The Insanely Armed, Briefly Feared, Abandoned Soviet Aircraft Cruisers

[@rjmercer042]

I was in the USN during the Cold War, these ships weren't exactly terrifying. We worried a lot more about the submarines.

[@indisputablefacts8507]

A navy aviator once described them to me as "A navy cross waiting to happen".

[@dennisyoung4631]

More of them (submarines)? Or were they more of a problem as well?

[@shall2117]

CAPITALIST PIG

[@dockyard1797]

@@shall2117 pfp checks out

[@shall2117]

@@dockyard1797 I am FIVE submarines plus ONE

[@Ironpancakemoose]

"For decades the Soviet Navy terrorized the NATO allies on the ocean with mighty carrier fleet". NATO was much more worried about Oscar II class submarines than Kuznetsov and Kiev class, Aircraft carrying heavy cruisers.

[@marcdavis4509]

The United States has built 78-79 aircraft carriers since CV1 Langley. We have the most experience building carriers. The Soviet carriers were jokes and basically not sea worthy in any practical sense

[@azeke8]

Yeah, LMAO. Soviet subs were the only naval threat in the open ocean, everything else was purely for coast defence.

[@Urgelt]

That's how I remember it, too. The Soviet carriers mostly relied on Yak-38 VTOL fighters for their air wings. These fighters were slow, very short-range and had almost laughable armament. Because of the need to conduct air operations, missile armament was surprisingly small for such large warships. These carriers were the product of 'kitchen sink' engineering, attempts to do all missions and ending up doing none of them well. US carrier groups didn't fear them. They were *wary* of them. Nobody wanted to be within their missile envelopes, but you could say that about any Soviet warship. Of much greater concern to the US Navy were Soviet submarines, which were plentiful, had long endurance, and were well-armed, and Soviet long-range bombers, which could carry massive stand-off missiles capable of threatening US carrier groups in blue waters. Faced with budget shortfalls, Russia had an easy decision to rid themselves of these ineffective carriers and rely on bombers and submarines for naval power projection, both of which can pose credible threats. Surface ships are used mostly for Russia's coastal defense, where they can operate under the protection of Russia's air forces. Without air cover, even if they still operated Kiev-class carriers, Russia's surface ships wouldn't be effective in a blue water battle against US carrier groups.

[@trex2621]

It's pretty hard for submarine to protect itself from aerial threat. These otherwise odd ships look ideal for protecting SLBM submarine bastions and fleets. And Yak is quite adequate for hunting down LAMPS helicopters.

[@lahma69]

@@williambodin5359 I agree.. effective or not, this is sad end for any military vessel. Becoming a museum ship is one thing but becoming poorly maintained theme park attraction filled with carnival props is quite another.

[@douglasmiller1467]

I can assure you that Soviet subs were much more on our minds then the Soviet surface fleet.

[@Elthenar]

This is the absolute gospel. Their surface fleet was little threat to our carrier groups, but a coordinated strike from some Oscars would be bad news.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Heavily armed carriers sound great but how much can one ship carry? The whole point of the US carrier group is a much bigger carrying capacity for weapons and aircraft.

[@MI1T]

@@Dave5843-d9m They were defensive forces. No US Carrier Strike Group would come close enough to Soviet shores to be reached by many Tu-22's squadrons. So no direct Carrier-to-Carrier combat were even considered. Kiev-class cruisers were built to defend shoreline seas and SSBN's deployment areas against ASW groups. Main targets were subs and destroyers. They could operate alone, but meant to work ASW with destroyers, light cruisers and naval aviation. Using them far from their intentional operational regions were just "Flag demonstration".

[@VersusARCH]

Perhaps that is true for USN and their "US vs USSR hot war" mindset but for the US State Department which had to devise strategies for the actual Cold War, I suspect the carriers were a greater annoyance due to their ability to project conventional power against third world countries and thus mess with the planned US sphere of influence - something that submarines cannot really do very effectively, and conducting nuclear strikes for the purpose would do more harm than good.

[@mor4y]

@@Dave5843-d9m one issue might be (and I'm working from history here, so more gun based than missile era) that a single determined ship deciding to go hard or go home can cause a amazing amount of damage to a group of ships, hit the target in the middle, and more often than not sail right out the other side and somehow live to tell the tale.... maybe they wouldn't survive in the missile era, but they'd sure get close enough to launch some nasty anti-carrier weapons and torpedos. The story of the first ship to find the bismark comes to mind, could have just shadowed it, could have ran for more support and returned, but no the captain broadcast "I am a Pole" and headed straight for them to reduce available target area for the Germans, and increase it for the Pole, the Polish ship not only survived on its own till support arrived, but then spent the night getting into AA and 50-cal range (knife fighting for ships!) and torturing the German sailors Or just anything by admiral Nelson if you want to go back a bit, he's the poster child for "get a weird ship and just charge into stabby-stabby range", a channel called drachinifel has some vids on his escapades, even the condensed version of his life is a couple of hours! Ships and weapons might change, but the sea doesn't, and history is always worth a wee look over 😉

[@lbbotpn5429]

Back in 1985 I was on board the USS Kirk as we chased the Novorossiysk and its battle group from the Sea of Japan to somewhere near Hawaii. We got some nice close up views of the ship and its flight operations along the way... It was pretty cool.

[@teabagmcpick889]

cooler still that you were lucky enough to see her on one of the rare occasions she was not on fire.

[@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music]

Cool? We have a vessel named after Capt. Kirk!

[@tamer1773]

They may have been heavily armed so as to not need any escorts, but they did seem to have needed sea going tugs to bring them home due to faulty powerplants. Their carrier based planes couldn't (and still can't) take off with a full load of fuel and weapons rendering them as short range weapons at best. The mistake the Soviets seemed to have made was to attempt to spring a fully grown carrier fleet without taking the smaller steps necessary to acquire the expertise to design, build, maintain, arm, and man them for the long run. They were a solution in search of a problem and probably detracted more from Soviet naval strength than they added. Compared to the impressive Soviet submarine fleet they were nothing more than a side show.

[@redsun9261]

Yet still they've had more aircarrier power than most countries of the world, excluding US and maybe UK.

[@12313846]

Thrue. This is why Russia now has the best missiles of the world. For anti shipping etc. These things are much cheaper. Russian minister of defence said years ago that Russia don't need carriers. They just need missiles to sink them.

[@tamer1773]

@@12313846 One of the problems with hypersonic missiles and torpedoes is that they are very noisy and/or leave a huge heat signature that makes tracking them easier.

[@mitchelloates9406]

Didn't need any escorts because they were able to escort themselves? Yeah, one Mark 48 torpedo from one of our SSN's would have shown that statement to be the complete BS it is.

