Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: oyvinw@ifi.uio.no (yvin Wormn{s) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Soviet use of "Aircraft Carrier" title Message-ID: <1991Jun21.014448.15117@cbnews.cb.att.com> Date: 21 Jun 91 01:44:48 GMT References: <1991Jun18.074505.15176@amd.com> Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker) Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway Lines: 41 Approved: military@att.att.com From: \yvin Wormn{s [On USSR carriers] J.W.Cupp wrote that you cannot set USN standards on the Soviet Navy, regarding the role and armament of the carriers. I totally agree, and I think this is a good example of how you have to adapt the equipment to the strategic situation (This is my scientific alibi :-) Cupp mentioned the important protection of the Soviet SSBNs. I will mention the protection of NATO shipping as well. The USN carriers are supposed to extend air power out beyond the reach of land-based aircraft. They are more or less a complete air force on their own. In peacetime they can be spread around the world to react to anysituation as fast as possible. In the now very unprobable NATO-USSR war they can consentrate and move into important sea areas, one of them off the coast of Northern Norway, to deny the Soviets access there. They can't go too close to the coast, because then they are vulnerable to landbased aircraft, and if they go even closer they will be sunk by submarines. USN carriers need to be strong enough to operate alone, and be able to fly different missions, on their own. The Soviet then, do not have the need for global projection of peacetime power (or rather the access to the sea this is dependent on). In wartime they want to attack NATO shipping across the Atlantic and on their side of the GIUK gap. What they lack is fighter cover. Bombers can reach long from Murmansk, fighters can't. Now they can put fighters on their carriers and escort the bombers farther out. They can make do with a smaller and cheaper carrier, and get the same number of fighters and bombers on target. If a carrier is sunk it is a smaller loss. (Whoops, forgot, a US carrier can't sink, sorry). The SSBNs are protected. All in all, the Soviet carriers are suited to their mission. \yvin oyvinw@ifi.uio.no