Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: What is the value of the Soviet ASW ship in Mideast situation?
Message-ID: <1990Aug15.032633.27280@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 15 Aug 90 03:26:33 GMT
References: <1990Aug12.214732.3320@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <1990Aug12.214732.3320@cbnews.att.com> roeber@eeyore.caltech.edu (Frederick G.M. Roeber) writes:
>
>Recent news items have described the military forces being sent to the
>Mideast.  Many countries are sending warships, which may be used in a 
>blockade, and may support troops in Saudi Arabia.  Among the forces
>contributed, the Soviet Union has sent a command ship and an anti-submarine
>ship.
>
>Could someone please describe to me the value of ASW in this situation?
>What submarine threat is there?
>
Basically there is no submarine threat.  Anti-Submarine Ship is a
Soviet type designation, much as Amphibious Assault ship is the
designation the USN uses to distignuish helicopter carriers from REAL
carriers.  They have Large and Small ASW ships.  They generally
correspond to the Western designations of destroyer and cruiser.  Of
course the Soviets have their political battles also.  When the Kiev
class carriers were first built they were designated as some type of
ASW ship.  The Soviets tend to use more descriptive type designations
than the traditional Western designations (which admitedly once
described the function, i.e. destroyer came from torpedo boat
destroyer, etc.).  The current (?) designation for the Kiev's is large
helicopter carrying ship.  I also think the large deck carriers are
not called carriers for similar political reasons.

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu