Started By
Message

What happened to the Soviet Navy when the USSR collapsed?

Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:32 am
Posted by JOJO Hammer
Member since Nov 2010
11904 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:32 am
LINK


quote:

Imagine we are foreign intelligence service agents and we spy for Russian military bases. Just a few years ago it was impossible, not to mention how it was impossible during the iron curtain era. But now thanks to google we can see all the top secret Russian objects clearly on those shots. Thanks to our chums at EnglishRussia

Russia still stays very militarized country.

If to explore with Google earth just a small part of it, the Murmansk region (one of many of Russian regions) which is located next to Norway and Finland, we can meet tens of military objects, mainly Russian Navy ones.

Here they are:
















Posted by Bluefin
The Banana Stand
Member since Apr 2011
13253 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:42 am to
I'm pretty sure Nicolas Cage took control of them and resold them to guerrilla war groups.
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
64380 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:45 am to
Even at the height of Soviet Power, the Soviet Fleet was never a true global naval force other than her sub fleet which even today is still a potent force. But as far as a surface fleet, the Soviets were never even close to the US and when it comes to naval air power, they have always been woefully behind the US and NATO.
Posted by AngryBeavers
Member since Jun 2012
4554 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:48 am to
That's what they want you to think.
Posted by Hermit Crab
Under the Sea
Member since Nov 2008
7161 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:49 am to
here is a submarine on a barge

LINK
Posted by Acadien
Member since Nov 2008
3571 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:52 am to
Fortunately for the rest of the world, the "collapse" of the Soviet Union was (with the exception of a failed coup) a surprisingly smooth transition thanks in large part to the farsightedness of our homie Mikhail Sergeyevich.

ETA: Point being, the Soviet Navy was absorbed into the Russian Navy, with certain former Soviet bloc countries retaining odds and ends. At least, that's all the public knows today. Pray to Allah we didn't miss any nukes.
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 10:53 am
Posted by soccerfüt
Location: A Series of Tubes
Member since May 2013
65517 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:53 am to
quote:

here is a submarine on a barge


That's a floating drydock that the submarine is on.

Posted by doublecutter
Hear & Their
Member since Oct 2003
6572 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:56 am to
There used to be a soviet sub tied up on the waterfront in Seattle, not sure if it's still there or not.
Posted by Vito Andolini
Member since Sep 2009
1879 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:03 am to
That top picture is obviously a bunch of ships that have been decommissioned. No one in their right mind would park so many ships together like that if they were still in service. First good storm and they would all bang into each other, ripping each other to pieces.

As someone else has already said, the vast majority of the old Soviet Navy was inheirited by the Russian Navy. Then over the course of the next 25 years, most of the old Soviet ships were decommissioned. There are still several powerful surface vessels, including the carrier Kutnetzov and the nuclear powered Kirov class heavy cruisers. The Russians continued to invest in their submarine fleet, which was excellent during the cold war, and have developed some fine 4th generation submarines, both attack and ballistic, along with some future 5th generation subs.

With the Russians annexing the Crimea, they have regained the exclusive use of all the old Soviet naval assets (which were considerable) in that area, which will help the Russians maintain the Black Sea as basically a Russian lake and to also project power into the Med.
Posted by BoatSchoolTiger
Houston, TX
Member since May 2013
659 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:06 am to
quote:

What happened to the Soviet Navy when the USSR collapsed?


I am pretty sure the same question can be asked about the Reagan 600 ship Navy of the time...

What a shame
Posted by Tigris
Mexican Home
Member since Jul 2005
12344 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:11 am to
quote:

ships that have been decommissioned.


We've got our share of those in Richmond, CA and other places.

