4 ms·

It's interesting that part of the rationale for building huge submarines is that the Soviets couldn't afford American-style aircraft carriers. Then they procee

It's interesting that part of the rationale for building huge submarines is that the Soviets couldn't afford American-style aircraft carriers. Then they proceeded to bankrupt themselves making huge submarines.

comicjk 7y ago
Submarines have always been an underdog's weapon to some extent, ever since they were used by the South in the US civil war. If you expect your navy to be outclassed, but still want to build one, stealth is one of the few options.
vkou 7y ago
An aircraft carrier is expensive because it requires an entire fleet to support it. The carrier isn't the expensive part - the dozen screening vessels that protect it are. That fleet can be taken out with a single tactical nuclear weapon. A nuclear submarine can operate on its own, and carries more firepower (If we count by number of capitalists/communists/unaligned people it can kill) than an entire carrier group. An aircraft carrier is useful for force projection on the other side of the world, if you are trying to bomb some stone-age savages, or to carry out some gunboat diplomacy to an uppity developing nation. It can't surprise-surface 30 miles off the coast of New York, and launch three dozen half-megaton nuclear weapons at six different metro areas in the span of forty minutes. The Soviet Union was much more concerned about it's security than it was about power projection. It didn't need carrier groups - it needed a way to guarantee it's safety from nuclear attack, by holding the threat of initially Cuba, and later, it's submarines over the head of the US. The former USSR's, and today's Russia's foreign policy become a lot clearer when you understand their primary goal - security of the homeland from attack. The country was absolutely traumatized by the Great War, the Russian Civil War, and the Great Patriotic War. All Soviet, and now Russian military planning focuses on preventing such disasters. The US's primary goal, in contrast, is not homeland security (it is a secondary goal). The US's primary goal is making sure the world's oceans remain open to marine trade. That is why the USSR didn't invest in aircraft carriers, but the US did.
- B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
  > than it was about power projection That part came from people singing "The Internationale" all over the world, but it started to come apart in the 1960s, and by the 1980s it had disintegrated, and so did the Soviet Union. Ah, well, interesting times.
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    It's just an industrial revolution too early and did not manage to avoid an imbred political class. The AI and (insert unknown political change) might enabled a very different version of Internationale, that might arise in our lifetime.
trhway 7y ago
Yes, USSR/Russia has never been able to build a Navy projecting power far beyond native shores, so as a result the Navy task in the modern times would be to protect the shores, present some "assymetric" response to the US carrier groups by means of the attack submarines and to play its part of the MAD using ballistic missile submarines for which the "bastion" strategy was implemented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_(naval)#Soviet_and_Russian_Naval_Bastions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_(naval)#Soviet_and_Rus...
rwmurrayVT 7y ago
Interestingly enough the US is considered to be in a rather bad spot with anti-submarine warfare, especially non-nuclear submarines. Carrier groups have limited ability to counter advanced diesel-electric and air independent propulsion submarines. It's especially bad in littoral areas. The US Navy has the majority of their ships used up in BMD, drug enforcement, etc. etc.. There is very little ASW training done. There are no S-3 Viking ASW resources, carrier/ship based helicopters are now "multi-purpose", P-3 Orion patrols are well... land surveillance & communication relays, T-AGOS is heavily reduced, and SONUS is a bust. The US Navy is severely weakened against submarines and sea mines since the end of the cold war.
rurban 7y ago
Soviets didn't need aircraft carriers because they were a purely defensive army. Aircraft carriers are only needed for offensive armies, like the US army. Submarines are a much better and cheaper way to keep the offensive attacker under control. They are almost unbeatable.

comicjk 7y ago

Submarines have always been an underdog's weapon to some extent, ever since they were used by the South in the US civil war. If you expect your navy to be outclassed, but still want to build one, stealth is one of the few options.

vkou 7y ago

An aircraft carrier is expensive because it requires an entire fleet to support it. The carrier isn't the expensive part - the dozen screening vessels that protect it are. That fleet can be taken out with a single tactical nuclear weapon. A nuclear submarine can operate on its own, and carries more firepower (If we count by number of capitalists/communists/unaligned people it can kill) than an entire carrier group. An aircraft carrier is useful for force projection on the other side of the world, if you are trying to bomb some stone-age savages, or to carry out some gunboat diplomacy to an uppity developing nation. It can't surprise-surface 30 miles off the coast of New York, and launch three dozen half-megaton nuclear weapons at six different metro areas in the span of forty minutes. The Soviet Union was much more concerned about it's security than it was about power projection. It didn't need carrier groups - it needed a way to guarantee it's safety from nuclear attack, by holding the threat of initially Cuba, and later, it's submarines over the head of the US. The former USSR's, and today's Russia's foreign policy become a lot clearer when you understand their primary goal - security of the homeland from attack. The country was absolutely traumatized by the Great War, the Russian Civil War, and the Great Patriotic War. All Soviet, and now Russian military planning focuses on preventing such disasters. The US's primary goal, in contrast, is not homeland security (it is a secondary goal). The US's primary goal is making sure the world's oceans remain open to marine trade. That is why the USSR didn't invest in aircraft carriers, but the US did.

B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
> than it was about power projection That part came from people singing "The Internationale" all over the world, but it started to come apart in the 1960s, and by the 1980s it had disintegrated, and so did the Soviet Union. Ah, well, interesting times.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  It's just an industrial revolution too early and did not manage to avoid an imbred political class. The AI and (insert unknown political change) might enabled a very different version of Internationale, that might arise in our lifetime.

trhway 7y ago

Yes, USSR/Russia has never been able to build a Navy projecting power far beyond native shores, so as a result the Navy task in the modern times would be to protect the shores, present some "assymetric" response to the US carrier groups by means of the attack submarines and to play its part of the MAD using ballistic missile submarines for which the "bastion" strategy was implemented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_(naval)#Soviet_and_Russian_Naval_Bastions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_(naval)#Soviet_and_Rus...

rwmurrayVT 7y ago

Interestingly enough the US is considered to be in a rather bad spot with anti-submarine warfare, especially non-nuclear submarines. Carrier groups have limited ability to counter advanced diesel-electric and air independent propulsion submarines. It's especially bad in littoral areas. The US Navy has the majority of their ships used up in BMD, drug enforcement, etc. etc.. There is very little ASW training done. There are no S-3 Viking ASW resources, carrier/ship based helicopters are now "multi-purpose", P-3 Orion patrols are well... land surveillance & communication relays, T-AGOS is heavily reduced, and SONUS is a bust. The US Navy is severely weakened against submarines and sea mines since the end of the cold war.

rurban 7y ago

Soviets didn't need aircraft carriers because they were a purely defensive army. Aircraft carriers are only needed for offensive armies, like the US army. Submarines are a much better and cheaper way to keep the offensive attacker under control. They are almost unbeatable.