Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CIA Declassified Documents on Cold War Soviet Navy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CIA Declassified Documents on Cold War Soviet Navy

    (link to CIA library) Soviet Navy: Intelligence and Analysis During the Cold War

    (link to CIA press release) CIA Releases Declassified Documents on the Cold War Soviet Navy

    6 September 2017


    The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in partnership with the National Museum of the U.S. Navy and the Naval Historical Foundation, held a public symposium today to discuss the trove of material included in CIA’s recent release of previously classified documents about the Soviet Navy during the Cold War. The event, “Red Navy Revealed: Soviet Navy–Intelligence and Analysis during the Cold War,” held at the National Museum of the U.S. Navy in Washington, D.C., provided new insight into CIA’s analysis of the evolving Soviet Navy and its military posture during the Cold War.

    The release encompasses 82 documents spanning some 2,000 pages and covering three decades from the 1960s to the 1980s. The documents range from translations of clandestinely-obtained articles from the Soviet military journal, Military Thought, to high-level National Intelligence Estimates. The entire collection, along with a 51-page booklet that provides an overview of the declassified intelligence revealed, can be found at https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...is-soviet-navy. This collection joins previous CIA releases on the Warsaw Pact forces, which are available at https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...aw-pact-forces and https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...itary-journals.
    Last edited by JRT; 19 Sep 17,, 16:15.
    .
    .
    .

  • #2
    Interesting stuff. Note that, while "declassified", the docs I checked still have erased areas. Some are sources and similar information, but others make no sense. At least one is clearly the name of a sub class...

    Comment


    • #3
      This looks like it will provide quite a bit of interesting reading! Thanks

      Comment


      • #4
        I already stumbled across a very interesting bit of information regarding Soviet tactics to combat SSBNs.

        A study of the capabilities of ballistic missiles reveals that in a number of instances they can be used in a nuclear war against those SSBNs whose maneuvers are well known. In addition, the use of such missiles is warranted in situation where prior to the beginning of combat actions ASW forces had contact with enemy SSBNs but have since lost it, and therefore it is possible to determine the areas in which these submarines are located with sufficient accuracy for ballistic missiles to be used. Moreover, the number of missiles required in this case depends on how long contact with a previously detected submarine was lost.
        They go on to mention utilizing ballistic missile strikes against SSBNs if it is known when they will transit through straits or narrows, or in instances in which SSBNs are detected by naval forces that are either out of range or without the means to engage the SSBN directly. The paper then helpfully suggests coordination with naval forces to facilitate the withdrawal of friendly forces from under the incoming missile strikes.

        ------------------------------

        I knew nuclear armed torpedoes and depth charges were utilized by the Soviets, and that nuclear armed ballistic and cruise missiles would be directed against surface forces. What I didn't realize is that the strategic rocket forces could apparently target submerged SSBNs.

        I assumed that nuclear ballistic missiles wouldn't survive impact with the water, and thus were only suitable for use against surface forces. Or perhaps a burst on the surface is still a suitable weapon against submarines provided the warhead is large enough?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
          I already stumbled across a very interesting bit of information regarding Soviet tactics to combat SSBNs.



          They go on to mention utilizing ballistic missile strikes against SSBNs if it is known when they will transit through straits or narrows, or in instances in which SSBNs are detected by naval forces that are either out of range or without the means to engage the SSBN directly. The paper then helpfully suggests coordination with naval forces to facilitate the withdrawal of friendly forces from under the incoming missile strikes.

          ------------------------------

          I knew nuclear armed torpedoes and depth charges were utilized by the Soviets, and that nuclear armed ballistic and cruise missiles would be directed against surface forces. What I didn't realize is that the strategic rocket forces could apparently target submerged SSBNs.

          I assumed that nuclear ballistic missiles wouldn't survive impact with the water, and thus were only suitable for use against surface forces. Or perhaps a burst on the surface is still a suitable weapon against submarines provided the warhead is large enough?
          Makes sense, in brute force "must kill them all" kinda way. And the soviets did have problems pinpointing the location of western SSBNs. And yes, I think a multimegaton warhead, blowing up on the surface, would deal with them. If not the blast itself, then the massive underwater shockwave.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            I already stumbled across a very interesting bit of information regarding Soviet tactics to combat SSBNs.



            They go on to mention utilizing ballistic missile strikes against SSBNs if it is known when they will transit through straits or narrows, or in instances in which SSBNs are detected by naval forces that are either out of range or without the means to engage the SSBN directly. The paper then helpfully suggests coordination with naval forces to facilitate the withdrawal of friendly forces from under the incoming missile strikes.

            ------------------------------

            I knew nuclear armed torpedoes and depth charges were utilized by the Soviets, and that nuclear armed ballistic and cruise missiles would be directed against surface forces. What I didn't realize is that the strategic rocket forces could apparently target submerged SSBNs.

            I assumed that nuclear ballistic missiles wouldn't survive impact with the water, and thus were only suitable for use against surface forces. Or perhaps a burst on the surface is still a suitable weapon against submarines provided the warhead is large enough?
            Is it possible the author just blurred the lines between rockets and missiles? Our own ASROC was a rocket assisted torpedo or nuclear depth bomb. It would not be the first time I've heard the words "rocket" and "missile" used incorrectly. Or the word "ballistic", for that matter.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cruiser View Post
              Is it possible the author just blurred the lines between rockets and missiles? Our own ASROC was a rocket assisted torpedo or nuclear depth bomb. It would not be the first time I've heard the words "rocket" and "missile" used incorrectly. Or the word "ballistic", for that matter.
              I don't think it's a matter of confusion. They specifically reference Navy coordination with the Strategic Rocket Forces which was an independant service branch within the Soviet military that reported to the Defense Ministry and controlled land based IRBMs, MRBMs, and ICBMs.

              Another one of the documents discusses the difficulty in attacking Carrier groups with cruise missiles due to the heavy air defense presence, and recommends use of nuclear ballistic missiles rather than cruise missiles, and recommends that if cruise missiles are used that they be used as a mass attack to attempt to overwhelm the air defenses.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                Another one of the documents discusses the difficulty in attacking Carrier groups with cruise missiles due to the heavy air defense presence, and recommends use of nuclear ballistic missiles rather than cruise missiles, and recommends that if cruise missiles are used that they be used as a mass attack to attempt to overwhelm the air defenses.
                How old is that document? Cause this reminds me of the news that have been coming out, past 2 years(ish...), about a similar chinese tactic...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                  How old is that document? Cause this reminds me of the news that have been coming out, past 2 years(ish...), about a similar chinese tactic...
                  1970s...

                  Of course the big difference between the Soviets and the more recent Chinese claims about the DF-21D is that the Chinese claim to be able to hit a carrier with a conventionally armed ballistic missile. The Soviets made no bones about the fact they would be lobbing nukes; and like horseshoes and handgrenades, nukes fall under the rule of "close enough". Assuming the Chinese aren't just blowing smoke about what kind of warhead they put on their "carrier killer" missile, it would have to impact the carrier directly to have any effect.

                  The picture linked above is from the Baker shot of Operation Crossroads and was a yield of only 23kt...
                  Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 21 Sep 17,, 14:23.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I wonder how big a conventinal warhead such a missile cound carry. Maybe use a FAE?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                      Assuming the Chinese aren't just blowing smoke about what kind of warhead they put on their "carrier killer" missile, it would have to impact the carrier directly to have any effect.
                      I submit it is all smoke and mirrors. Not one test on a live target.

                      Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                      I wonder how big a conventinal warhead such a missile cound carry. Maybe use a FAE?
                      Explosive effects are tremendously magnified in water. However, thermobarics would be ineffective since a key component, Air, would be absent in water.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post

                        Explosive effects are tremendously magnified in water. However, thermobarics would be ineffective since a key component, Air, would be absent in water.
                        I was thinking of an airburst, say 50-200 meters above the water.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X