[@vermas4654]

@@mitchelloates9406 to be fair, these "carriers" also had a huge variety of ASW armament. So the Soviets definitely thought of that issue. Then again, a Swedish submarine managed to "sink" an US carrier inside it's escort so I'm sure a lonely Soviet carrier will be good prey as well.

[@nucleargandhi3759]

Main reason Soviet carriers were called "aircraft carrying cruisers" has nothing to do with their intended role. It was all due to treaties regarding the Bosporus straight. Treaties prevented aircraft carriers from crossing the straight, however cruisers were not barred. So they simply called their carriers cruisers so that they could enter and leave the Black Sea.

[@softballm1991]

Excellent info, I did not know the reason for the name change. Thank you

[@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music]

Please tell me more about these treaties.

[@nomercynodragonforyou9688]

Nope

[@petros311]

@@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music search for Montreux Convention (1936)

[@johnstreet797]

What?!! The soviets lied?

[@ExUSSailor]

The last time the Admiral Kuznetsov sailed, she got less than a day out of port, suffered a complete failure of her engineering plant, and, had to be towed back. That was 2015. She's been in drydock ever since.

[@javasrevenge7121]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov

[@mmdirtyworkz]

In November 2018, it was damaged by a falling 70-ton crane from the floating dry dock

[@jayfelsberg1931]

Except the drydock is broke.

[@Cat-y4w]

Lmao, so the kiev carrier's are better than the kuznetsov?

[@traitoR142]

Thats really weird how it was involved in the Syrian conflict in 2016 when it hasn't moved since 2015.

[@Ye4rZero]

They do look pretty badass. I like the different 'styles' of military design between the west & east

[@eljensen671]

Yea the Soviet carriers didn't terrorize anyone except the poor Russian sailors that served on them.

[@katzen1444]

Really?

[@davidcole8448]

@@katzen1444 one toilet for every 750 personal.

[@damianhoratiu2287]

Classic Russian.

[@ALP839]

@@davidcole8448 If any...

[@TheDeepsix13]

In response to the toilet situation on board... You're absolutely right about that...It literally wasn't worth a shit!!!💩

[@MrEsszed]

Having served in the UK navy during the the Cold War, I can promise you, no one was scared of the Soviet surface fleet, especially the carriers. They were all badly built and killed more of their own sailors than any enemy. As someone else already said, the Submarine force was the only real Soviet naval force.

[@serpentpaints]

>"They were all badly built and killed more of their own sailors than any enemy. " Like Atlantic Conveyor, Forrestol or Enterpraise?

[@MrEsszed]

@@serpentpaints Atlantic Conveyor was a merchant ship, not built for combat and hit by an Exocet missile, Forrestal and Enterprise both suffered damamge after an electrical anomaly caused an identical missile on phantoms to fire, causing a flight deck fire. All where one off events. All somewhat different to the actual ships randomly catching fire due to bad design, construction and maintenance.

[@serpentpaints]

@@MrEsszed You don't need to explain obvious things. All you need to do is to prove that AC (or any other shitty british STOVL carriers) was built better than 1143 project and CVA-59 and CVN-65 killed less "of their own sailors than any enemy". P.S. Stray voltage isn't anomaly at all. PPS >"actual ships randomly catching fire" What is this nonsense?

[@MrEsszed]

@@serpentpaints what the shitty stovl carriers that won the Falkland war, served 30 years without unilaterally bursting into flames and needing a tug to accompany them every time they left harbour? Or the submarines that don’t randomly sink and kill entire crews? Our last submarine disaster was in the 1950s and in harbour during a torpedo loading exercise!

[@serpentpaints]

@@MrEsszed Yep the shitty STOVL carriers that hardly could defend themselves, completely couldn't defend escort and landing ships and therefore were forced to stay out of range of the argentinian bombers so theirs harriers were unable to effectively support landing forces. Hundreds of british losses is their fault. >"without needing a tug to accompany them every time they left harbour" That's normal for modern warship and isn't a reason for pride. >the submarines that don’t randomly sink and kill entire crews? You mean USS Scorpion and USS Thresher? >Our last submarine disaster was in the 1950s and in harbour during a torpedo loading exercise! Lol nope! Your last accident was last month when seawolf-type tried to ram into China (or somewhat like this). And I still hope you prove your aircraft carrier nonsense.

[@TheOtherSteel]

"...among other powerful weapons." No. You should list all the weapons.

[@RobRidleyLive]

No one expected a sort of Spanish Inquisition

[@landhopper4296]

In the late 70s, the Royal Navy sent a submarine to record Kiev. It was in the middle of an exercise with other Russian navy units. So they sailed in behind it, went underneath and 10’ below its keel, recorded it. Then they left, undetected.

[@raven4k998]

a theme park air craft carrier funny in a way

[@softballm1991]

Make you wonder why the US and GB keep putting money into carriers.?

[@raven4k998]

@@softballm1991 imagine if they made a super carrier/ battleship like Rassia that would be something to see as it would likely have massive railguns for cannons

[@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL]

Submarines are ridiculously stealthy and lethal. At certain depths, densities and distances they are undetectable. Sound refraction means they can't even be detected by sonar. In various exercises, Australian and RN subs have 'sunk' US carriers and vice versa.

[@johndododoe1411]

Were they undetected or simply ignored? As a service ship for soviet subs, it must have had classified detection systems for rendezvous with the stealthiest of their own subs.

[@Brian-bp5pe]

You are grossly overstating the psychological impact these vessels may have had on the U.S. Navy. It takes a lot to get USN staff worked-up over something like this.

[@lordsheogorath3377]

Yeah it didn't really bring anything new to the table other than the USN being able to engage both a missile cruiser and a small airfield at the same time with a single weapon. You already had the same missiles on other ships and you couldn't launch a backfire from one so it's airgroup was fairly irrelevant as far as ability to engage a USN carrier group goes. Basically it was primarily useful as a power projection, scouting, asw, and commerce raiding vessel. It was never designed to go head to head with the USN. In Russian doctrine that was the job of submarines, and ballistic missile carrying ships and aircraft. The aircraft carrying component simply reduced it's effectiveness as a missile boat and made it overly expensive to operate in return for a relatively small and doctrinally redundant airgroup.

[@KomarBrolan]

Yes, these were not feared at all since we knew they would just vaporize under a strike by a US carrier air wing. We just had to keep them at range until the hot war started.

[@koharumi1]

But it is so easy to get the American citizen worked up. Especially from all those newspapers

[@Brian-bp5pe]

@@koharumi1 And you are from... ?