Posted by White Roach
Member since Apr 2009
9449 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:42 am to
I crossed the Benecia Bridge about a year ago for the first time in about ten years. The Suisan Bay (upstream) side of the bridge used to have at least a hundred, maybe 150, old ships out there. Probably down to thirty or forty now. I assume they've been scrapped, but I don't know for sure.
Posted by GetCocky11
Calgary, AB
Member since Oct 2012
51235 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:44 am to
Sell for $.01 to a scrapyard in places like Brownsville, TX.
Posted by Jamohn
Das Boot
Member since Mar 2009
13542 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 11:59 am to
quote:

I'm pretty sure Nicolas Cage took control of them and resold them to guerrilla war groups.

Posted by White Roach
Member since Apr 2009
9449 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 12:37 pm to
I figured they had to go to India or China because of all the asbestos, lead paint and God knows whatever other nasty stuff they're full of. I know Brownsville is practically Mexico, but they still have to abide by US environmental regs.

Have ever heard about all the cleanup that was required to make the Oriskany into an artificial reef? You'd think we could use antiquated ships as the foundation for artificial reefs or as a construction component for breakwaters or barrier islands, but it cost a fortune to clean them up for sinking.
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
64380 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 12:42 pm to
quote:




That looks a lot like an old WWII era US "Liberty" or maybe "Victory" ship....



Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89476 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 12:46 pm to
quote:

You'd think we could use antiquated ships as the foundation for artificial reefs or as a construction component for breakwaters or barrier islands, but it cost a fortune to clean them up for sinking.


And a fortune x100 for ships that had nuke plants. The first generation nuclear ships have been retiring at a trickle, now that will pick up. Everyone is upset that the nuke Enterprise (CVN-65) will be broken up, just as Big E (CV-6) was, but the realities are - the hull has to be shredded to remove the nuclear reactors - and once that's done, she ain't getting towed or moved anywhere.

The Soviet navy was never an ocean-spanning, blue water navy. They didn't have ships - they had targets.

Their submarine force was legit, though - they took the German U-Boat model and, like the Russians always do, put it on steroids. That's why all our focus on ASW during the Cold War. Force on force engagements would have been a joke until they went nuclear.
Posted by GetCocky11
Calgary, AB
Member since Oct 2012
51235 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 1:24 pm to
quote:

I figured they had to go to India or China because of all the asbestos, lead paint and God knows whatever other nasty stuff they're full of. I know Brownsville is practically Mexico, but they still have to abide by US environmental regs.


There was an article in NatGeo a few months back about one of these scrapyards in Bangladesh. It is very dangerous and toxic work.

LINK

This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 1:25 pm
Posted by Vito Andolini
Member since Sep 2009
1879 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 1:50 pm to
quote:

And a fortune x100 for ships that had nuke plants. The first generation nuclear ships have been retiring at a trickle, now that will pick up. Everyone is upset that the nuke Enterprise (CVN-65) will be broken up, just as Big E (CV-6) was, but the realities are - the hull has to be shredded to remove the nuclear reactors - and once that's done, she ain't getting towed or moved anywhere.

The Soviet navy was never an ocean-spanning, blue water navy. They didn't have ships - they had targets.

Their submarine force was legit, though - they took the German U-Boat model and, like the Russians always do, put it on steroids. That's why all our focus on ASW during the Cold War. Force on force engagements would have been a joke until they went nuclear.


The Soviets had a different overall, and consequently, naval strategy than the US. Their WWIII strategy was for the Red Army, with help from their Warsaw Pact allies, to first invade West Germany and destroy the US and NATO forces located there, and then to conquer the rest of Western Europe. The Soviet Navy's role in this war scenario would have been one of "sea denial," which puts a premium on submarines and air and sea launched cruise missiles.

That is why the Soviets were the first (and until relatively recently) the only Navy with submarine launched cruise missles. They were not trying to conquer the Atlantic (in the sense that the USA conquered the Pacific in WW2), they simple wanted to deny its use to the USA, and thus conquer Europe before the USA could mobilize and seek to retake it by way of the Altantic Ocean.
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 1:52 pm
Posted by Godfather1
What WAS St George, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
79609 posts
Posted on 2/3/15 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

I'm pretty sure Nicolas Cage took control of them and resold them to guerrilla war groups.


shite, beat me to it.

I love that movie.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram