on which stopped in 1959, close to 70-80% completion. They could be used as basic for double-ended missile cruisers; with four M-2 "Volkhov-M" instead of forward and rear turrets, or maybe with a combination of M-2 and M-1 "Volna" short-range, low-altitude systems.

Are you refering to the Project 64 cruisers? Yes definitely should have finished the hulls to that design, the 64 had the same weapons used later on the Project 58 (which ironically was built to use the leftover missiles from the aborted Project 64 conversion as i understand), except more of them and on a bigger, more seaworthy hull.

Agree about the existing Sverdlovs as well, either double ended of single ended SAM conversion with M-1 or M-2 missiles would have added a very significant SAM capability to the VMF. Even better with the ramjet 17D. I think there were plans for such conversions, Project 70 or Project 71 i think.

 

[Scott Kenny]

One other thing that I considered; missile rebuilds of "Sverdlov"-class cruisers. There was an attempt to modernize one cruiser ("Dzerjinsky") to carry medium-range S-75 SAM (as M-2 "Volkhov-M" navalized system), but the results were far from satisfactory. The V-753 missiles were developed for land-based system, used quite nasty oxidizer - red fuming nitric acid - and while was quite efficient, was not exactly suitable for naval deployment.

Yeah, IRFNA is absolutely not what you want onboard ship!

But there were some air-breathing missiles, developed for S-75 SAM in 1950-1960s. Ramjet-powered 17D was developed in late 1950s and tested in 1960-1962. While PVO strany did not consider it advantageous enough to continue development (it was supposed to have much longer range than standard rocket-powered missiles, but actually have only marginal advantage), it actually may be very advantageous for the Navy:

View attachment 659879View attachment 659880

The kerosene-fueled, air-breathing ramjet missile would be much simpler to handle onboard the ships, than rocket-powered one with toxic oxidizer.

So my idea is to rebuild some of late-series "Sverdlov"'s as single-ended missile cruisers, with two M-2 "Volkhov-M" launchers and two control stations instead of rear turrets. They would be equipped with 17D ramjet-powered missiles, for area air defense functions.

And there are five incomplete "Sverdlov"'s hulls, works on which stopped in 1959, close to 70-80% completion. They could be used as basic for double-ended missile cruisers; with four M-2 "Volkhov-M" instead of forward and rear turrets, or maybe with a combination of M-2 and M-1 "Volna" short-range, low-altitude systems.

Talos-ski!

That would be impressive for sure.

 

[Christopher Wang]

If you do not mind combining Soviet / Russian and Western military technology as Ukraine has done in the current Russo-Ukrainian War, how about replacing the Sovremenny and Udaloy II class destroyers' and Slava class cruisers' 130mm AK-130 twin-barrel gun turret with the British 4.5"/55 Mark 8 or American 5"/54 or 5"/62 Mark 45 single-barrel gun turret?

 

[paralay]

I may be wrong, but only four AK-130 turrets on three ships remain alive

 

[Dilandu]

If you do not mind combining Soviet / Russian and Western military technology as Ukraine has done in the current Russo-Ukrainian War, how about replacing the Sovremenny and Udaloy II class destroyers' and Slava class cruisers' 130mm AK-130 twin-barrel gun turret with the British 4.5"/55 Mark 8 or American 5"/54 or 5"/62 Mark 45 single-barrel gun turret?

Technically possible, albeit costly. From practical point of view, frankly, my IMHO is that two 76-mm OTO Melara mounts would be better idea than one 4-5 inch mount.