[@lordsheogorath3377]

@@koharumi1 All humans are easy to get worked up unless they sociopathic lol. It's a defining trait of the human condition.

[@fooman2108]

Officially the 'aircraft carrying cruiser' designation is due to agreements that the navies would not bring carriers into the black sea. The Japanese are prevented from having aircraft carriers (by their constitution) so they have 'large aircraft carrying cruisers (initially referred to as large destroyers).'

[@Kieselmeister]

The JSDF is currently calling them "multi-purpose destroyers"... Of course the CV in the USN carrier designation stands for "Cruiser, Volare" which is the French word for flight, so technically, the USN's giant "CVN" carriers are actually flight cruisers, just like the USSR's, and always have been. The whole treaty "loophole" in the treaty which banned aircraft carriers from traversing the bosphorus was just NATO pretending that the USSR's navy was being clever, instead of just illiterate. It just wasn't worth the hassle to call them on their BS. Japan is getting away with their "destroyers", because their treaty was imposed by the WW2 Allies. And all of those nations want Japan's help containing the CCP at the moment, especially Russia and the Republic of China (currently reduced to Taiwan + a few tiny islands)

[@fooman2108]

@@Kieselmeister That would be this weeks description....just during the construction it was changed at least twice... C (in this case DOES stand for CARRIER) V (for heavier than air).

[@andymac4883]

The Royal Navy's Invincible-class carriers were also initially designated 'through-deck cruisers', though this was because the design was originally intended to serve as escort for a larger class of carrier that was cancelled, and later intended to serve the same role as a cruiser in terms of command and control, and anti-submarine warfare.

[@12313846]

Only its very recently changed. They now operate f35 from the izumo carriers. Wich were before helicopter carriers. So now officially aircraft carriers.

[@fooman2108]

@@12313846 Constitutional Amendment to allow them to have carriers?! Just the term WAS against the constitution which was the reason for the flexible terminology...

[@Lindrios]

Imagine how degrading it must have felt seeing your massive war machines purchased after losing, then being turned into a play zone for children lol

[@RAKITHA9]

Still a better ending than being used in a world war

[@Lindrios]

@@RAKITHA9 very true, sends a powerful message as well

[@williamkillingsworth2619]

China familiarizing the next generation with carriers. Now they are building them. Not a play zone, a learning tool.

[@Lindrios]

@@williamkillingsworth2619 wow, I have never even considered that before, I'm kind of speechless because it's actually happening today... I see no reason to not believe your theory Sir William

[@MA_KA_PA_TIE]

@@williamkillingsworth2619 All they have built is a replica of soviet carriers. All still gas powered. They are stuck in the 1970s.

[@skyden24195]

I'm not sure as to why, but seeing a "Red Bull" sponsorship umbrella just outside the Minsk is kinda funny. 🤔😳🤭

[@power2084]

how is that funny ?

[@skyden24195]

@@power2084 because it's like a clown, it amuses me.

[@Lindrios]

I was kinda feeling the same way. I also cant think of any thing more degrading than turning another nations war machine into an amusement park lol

[@AllTradesGeorge]

It's funny because the Minsk was once an emblem of Soviet rejection of Western capitalism...Red Bull sponsoring an amusement park centered around the Minsk is a stark contrast to that ideology. And comedy is often built around those kinds of ironic contrasts.

[@power2084]

ok I understand now

[@supergeek1418]

I'd love to see an episode on "Operation Boresight", the radio location system developed to detect Soviet submarines' radio burst transmissions in the early 1960s. It was instrumental in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[@teekay_1]

A heavily armed Russian ship is not that terrifying. The Moskva is a perfect example of why these heavily armed ships are uniquely vulnerable due to their large armament load. A single ship cannot evade a multiple missile launch. One will get through, and when it does, the ship goes up like a fireworks factory.

[@si2foo]

same for pretty much any ship by its self. which is why war ships never travel by them selves any more unless there expendable. moskva isn't even a perfect example of this

[@henryhamilton4087]

The reason why Soviet and Russian ships are heavily armed is because they were meant to overwhelm defenses of a carrier strike group, at the cost of compromising other factors, obviously this mindset didn't age well in the era of smart weapons and long range combat.

[@davidrocha7422]

yeah but that's why nato fears the russians so much because they're fucking crazy and powerful

[@lornewazny7152]

Their navigation and radar systems are 30 years old, obsolete and prone to operator fatigue (operator in-attention) jeopardizing defensive weapon reliability and effectiveness. Any slip-up and the ship is doomed.

[@myt3734]

the same applies to the American aircraft carriers, they cannot escape hyper sonic missiles at mach 7 which Russia has

[@michaeldy3157]

Nothing is as scary as a submarine and their fleet was formidable in that . Their surface fleet was second class compared to the u.s , and if you include NATO they were much smaller overall.

[@jimallen9859]

That's no longer true, and USSR is dead, and gone.

[@bamagrad99]

That opening statement made me laugh. The Soviets had some scary stuff, but their “carrier fleet” wasn’t one of them.

[@michaellong6605]

So they quit with loser carriers and realized the subs were the way to go. No matter how much the Navy waves their arms and jump up and down those things are just known as “targets” to submarine crews.

[@johngalt2506]

@@michaellong6605 Right? My first thought was torpedo meat.

[@tommyfred6180]

@@michaellong6605 the RN had this pointed out to them. most of the navy wanted to go with a new generation the small sub hunting carriers to replace the old ones and way more subs. but the politicians and industry guys decided we had to have supper easy to kill floating airports we have now. if we ever get into a real shooting war. they are going to get killed so fast. but one the up side they look good and we can now bomb people a thousand miles inland. when we get some aircraft to work that is. :)

[@Aaron-zu3xn]

these things could be beasts but the poor craftsmanship/engineering and sub-par materials to cut costs that comes with communist russia(cut corners and bribe people) hurt them,if a real dedicated country built one it could be useful in war

[@ryand2939]

@@tommyfred6180 The RN needs floating airports as the Falklands war proved.

[@eoyguy]

I can guarantee you that the Soviet fleet in no way terrorized the US or NATO fleets. Their missile armed subs were probably the most RESPECTED of their weapons systems, far more than anything carried on these "through deck cruisers". I honestly believe that any one, perhaps 2, US carrier task forces could likely take on most countries entire naval and air forces and win.

[@jon00769]

IIRC Iraq's entire navy was disabled in a day or two during the first Gulf War by a single task force using helecopters and cruise missles.

[@saltypatriot4181]

We can't even beat the Taliban😆😆😆

[@jon00769]

@@saltypatriot4181 Do the Taliban have a Navy or Airforce? Read the comment first bro lol.

[@danielslocum7169]

@@saltypatriot4181 right,because of our political "leadership".

