Shipbucket

As someone primarily interested in the wartime USN, I have to say that I agree -- for whatever reason the Cold War Soviet surface fleet is just cool to look at.

The USN after 1945 gets progressively more boring with an emphasis on carriers and submarines while the Red Navy gets more surface combatants with bigger and bigger missiles!

Unfortunately I can't imagine the US Navy meeting with much success in an all-out fight with the Soviets before the introduction of Aegis.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

If you mean surface-warship-wise, it's an inescapable conclusion. That said, carriers just break everything, in both of your preferred worlds.

Don't forget the submarines Colo mentioned.

i was under the assumption that the us consentrated on carriers and the Soviets concentrated on creating ships with big missiles to destroy those carriers but never could really ever match the United Sates in naval might

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

The intent of US carrier doctrine in the cold war was to provide platforms that could bring the fight to the Soviet Union even if land airbases were being overrun.

To that end, soviet doctrine was to keep that from happening, with a healthy side dose of keeping the USN and allied navies out of the 'boomer bastions. To that end, the soviets focused on surface ships, land based naval aviation, and the occasional helicarrier.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Right. We tend to forget that the Soviets invested considerably in land based naval aircraft, to counter the USN and NATO; in that sense they had a counter to the aircraft carrier.

How much of a counter would the Bear/Backfire raids have actually been, though?
*This is a genuine question, coming from a professed landlubber.*

The prep/transit phase of those missions would have gone well beyond the 'Anticipation, It's Making Me Wait' phase and right over into 'Start Brewing Another Pot Of Joe' territory. The aircrews would have had to pack a lunch... and maybe even a sensible snack before dinner. By the time they arrive they would be tired, their bladders would have been full of metabolized tea and they would be wanting nothing more than an empty bottle with which to relieve themselves.
When they show up, the CAP probably would spot them at fringe range for their missiles (or perhaps sooner) thanks to the Soviets having to pass multiple friendly radar installations on the way, and the raid warnings generated by said stations. The carriers would then launch intercept craft... possibly not even to engage the aircraft so much as the missiles. The remaining missiles would then pass into SAM range, then into active/passive EW range and then finally into CIWS range.

How many were actually predicted to survive and hit a target?

Then how many aircraft would make it BACK to home base, given that their approach vectors would be known in a general fashion and interdiction could be set up on the return trip? There were only so many ways back into Soviet airspace... and they could easily be covered on a randomly rotating basis to try and catch long-range strike craft that were returning with low fuel, depleted chaff packs, and tired crews.

So... would the long-range land-based naval aviation forces really have lasted long enough to make a 'war-winning' difference?

We have one good attack scenario in "Red Storm Rising", and sometimes you need just one missile to take out carrier from action.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

The reasons for Soviet Union to collapse were as complex as the whole Soviet Union itself. There isen't one "big" reasons, but merely several issues which together with bad managment started an chain-reaction which under even worse attempts to correct it finaly led to the failed coup in late 1991 and the following actions that took place.

As for the carriers and stuff, like said the main idea of this and my previous AU ideas has been the creation of countering carrier force for USN. Thus I eventually ended up with AU Soviet Union as it is the sole possiple power which could achive it.

In this AU, the main naval aviation focus will be shipborne but the land based naval aviation remains as well. The rocket cruiser and big anti-ship surface fleet doesen't remain. Only the submarine force remains as main anti-ship force aside the carriers. As in OTL, in this AU the Soviet Union is being behind of the USN might up untill the very few years and thus some sort of conpensation to challenge the enemy carriers is needed, thus the submarine fleet. But I will write down more spesific development history of the fleet once I get there.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Yes, there was a problem with the Phalanx targeting code that allowed a missile to damage the Nimitz there.

However, Nimitz was also back in service in a matter of weeks, and the scenario I spoke of- with precise raid warnings and 'attacks' on returning raiders ensued... though in the book Clancy went with the 007-style coordinated cluster munition via tomahawk raid.

The Soviets had a great weapon against the first few convoys to go through... but after raid warnings and retaliatory strikes, well, the Backfires were pretty easily beaten. That is what I was asking- would they have only been 'marginally successful'; and would Gollevainen's 'carrier vs carrier' AU not have been a better way?