27th of September 1942, Sevastopol, 12,9°C, 2pm Moscow Time,
In the immediate aftermath of the naval battle of the Skagerrack yesterday (see next GPW update), 'Piat' invited myself, and retired Chief of the Navy Vladimir Orlov (traveling under a different name and rank) to Sevastopol to look at two newly laid down vessels, and to discuss the immediate future of the Red Navy's surface fleets. Up first was a reminder of our navy's current make-up:
In it's current shape, the Red Navy has three fleets. Before the war, the former Pacific fleet was merged into the Baltic Fleet (Baltiyskiy Flot), under the assumption that the Carrier Fleet (Avianosets Flote) would be stationed in Vladivostok, which it was. Of course, as the Soviet Union was attacked, the need for a third fleet in the West meant that the Carriers were quickly rebased to Sevastopol, and then Mythiléné. The Black Sea Fleet (Cernomorsky Flot) was then free to go where it was most needed, often escorting troop transports and/or providing shore bombardment, as it is doing right now off the coast from Kristiansand.
The introduction of Aircraft Carriers has been a major succes, despite the relatively rudimentary nature of our Carriers. Our CAG's are world class, and they have proven a very versatile tool, performing Naval Strikes, Ground Attacks, Port Strikes, and of course, protecting our ships from enemy aeroplanes. Two distinct Carrier types have been developed. The armoured Moskva-Class is meant to stay close to the surface combattants, allowing it to have additional fighters over the fleet at very short notice. It's armour makes it ideal for operations in the Baltic and the Black Sea, where staying undetected is unlikely, and staying out of the range of land-based aeroplanes is impossible. The larger Kyiv-Class, on the other hand, was always meant for operations in the Pacific, it sacrifices some armour for a larger air wing, a higher cruising speed (20 knots), and a larger operating range.
Destroyer development has been focused entirely on increasing their speed and operating range with little regard for anything else. This choice was made out of necessity as a badly armed Destroyer that can keep up with the Capital ships on long missions is more versatile than a heavily armed ship that has less range than a Great War era Light Cruiser. The space that was saved by adding neither armour nor guns, has been used to fit our Destroyers with modern radar and sonar equipment. Soviet Destroyers have been clearly superseded in most, or all, areas by foreign designs from the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, Germany, and Italy. The Navy hopes that through diplomatic efforts, we may be able to procure licenses for Destroyers from one of these nations, most likely Sweden, as this would be cheaper than to actually develop our own ships to that level, at least in the medium term.
Thanks to the recent acquisition of additional Naval Bases, the potential operating area of the Red Navy has been increased significantly:
All but our oldest Destroyers have the range to be deployed to the light red area, in practice, this means all our major fleets could do so if required. The dark red area shows the operating range of our Carrier Fleet (I Avianosets Flote). Of course, with refuelling in neutral ports, and a lighter load, our fleets can be transferred between the three naval theatres, but any combat operations beyond the indicated areas cannot be logistically supported for any amount of time.
The question of what our navy should look like to protect our interest in our newly gained waters and beyond has been the subject of much debate within the Navy, and even outside it. Proposals ranging from the construction of a 15-ship class of gigantic super heavy battleships, to the creation of 7 Carrier Fleets, and everything in between have been considered, briefly, before being tossed out for being overambitious, impractical, and impossible to achieve within the set timeframe of 5 years.
A more pragmatic approach was needed, and with some nudging from the secret committee, the following template was adopted:
Three fleets centred around a Battleship, several large Cruisers, and one Escort Carrier. Their main missions are shore bombardement, the protection of troop transports, dealing with small enemy fleets, submarines hunting, and presence missions.
Two large Carrier Fleets built around three Carriers each, which are meant to deal with larger enemy threats by using offensive air power, be it at sea, or in port. While very powerful, these formations require large open spaces to keep the Carriers safe, and are thus ill suited for the Baltic or the Black Sea.
As long as Japan stays out of the war, the Pacific Fleet will operate in the west as the Atlantic Squadron, subordinate to the Black Sea Fleet or the Baltic Fleet, as required. Likewise, when no serious naval targets are available the Carrier Fleets can be used to provide air support to operations on land within their area of operation, which will likely be the Mediterranean.
Of course, the planned ships will be substituted for better types when they become available, whether through license purchase or through research.
After the 5 year plan, it was time to look at the new capital ships that have just been laid down:
Both new classes share a powerplant, but with different gearing. The Kirov-class combines the hull design of the Krasnyi Kavkaz with french-inspired twin 203mm turrets, resulting in a ship with all of the firepower of the French Algérie-class (good) but the seakeeping of a supersized Svetlana-class (questionable).
The Kharkov class is a direct evolution of the Moskva-class (a near-copy of HMS Hermes), with a new powerplant, and an slightly longer hull, it's marginally faster, and has a longer autonomous range.
One ship of each class has been laid down. Following the loss of Krasnyi Kavkaz, a second Kirov-class Cruiser will likely be next, followed by more Sevastopol-class Destroyers, and a new class of three Fleet Carriers. The third Kyiv-class Carrier will be completed within the next few months.
Sea-lift capacity is also increasing as the navy will take delivery of it's fourth Transport Flotilla next month, with a fifth still in production. Landing Craft are being developed, but those designs won't be ready before next spring.
Submarine development has fallen by the wayside, as our pre-war subs have proven perfectly adequate for the navy's limited convoy raiding missions. Only once Destroyer, Carrier, and Cruiser designs have been brought up to near-parity with the larger naval powers, can we afford to start looking into submarines again. Unless, of course, we manage to purchase licenses or steal more technology.
The question of leadership was briefly discussed, but it proved a non-issue. The Red Navy has room to expand, with plenty of talented commanders improving on the job as submarine flotilla CO's, we have a large enough pool to field a navy three times it's size today, and that's not counting all the talent that will graduate from the Soviet Union's Naval Academies over the coming years. More problematic is the total lack of modern naval doctrine, which leaves our Admirals to improvise the way they utilise and organise their fleets, leading to wildly variable results. This hasn't led to disaster yet (unless you count the loss of one ancient Cruiser a disaster), but that is mostly thanks to the Royal Navy's sinking of most of the German and Italian Navies, before we even entered the war.
In conclusion, the Red Navy is in a tricky position. On the one hand, it has gained reliable access to the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, along with several large bases. On the other, the ongoing land war has all but stalled its theoretical and technological progress with the notable exception of electronics. This means that it barely has enough ships to perform it's missions in support of the land war, let alone face a world class navy, or patrol our new territorial waters with anything larger than torpedo boats or submarines. Despite all these limitations, the Red Navy has already proven itself a 'make do' Navy. They will make it work and fullfill their mission, without suitable doctrines, using ships that were designed for the previous war, cobbling together bits and pieces of foreign designs, and using every single vessel and aeroplane to it's fullest.
As I prepare to leave Sevastopol, I'm taken by a bittersweet feeling. The Red Navy has been giving it's all since the very first day of the war. While air crews have taken delivery of new state of the art planes, the Red Army has replaced every single bit of equipment and every single vehicle it owns at least once in the last two years, the rate of expansion and improvement of the navy has been comparatively pedestrian, yet, ever more is asked of them. This latest round of shipbuilding was long overdue, and quite insufficient in the grand scheme of things, but hopefully it is the first step towards a truly global Soviet Navy.
I hope this report has given you a clear picture of our Navy, and where it is headed,
Any comments on the Navy's 5 year plan are welcome,
'Odin'