[@jonathanrice1070]

@@saltypatriot4181 -We negotiated a peace treaty with the Taliban. Weak leadership indeed.

[@cadengrace5466]

Here let me fix a few things from the title: The Stupidly Armed, never feared, useless Soviet Aircraft Cruisers. The weapons on this ship could not be targeted by the ship. It had to have forward directors to paint the target, which the Soviets never developed and thus the weapons were useless beyond visual range. Even then, it has been proven that most of them would either be inert in their tubes or misfire on the command to launch. The ships were never feared because their planes, of which few could fly, were lucky to reach flight operations and once there had no weapons or endurance. These things were not warships in any sense. They would have been little more than a CIC in a fleet that would have been saturated by the first strike on a group and blown apart in the first round. It had virtually no working AA defense and the CIWS defense system was often unpowered or lacked ammo.

[@rafael18267]

Lol why are you mad? Who hurt you?

[@LSwick-ss6nm]

I believe that same CIWS just proved its inadequacy on the Moskva.

[@udirt]

why was the CIWS often unpowered? with the just sunk Moscow it also seems that the missile defense systems were not activated at any point before or during the attack - which seems pretty illogical but matches with what you wrote months ago.

[@DouglasAllen-z4l]

Really, their weapons were useless without destroyers ahead to relay enemy positions?

[@ChristopherWeuve]

I’m 19 seconds in and already have heard so many stupid statements I’m bailing.

[@pasdutout4690]

Vlad Popov and has a desk at the russian consulate.

[@mitchelloates9406]

Agreed, nothing but clickbait. Same deal with this guy's "Dark Skies" channel about aircraft, nothing but sensational sounding BS. My advice to anyone who does want to learn about the subject, is to find the channel of a REAL naval historian, not some clickbaiter looking for a KZbin paycheck.

[@eduardocharlier7560]

Some real naval historians: Dr Alexander Clarke (this guy actually is a doctor in naval history), Drachinifel who's an engineer and has done scary amounts of research, Covert Cabal which is HI Sutton's KZbin channel, the operations room, binkov's battlegrounds...

[@warbird7475]

I mean other than the introduction, everything else he said in the video is fairly true. He even said it in his bio, if he says something wrong please feel free to reach out to him.

[@billskinner623]

Russian aircraft carriers were referred to as, "A Navy Cross waiting to happen" by US pilots.

[@HeathenFitness]

Hahahha. That is awesome!!

[@danielslocum7169]

@@HeathenFitness also very cavalier,which is never the way to be because often ends up being a gross under estimation of ones opponent.think operation barberosa.

[@PhoenixT70]

To be totally fair, Navy Grumbles (a _Kuznetsov's_ principle air defense, similar to the role of the SM-2) are scary damn missiles, but they can't stop a flight of F/A-18s all firing four Harpoons. Not enough of them, at least.

[@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520]

Judging by america getting btfo in Vietnam and Afghanistan they shouldn’t under estimate countries , what happens the day america goes against a country that actually has an Air Force and decent weapons

[@firstnamelastname3925]

@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 golf war happens

[@koriko88]

Imagine meeting this guy randomly in public and being able to identify him based on the fact that even a mundane conversation sounds like he's giving a secret military briefing.

[@grahamdeshaz8387]

Being a child of the Cold War, I don’t remember any part of the Soviet surface fleet being described as “legendary.” The idea that an aircraft carrier/cruiser could operate independently against a carrier battle group seems far-fetched.

[@TwistedSisterHaratiofales]

I was on 3 USN Carriers. Trust me they didn't operate them independently.

[@somedood9989]

@@TwistedSisterHaratiofales That's because US carriers aren't designed to be independent, while Soviet aircraft cruisers were. Not saying aircraft cruisers are a good idea, I think an escort fleet makes more sense.

[@TwistedSisterHaratiofales]

@@somedood9989 Those 4 ships were actually more Amphibious aircraft ships that were like an LHA combined with a Guided Missile Cruiser. They were unique and We (USA) and the world likened them to our Super Carriers since they were the only ships that the Soviets had that was anything near an Aircraft Carrier, until they actually really made one. It does sadden me a tad to see them end up the way they did except the one that India converted into a CV.

[@dkoz8321]

Kuznetsov was classified appropriately. It was a heavy cruiser. It had small airwing of 18 SU-33, and 16 KA-26 ASW helicopters. The Flankers were , almost strictly, for fleet air defense. To defend Kuz. Kuz's main strike power came from heavy long range Mach 3 Granit and Basalt cruise missiles. Same as Slava class cruiser, and Oscar I/II SSGN. Soviet and modern Russian naval doctrine is enamored with high speed heavy cruise missiles, launched from air and surface, as primary weapon to sink NATO carriers. Russian SSN boats will certainly use torpedoes against carriers, when called for, but doctrinally Russian submarine launched torpedoes are reserved for engaging NATO SSBN & SSN boats. As with USN and Royal Navy, in war at sea scenario between Russia and NATO, the highest priority target is their respective enemy's SSBN ballistic missile boats. Carriers and fast attack boats are next in line. Then destroyers and cruisers, equipped with long range, high altitude air defense systems. Depending on situation, NATO submarines would go after logistics and underway replenishment ships, to deny Russian surface fleet fuel and munitions resupply. Only one class of Russian surface fleet is nuclear powered. The Kirov class cruisers , which are larger, heavier then most WWII and Cold War battleships. Only three Kirovs were launched, and just one remains in service. Rest of Russian surface fleet are conventionaly powered using diesel oil or gas turbines. Russia has been planning for decades to build their first real aircraft carrier. Tentatively named as Ilyanovsk class. It would be 83K displacement, about 950 feet long ,nuclear powered, and able to carry substantial mixed airwing. Unlike USN carriers, this vessel would only have 1 or 2 waist catapults. for launching heavy aircraft. The bow would have a ramp, similar to Kuz for launching MIG-29K Fulcrum , modernized to Mig-33/35 standard. SU-33 is being retired. Ramp launch greatly limits gross weight of aircraft, so Migs would launch with 1/3 fuel and air-air weapons, then in-flight refuel, before continuing on with mission. However a ramp launch allows higher launch rate, as there is no launch bar attachment and catapult prep. For launching AWACS and refueling aircraft, a waist catapult would be used. The third method is long run ramp launch , that may be used in emergency, but that requires a clear deck. The planned airwing would be composed of 36 Mig-29K, 16-24 KA-52 attack helicopters, 8 KA-27 Helix ASW/rescue, 2 special KA-27 equipped with large AESA planar radar . There is no concensus as to Ilyanovsk having a large fixed wing AWACS like American E-2D . Some rumor on Antonov AN-74, being adapted, but that is a large STOL aircraft.

[@pickinthatbanjo]

@@TwistedSisterHaratiofales Agreed, a sad end to what seems like an otherwise interesting ship.

[@charlesshelton7989]

This is kind of sad. These vessels have excellent potential to teach future generations. Shame to see them rust away ignored and forgotten.

[@TheFlutecart]

I served on WW2 carrier USS Lexington (CV) AVT-16 in 89-91. I saw her to the end. The 15th aircraft carrier built in the USA, named for the CV-2 carrier sunk at Coral Sea. CV-1 Langley don't count, it was a cruiser with a bi-plane flight deck. Our old girl The Lady Lex fought valiantly in WW2 then trained pilots from the training school before they went to fleet carriers like Nimitz, Enterprise and the rest. And also trained pilots from the Naval Reserve before Desert Storm. Look up how many US Naval Reserve pilots saw combat during that conflict. They all launched and arrested on the Lady Lex at night, in the Gulf of Mexico before being assigned to combat duty. Training pilots is critical to naval aviation, that's why the Russians fail, they want to be top notch first, long before they read the instruction manual. I blame Communism for this failure. They're at the "Langley" stage still. Because Communism. And yes, that Soviet Carrier Duty was certainly dangerous. But "pointless" cuts the chase. WIKI my story time. In 92, I was deployed on USS Normandy CG-61, a Ticonderoga class Cruiser for Desert Shield. Flag ship for USS America Battle Group. I was a top notch Sailor in my time, and I have seen and done some real sailor stuff. It was a privilege and a honor to bust my ass and serve on such historic ships. Especially my beloved Lady Lex, now a museum in Corpus Christi Texas. Good luck with your fancy carriers you commie bastards.

[@astronomenov99]

Another minor correction. Russia is a neo-fascist corporatist totalitarian state, not communist any more. China is heading down the same path. 'Communist' is a meaningless badge. It is about as accurate as 'Democratic' is in North Korea's official name. As China 'retracts' over the next few years due to aging population, Xi will turn his country into a fascist state. He will sabre-rattle over Taiwan but be powerless to do anything. Plus C19 is accelerating the process. China & Russia are f-ed.

[@shadetreemech290]

@ So that's why they call them "carrier" pigeons. BTW do they have tail hooks?

[@helenHTID]

@@shadetreemech290 lol no, But that would be a cool story! They are called carrier pigeons because they carried messages. 'Homing pigeons' are their proper title, But also called mail pigeons.

[@5isalivegaming72]

I got a private tour of one of our (active) carriers by the captain himself. My wife's uncle is a bigwig with another ship that runs all the experimental stuff. Even without all the novelty stuff of a theme park I was absolutely fascinated by basically everything. The shear size of them is incomprehensible. The chain links for the anchor are bigger than cars to give an small example.

[@markrook6085]

I visited Minsk World back in 2011. It was well worth it, although the condition of the aircraft on the flight deck was pretty bad. At times I almost thought I was the only one on the ship. Apparently, the novelty had worn off some time ago.

[@mickeysplane7980]

From the comments, below, Dark Seas just repeats old Soviet propaganda about being 'terrifying'.These ships were never tested in battle and were an operational failure.

[@allanfifield8256]

"For decades, the Soviet Navy terrorized the NATO Allies in the ocean with a mighty carrier fleet." Really??? No.

[@sneakyfox4651]

Exactly. They deterred to some extent, but they didn't terrorize. If they'd terrorized, they'd be sunk.

[@richardmalcolm1457]

@@sneakyfox4651 It would be an extremely short and exciting terror.

[@sneakyfox4651]

@@richardmalcolm1457 Yeah. Don't blink or you'll miss the main trick.

[@williamdawson3792]

Russia has always been smoke and mirrors 🪞

[@leomarin2205]

:)) for the "smoky" democrats, the Russian aircraft carriers could carry out unescorted missions .. so the fleet could be somewhere the aircraft carrier in another place, "you are democratically attacking" the big pile. .. you "really don't listen to what some American generals say ?? that the Russians and the Warsaw Pact could well cover NATO ?? :)))

[@ThePrisoner881]

I think "terrorize" is a bit of an overstatement. No, strike that. It's a HUGE overstatement. NATO never had much fear of Soviet surface forces. It was their subs and tanks that concerned NATO.

[@WallaceTheRed]

The interesting thing that happens to machines that are designed to do everything, they're not really good at anything

[@bruhlel2220]

Not true whith these ships at all

[@WallaceTheRed]

@@bruhlel2220 based on...?

[@imrekalman9044]

The Kiev-class was designed to support Soviet naval groups (cruisers and submarines) with long range P-500 anti-ship missiles and various anti-submarine armament including helicopters, and to provide air cover with surface to air missiles and the interim Yak-38 fighters while the supersonic Yak-41 was under development. Operating on their own was a side effect of being very, very powerful warships. Then the Soviet Union ended and the Yak-41 project was sold to be used in the development of the XF-35.

[@DoyleHargraves]

The Luftwaffe bomber/interceptor/ground attack aircraft. Jack of all trades, master of none.

[@imrekalman9044]

@@DoyleHargraves If you mean the Panavia Tornado IDS that's a very good strike aircraft, and ADV is/was a formidable interceptor as well. Though the ADV was not in German service.

[@livezero264]

My ship, USS Kirk, was assigned to shadow the Novorossiysk and her battle group (or whatever the Soviets called it) in 1985. We spent about 2 weeks in the middle of a bunch of Soviet warships. Just a small frigate and an oiler to keep us fueled up. Their Yak VSTOL planes shot rockets in our path and her helos buzzed us constantly. Our ASW helo crew would take personal camcorders on flights for guys sometimes. They got video of the hanger deck while Novorossiysk had her elevator lowered. The video tape was confiscated and rushed somewhere for evaluation because the US had never seen inside of a Soviet carrier. It was a big deal at the time. We were buzzed low level by a bear bomber so we did a low level approach on her with a B52. Cat and mouse to see how the other would react. Good times. The Soviet helo pilots were “moonstruck” often if you know what I mean.

[@d.e.b.b5788]

Please elaborate on "moonstruck". Thanks.

[@paineoftheworld]

@@d.e.b.b5788 , they were winking with their brown eyes.

[@paulzammataro7185]

@@paineoftheworld 🤣

[@sneakyfox4651]

@@d.e.b.b5788 1. First you strap out of your seat. 2. Then you unbucle your trouserbelt. 3. Then… 4. Then… 5. Then… 6. Then you buckle the belt shut. 7. Then you strap back into your seat.

[@iknklst]

@@d.e.b.b5788 Positive Pucker Pressure. Happens when you finally realize you can easily get your sh*t pushed in by the other guy's toys and can do little to stop it.

[@andrewmorris6441]

Love these short docs! Thanks!!

[@callumbush1]

What's a shot doc?

[@andrewmorris6441]

@@callumbush1 Darn Key slip. "short docs"

[@davapikyan403]

As an engineer it’s so sad to see a masterpiece which took so many years to design test and develop. So many people poured their heart and souls into building these ships, and now here they lay abandoned.

[@somewhatsomething4882]

I'm crying

[@lancebailey683]

I’m a Cold War guy. I would have liked to see this thing cut in half with MK-48 torpedoes.

[@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music]

That is the story of everything tho.

[@Senkino5o]

'Masterpiece'.

[@rightsideup6304]

@@Senkino5o Don't be like that now. You can like a design and aesthetic while acknowledging their practical limitations. Something good and bad all needs time and resources to design, build, and test. To make fun of the process just shows you have no passion for things.

[@johnwaldron7647]

To this day, Russia is terrifying for it’s renditions and pantomime. But we all know cleptocracy is unsustainable without War.

[@dutchman7216]

Thank you I enjoyed the video.

[@KeepItSimpleSailor]

Really like these Dark Seas videos. My suggestion for a future video is the various post-service roles and adventures of war ships. I assume these vessels, right down to the tenders and landing craft, must have been used in all sorts of civilian roles.

[@lachlanbird9688]

Thank you for the video.

[@jerryg53125]

The Kuznetsov is Russia's only carrier.It has been in dock since November 2018.A 70 ton crane fell over and punched a hole in the flight deck and caused the Dry dock to sink damaging the hull.Russia says it will sail again in 2023 but that seems highly unlikely.It has been a piece of junk since day one.

[@thecanadianguy1662]

Would love to see a video on the Canadian Carrier HMCS Bonaventure

[@nelsonlanglois8769]

Canada has a Carrier..!? 😲 Crewed with Moose , Beaver and Bears...😂🤣 Just joking

[@morstyrannis1951]

@@nelsonlanglois8769 Canada had the third largest navy in the world at the end of 1945. Of course that’s largely because the previous third and fourth largest navies were at the bottom of the ocean.

[@jackanderson8418]

@@nelsonlanglois8769 I think what a lot of people forget is that before we were known for being overly polite and naive, Canadians were the most feared soldiers on the battlefield. We had a take no prisoners, win at all costs kind of attitude.

[@sky_professor3051]

Yes

[@rustynails6626]

@@jackanderson8418 and now we're concerned with not offending peoplekind by misgendering them.

[@Aw-ev1mv]

Considering how so many ships in the 20th century got scrapped, left to rust, sunk in weapons tests and annihilated in nuclear tests, the fate of the Minsk ending up as a theme park and semi-museum actually sounds fairly pleasant

[@jacknineteennineteennine1869]

keep up the good work ^^ ur doing an awfully good job at making compact but extreamly informative vids ^^

[@michaeloliver2337]

Chased the Minsk on its first deployment to Cam Ranh Bay in 1980. It had two warships escorting it. We chased in Spruance- class destroyers: one to pick it up, a second to relieve the first and continue to trail. The Minsk also lost a Yak-38 on that trip before we left. Terrified? I don't think so.

[@chrislong3938]

After China completes their Super Ping Pong Bowl, they ask the winner who answers, "I'm going to Minske World!!!"

[@EamonnSeoigh]

I was aware of some significant engineering issues with much of their surface navy, these cruisers should not being an exception. Their HVAC systems were horribly designed and made their crews sick.

[@hgiudful]

As a cold war submarine officer, we were never in fear of the Soviet navy's aircraft cruisers. We all wanted to be the first to torpedo them. So, I regretfully give you a thumbs down

[@steventhompson399]

I was a kid after the USSR collapsed but from what I heard from my aunt who worked in US government back then the Soviet surface assets were negligible compared to their submarines, as far as posing a significant threat to American forces

[@warthunderislife3355]

a cold war submarine officer? , sure you are kid. are you going to give speech in white house tmrow?

[@duncanidaho2097]

@@warthunderislife3355 -No military officer worth his salt would support this gang of thieves and adolescent mark-sists. Exhibit 1) Gen. Mark Milley

[@mitri5389]

@@warthunderislife3355 no he is going to give himself a raise after the pentagon trip...

[@michaeldy3157]

How do you know he was not a sub officer my cousin served on a cold war sub. And he said similar statements.

[@protorhinocerator142]

0:12 "Russian aircraft carriers were equipped with so many weapons, they did not need escorts..." I think we can all agree they did not USE escorts. Whether they would need them in battle was another story.

[@JBBooks-rl3ec]

Nice and professionally done video! Thank you for the interesting content.

[@jerrymiller9039]

TBF self deploying your own smoke screen could be called a feature.

[@wildancrazy159]

One other feature was the ability to train crews in realtime how to put out fires and collect casualties. Both above the seas and below..

[@sky_professor3051]

Love this video. You should do one on seaplane tenders. Especially the Japanese strike on Tsingtao in 1914. The first carrier strike in history

[@j.w.matney8390]

I was in the Navy in the 70's and while the spy ships and Bear aircraft could be annoying, they were in no way "terrifying."

[@TheGravitywerks]

What the Soviets and Chinese learned about carriers and capitalism...."Shrimpin' is hard!".

[@wildancrazy159]

I laughed, you get a cookie!

[@andyboog2010]

With the sinking of the moskiva in the black sea. The massive amount of external armaments that ship had seemed to me was actually its fatel flaw. It was a chain reaction that they couldn't get a handle on. It seems these aircraft cruisers suffer the same design issues.

[@dangergunner2788]

NATO was never scared of these ships.

[@thedungeondelver]

"terrorized the NATO allies with a mighty carrier fleet" hold up my good man, they absolutely did *not*. The YAK-38 was a J O K E joke, and the ship that launched it would've rattled around inside the empty hull of any one US carrier.

[@STScott-qo4pw]

yak38 was a pretty looking thing at best, a soviet attempt to rival the harrier. apparently, it DIDN'T WORK.

[@johnmurphy5689]

The Yak-38 was a joke but the ASW capabilities and Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles were nothing to laugh at.

[@alganhar1]

@@johnmurphy5689 There is a problem with Supersonic anti shipping missiles though, one everyone tends to forget about, as if it means nothing, and that is targeting. There are several ways to lock the missile onto a target, using aircraft or submarines to initiate lock and emit a guide beam that the missile can follow until it is within the target area when its on board seeker systems go live, or by being within direct control targeting range of the target. All three have issues if you are targeting a USN Carrier Group. First, aircraft target designation would have to be WITHIN intercept of the Carrier Groups CAP, meaning any aircraft locking onto the Carrier group is facing a pretty uncertain chance of survival, especially considering the Carriers own AWAC's system will have spotted the intruding aircraft well beyond the range at which the intruder could gain targeting information for the missile. Submarines face a similar issue, it has to be shallow AND emitting to forward targeting data to the missile. An emitting submarine is a dead submarine as once it emits it is literally lit up like a god damned Christmas tree. Every single escort vessel, including the Carrier groups own Attack Submarine will know EXACTLY where the targeting submarine is. Finally if you are close enough that you can use the ships on board targeting systems on the USN Carrier Group you are also in range of THEIR weapons, thats assuming you managed to get that far in without being spotted and attacked by the Carrier Groups aircraft. No matter how powerfully armed a single ship is *not* going to survive a fight with a full USN Carrier Group, it is only a single vessel and thus has limited abaility to engage multiple targets.

[@danielslocum7169]

@@alganhar1 sounds like you know exactly what you are talking about and i like the idea that a u,s. carrier group/ naval force would always have the upper hand.unfortunately, i fear that our leadership is incompetant,especially at the top i.e. civilian.

[@mitri5389]

@@johnmurphy5689 yak 38 and harrier had similar performances... both of which suffered from short endurance.

[@R0MULUS97]

Pretty interesting video but I can't believe you didn't mention the yak STOVL jets that operated on these vessels.

[@mirthenary]

If I were/used to be in the Russian navy I'd be little passed that these ships were treated like that

[@d.e.b.b5788]

If I were/used to be in the Russian navy, I'd be more irritated at the political leaders obvious contempt that they showed for the Russian people, the same way that I hate our republican leaders who lie to us and set up the tax system to keep giving more and more to those who are already rich, those very same rich pricks who move their companies overseas and then blame democrats for their own actions. Dem's are no better, treating the flyover state folks as morons who deserve to be fleeced of our assets. Let's face it, nearly all political leaders suck.

[@jasonz7788]

Great work Sir thank you

[@kneedeepsnow16]

They were accompanied by subs plus many times with additional ships. It should be said it could protect itself if needed. Dark skies has a bad habit of pumping up the drama and overstating capabilities and the fears of other militaries.

[@howardjohnson2138]

Interesting. Thank you

[@pyroman6000]

Traditional aircraft carriers are also fully capable of anti- air; anti- surface- and anti-submarine warfare- that's what the air wings are for!! Even better, those designed for catapult launching can launch aircraft fully fuelled- and fully armed. The idea is to deal with the threat WAYYYY over there- before it can attack your ship directly. NOT to wait till you're in range...

[@kelvinfoote9897]

This was anything but a " mighty carrier fleet" : these carriers had a woeful compliment of aircraft. The inefficient Yak 38 VSTOL aircraft carried separate lift engines resulting in a frankly pathetic weapon load and short range, rendering it far inferior even to the older Harrier design. They were chronicly unreliable

[@theatlas7880]

Saddest DARK video i have ever watched. :

[@melgross]

They didn’t actually “terrorize” anyone, but ok… These ships had well known problems. A lot of Soviet equipment looks good on paper, but often aren’t up to operational needs. The Soviets simply didn’t have enough vessels to cover these. It needs to be remembered that the Soviet economy was very small, no more than 15% that of the USA, according to Izvestia, in 1991. It’s pretty clear why a real estate company hasn’t fixed this ship. Real estate companies in China are now losing vast amounts of money. It upsetting the entire Chinese economy.

[@softballm1991]

I worked with men who servered in the US Army Europe during the cold war. To a man they said that they could tell what piece of equipment the Russians would talking about by what was broken.

[@theoregan4183]

I was in USN in late 70s early 80s they feared us way more than we feared them and for good reasons, but the submarines, they made carrier sailors sleep lightly

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

"The soviets terrorized NATO with their navy." That was such a good joke, I'll give you that. Oh wait, it wasn't?

[@dsnodgrass4843]

Seems that everyone's losing their minds over it, so the joke worked.

[@Kexgoija]

At least it didn't get stuck in the Suez Canal! Would have been so embarraskin'!

[@pauloakwood9208]

"...severe engineering problems..." just about says it all for these paper tigers.

[@hsanguily]

Six months ago the pride of the black fleet was still floating .

[@MichaelBradley1967]

Now, each one comes with it's own personalized tugboat fleet, especially the Admiral Kuznetsov.

[@redesert_boy8202]

Fascinating story and interesting perspective on the carrier cruiser concept to be able to operate with limited or no escorts. Thank You.

[@Maxislithium]

Suggestion, the HMCS Haida, which is currently docked in Hamilton, Ontario Canada. The ship is still part of the Canadian Navy, and still maintained as a reserve. It is one of, if not the only WW2 combat ship on the Great Lakes

[@GlamorousTitanic21]

Another interesting vessel of note from the Soviet era was the SSV-33 Ural. It was a communications and reconnaissance ship designed for electronic intelligence, missile tracking, and space tracking. It was also nuclear powered.

[@andyhallbootdoctornz3991]

A brilliant video it leaves more questions and answers ? I guess some to which we will just never know 🤔

[@Ben1159a]

I highly doubt the USN was ever "terrorized" by the Russian carriers. Respected, sure, terrorized, never.

[@darrengray1569]

A little specific. How about the US was never "terrorized" by Russia. Respected, sure terrorized, never.

[@Ben1159a]

@@darrengray1569 I agree completely, but the video dealt with carriers, and I was reacting to his opening statement that NATO Fleets were terrorized by them.

[@BatCaveOz]

There is a difference between USA & NATO.

[@Ben1159a]

@@BatCaveOz When you are talking about NATO Fleets, by far the strongest component of that is the USN.

[@darrengray1569]

@@Ben1159a I know I was just having fun

[@slabbadanks5829]

wait, a naval channel too? you spoil us!

[@OlOleander]

All else aside, this is one of the saddest and most grim ends for a warship I've heard in some time. Decaying for years to be gawped at by tourists in a foreign port, and then left simply to waste away in a lagoon, abandoned. Say what you will about the Soviet navy, the ship deserves better.

[@IMDunn-oy9cd]

This class of ships, in no way, shape or form "terrorized" us.

[@dopplerhit8374]

Remember that a heavily armed ship has a greater weakness than a less armed ship. If it gets hit it has more bombs and propellant that would destroy it.

[@BatCaveOz]

No military analyst agrees with this statement.

