1 The seas and oceans of the world remain, in spite of air, and improved land, transport, the ‘broad highway’ over which 90 per cent of the world’s commodities, minerals, manufactured products and petroleum are moved. In addition, 70 per cent of the population of the world live within thirty miles of the sea coast.
2 Economic necessity has forced the Soviet Union to develop, first, large fishing fleets [whaling fleets, also, until there were no more whales], then a large, and still increasing, merchant fleet. The former provided indispensable protein, the latter foreign currency, essential transportation between widely separated parts of the Soviet Union, and political influence worldwide.
3 Oceanographic research has enabled Soviet scientists to understand the sea and the exploration of the sea bed.
4 National security has demanded, first, naval defence of Soviet territory against the nuclear power of the US carrier strike fleets, together with the capacity to interdict seaborne military reinforcement of Western Europe from North America. Later, the development of submarine-launched strategic nuclear ballistic missiles, both by the Soviet Union and the United States, placed upon the Soviet Navy the main responsibility for the retaliatory and damage- limitation rocket forces, indispensable to the preservation of a strategic nuclear posture that would at least not be unfavourable to the Soviet Union in the event of nuclear war.
5 The Soviet Navy must also play its part in the combined armed forces of the Soviet Union by supporting the seaward flank of the ground forces with amphibious operations, defence against attack from seaward, and supply.
6 ‘State interests’ frequently require the support of the Soviet Navy in peacetime. The historical mission of Marxist-Leninist theory calls for the projection of Soviet power beyond the confines of the Eurasian land mass. To this end, it is necessary to contend with, and eventually overcome, the sea power of the United States and her imperialist allies, so that the supremacy of the Soviet Union, at sea as on land, will be acknowledged.
The next section of the Soviet naval staff paper was headed ‘The Comparison of Naval Force’. Pointing out that navies were not in themselves to be regarded as synonymous with sea power, but rather as the instruments of sea power, it went on to give the historical context. Shortly after the end of the Great Patriotic War in 1945, it had been objectively true to say that the Soviet Union was predominantly a continental power, facing a predominantly maritime coalition, in which the United States and Great Britain provided the main naval elements. In addition, the vast majority of the world’s shipping was owned and operated by the maritime coalition, which also occupied or controlled almost all the main ports, harbours and sea routes throughout the world.
During the past three decades this asymmetry had been transformed, by the forces of history and the peace- loving exertions of the Soviet Union, in three ways. First, the Soviet Navy had grown, both actually and relatively, so that it was now in many respects ‘second to none’; second, the Soviet Union had provided itself with a large ocean-going merchant fleet, as well as fishing fleets of great capacity; and third, the failure of the imperialists and colonialists to retain political authority over their subject peoples had led to a large increase in the number of independent states, and these states between them now possessed navies of their own, and many of the ports and harbours which formerly were controlled by the old maritime coalition. Fortunately, the Soviet Union, as the friend of all liberated peoples, now had access to their ports; could utilize their naval forces in the struggle for peace; and could in some cases deny their use to the imperialists. The Soviet Union was now, therefore, a maritime as well as a continental power.
It was still true, however, that in comparing the two blocs, geography, so important a factor in sea power, did impose constraints. The advantage of unified political control enjoyed by the Soviet Union, as compared with the autonomy of the countries comprising the Western coalition, was offset by the continued existence of four major threats to the freedom of Soviet movement by sea. The British Isles could act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the north-west approaches to Europe. The exits from Murmansk to the Atlantic, and from the Baltic to the North Sea, could not be regarded as secure. Nor could the Dardanelles, so long as Turkey was imprisoned in the capitalist camp. In the Far East, Japan was so placed as to be able to impose serious limitations on the use of Vladivostok. Soviet policy would sooner or later have to eliminate these four constraints upon her sea power.
Turning now to the comparison of actual naval forces, the paper first referred to the criteria of relative capabilities which had been used in determining the shape and size of the Soviet Navy in accordance with its various missions. Formerly, ‘like fought like’ at sea; a direct comparison of the numbers of similarly armed ships which could be brought into action at a given place and time had always formed the basis both of strategy and of tactics. Now, the balance of naval capability had to be calculated by mathematical systems analysis, solving multi- criteria problems for various adversary situations and different combinations of heterogeneous forces and means. Objective analysis of this kind permitted determination of the necessary and sufficient composition of forces and their combination into balanced groups. Because the application of such methodical, indeed scientific, analysis was indispensable to a proper assessment of the naval-air situation in the Middle East, it was deemed essential to explain it in some detail.
The central concept in modern naval force comparison, the paper affirmed, was the weapon system, not the ship, the submarine or the aircraft, though these were considered as targets for the various weapon systems. In defining a weapon system a choice had to be made. At one end of the spectrum, a club in the hand of a caveman could be called a weapon system; at the other, a ballistic missile submarine. In the present context, the elements of a weapon system were:
1 A means of detecting and identifying a possible target.
2 A warhead capable of destroying or neutralizing that target.
3 A vehicle to carry the warhead to the target.
4 A launcher for the vehicle.
5 A means of controlling the vehicle so that it will hit the target.
6 Protection for the vehicle and warhead against counter-measures designed to prevent either or both from hitting the target.
Certain features of the operational environment profoundly affected weapon systems, the paper went on. If the target was under water the system would be dependent upon the acoustic properties of seawater; if it was above water, it would be dependent upon electro-magnetic radiation. Weapon systems which required a homing device of any kind for target acquisition could always be decoyed or otherwise countered. Those guided by radio command were susceptible to electronic jamming. The tactics used in bringing weapon systems to bear were governed by their characteristics. The principle of concentration of force required continuous reinterpretation in the light of complex and varied weapon systems.
Taking the targets in turn, studies had shown that:
1 Surface ships are vulnerable to surface-skimming, submarine-launched, horizon-range missiles; to tactical surface-to-surface missiles; to air-to-surface missiles; and to torpedoes and mines.
2 Submarines are vulnerable to submarine-launched, wire-guided torpedoes; to aircraft-launched torpedoes and nuclear depth charges; and to ship-launched torpedoes.
3 Aircraft are vulnerable to surface-to-air short-range missiles; to surface-to-air medium- or long-range missiles; and to aircraft-launched missiles.
It had been established, the paper continued, that the latest Soviet weapon systems performed as well, if not better, than their equivalents in service in the US Navy. Soviet strategic deployments and tactical dispositions, therefore, must always aim at bringing to bear a superior concentration of appropriate weapon systems, while denying to the enemy the opportunity to do so. In the field of underwater warfare, two special factors had to be borne in mind. First, owing to the relatively low speed of sound waves in water, it was not feasible for submarines to operate in close formation with each other in order to bring to bear a concentration of weapon systems upon a hostile submarine or surface target. In a submarine versus submarine action, therefore, victory was likely to go to the one which first detected the other. And because noise levels depended mainly upon speed, the submarine whose mission required it to move rapidly would be at greater risk of being surprised. Second, mines could be used with great effect in certain circumstances.
A reminder was then given of the effect upon naval operations of the almost continuous reconnaissance, by satellite or aircraft, now available. The movements of all major surface ships, whether naval or merchant, were now known, and could, if required, be shown direct on TV screens anywhere in the world. Only the submarine forces remained secure from observation, and even in their case good estimates could often be made of the number and types at sea in various areas. But one very serious constraint remained in regard to submarine operations: the need to avoid mutual interference between friendly submarine and anti-submarine forces.