[@dopplerhit8374]

@@BatCaveOz just look back to ww2, battleships werr mainly destroyed due to their shells being blown up. They had them everywhere. Hit the right spot you take one down. Even when airplanes shot at them one bullet could sink it.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@dopplerhit8374 Let's see, Bismarck sank because of all the water in it. HMS Royal Oak from all the water in it. Petropavlovsk sun from her bow being blown off. HMS Barham exploded only after she was upside down. USS Utah was sunk by torpedo, she wasn't armed with shells. HMS Prince of Wales sank from all the water in it. Hiei was scuttled because of all the damage she took. Kirishima capsized from all the 16" shells be put in her. Scharnhorst sank from all the water in it. Musashi sank from all the water in it. Fusō sank from all the water in it. Yamashiro sank from all the water in it. Tirpitz sank from all water in it, despite sitting on the sand. Kongō sank from all the water in it. Conte di Cavour sank from all the water in it. Yamato only exploded after it was upside down. Haruna sank from all the water in it. Ise sank from all the water in it. Hyūga was sunk from all the water in it. Going to have to disagree that Battleships were mainly destroyed from their shells blowing up. Being filled with water and capsizing tends to be traumatic enough for the ship to sink.

[@roguespearsf]

@@Edax_Royeaux nice list, there was a couple on there I've been meaning to look up and you reminded me

[@spirz4557]

@@dopplerhit8374 Only happens if you hit the main magazine like Hood or Arizona. And for the battlecruisers that blew up at Jutland, it was the result of a chain reaction that could have been stopped had the anti-flash doors not been removed, but thanks to Beatty's utter stupidity, what should have been negligible damage ended in disastrous losses.

[@rafehr1378]

Russia needs to disarm its nuclear weapons, beg forgiveness for attacking Ukraine pay restitution for all deaths, and damage to Ukraine. Give Putin up for trial at the U.N. for war crimes.

[@christopherandersch1299]

It seems like the Soviet navy loved to cram as much weapons as possible, and then add more to all of their ships, to make them look impressive , but their habitability was always in question,

[@kdrapertrucker]

The funny thing is that The U.S. and other countries played with carriers armed with heavy antisurface ship weapons in addition to their aircraft in the 1920s, most notable the Lexington class carrier conversions which originally kept a couple heavy gun turrets. It was found unsurprisingly that the guns interfered with flight deck operations, couldn't be fired without damaging aircraft, and fouling the deck, and that the flight deck would be too easily damaged by return fire to justify a carrier hanging around in a surface battle. Carriers eventually were given 5in. Dual purpose gun mounts that were used primarily for antiaircraft weapons.

[@chriscase1392]

Interesting. The two carriers with the big guns were the sister ships Lexington and Saratoga. Both were built in the 1930's with 8 8-inch guns in four turrets. By 1940 it was clear that the 8-inch guns were unlikely to be used in battle. In early 1941 Saratoga's turrets were removed and emplaced as shore batteries in the hills overlooking Pearl Harbor. Lexington carried her turrets to war in December, 1941, but by spring 1942, all four had been removed. Seems the weight saved by removing the turrets was more than made up for with extra fuel and munitions. These were the largest guns ever mounted on aircraft carriers.

[@ronvoltz9125]

I worked for Motorola in the 1990 and 2000 and 1 of our largest factories was located in Tianjin, During one of my tours in China I had the opportunity to tour the Kiev. It was quite impressive for the weapons systems, but lacked in basic comfort for the crew... but unlike US Navy ships, the Kiev had a Sauna for the crew. Called my dad after the visit and told him that a US Sailor in China toured a Russian vessel. Wish I still had the photos, but lost them when the computer HD crashed.

[@FalloutGenius1]

I just found out about dark seas. God I love all these channels

[@richardduerr9983]

"For decades the Soviet Navy terrorized the NATO allies on the ocean with mighty carrier fleet". Seriously? I was in the U.S. Navy on the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) from 1984-88. We weren't in the least concerned with their toothless 'aircraft carriers'. We were more concerned with their subs and missile cruisers, and even those were a mere nuisance that we respected. We had superior electronic warfare (Aegis was already a thing back then) that allowed us to effectively jam their systems and handle numerous simultaneous threats. If 'Dark Seas' thinks that in the 80's the Russians were an effective force on the seas in any other way than by submarine, he might want to do a little research.

[@irfanshafri9574]

Aegis on the Ticonderoga class cruiser?

[@richardduerr9983]

@Arun Sathyan Really? And when was that? And more powerful in what way?

[@richardduerr9983]

@@irfanshafri9574 Yes, look it up on Wikipedia if you don't know of it.

[@liangshepherd]

The minsk theme park is not far away from my high school. Been there once there's nothing left on the hull..On the contray I have been on the Midway twice and that's a treat.

[@CraigS1124]

The Soviets never came close to US sea power, especially surface warfare.

[@台灣是一個國家]

A jack of all trades, a master of none.

[@billskinner623]

I don't know where you got the idea they were feared, they were referred to as "Navy Crosses waiting to happen" by US Marine fixed wing pilots.

[@michelletaylor5691]

another fearsome Russian warship soon to be turned into a aspiring submarine.

[@windowcreek1798]

And we wonder why Russia can even win against poor little Ukraine.

[@worfoz]

Wait until the big parade, they will win the parade contest after showing their military might, they'll shut down the internet and hibernate like a true bear dreaming about world domination

[@philcole5523]

I did not know about the Russians not having aircraft carriers thank you for the information I enjoy your stories keep up the good work

[@Cash_McCoy]

I can promise you that back in those days during the cold war, our navy that I served in, was NOT terrified of Russian anything.

[@resident8891]

IMAGINE NOT BEING A ACTUAL AIRCRAFT CARRIER LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[@vincentprincipato9234]

Don’t recall NATO ever being “terrified” of the Soviet Navy.

[@veil6655]

Ikr?

[@danielmota1095]

A bunch of oil burners hahaha

[@SugarBlood15]

Aren't subs part of the Navy? I mean the Akula (Typhoon) Class has enough fire-power to level the entire East Coast of US? I guess not scary tho?

[@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520]

NATO was definitely terrified of the Soviet sun surface fleet but probably not so much of the surface fleet

[@infernosgaming8942]

They were definitely afraid of the submarine forces. The Alfa ran so fast they developed a new torpedo specifically to deal with it. Not to mention all the money the US dumped into the SOSUS network in the GIUK gap, the Oliver H Perry class of frigates to escort their convoys, and the Sea Wolf Class being developed to counter the Alfa and Typhoon.

[@natemofield281]

How bad would have sucked to be a Soviet sailor back in the bad ole days.

[@fredsmith2277]

what humiliating way for a war ship to go ?, in a chinese theme park ?