US Carriers in Black Sea during Cold War

[Lostfleet]

In the thread Russian carriers it was mentioned that due to the Montreux agreement no aircraft carrier of any nation could pass through the Turkish Straits.

If there was no such agreement, during Cold War, would US send its carrier forces to the Black Sea? If it did, would it be a wise thing to do or would it be a suicidal mission as there is not much place to hide there. ( Basically it is a big lake within easy reach of hundreds of Soviet medium bombers back then)

 

[swerve]

I think you're a little confused.

Let us assume for the moment that there is no such agreement, & during the Cold War the USA sent carriers into the Black Sea. The USSR would have been annoyed, & doubtless would have kept a close eye on them, but it was a COLD war: the carriers would not have been attacked.

Now let us assume that the Cold War turned into a hot war: Turkey is and was a NATO member, & therefore would be a belligerent in that hypothetical war. The Montreux agreement would therefore be in abeyance for both Warsaw Pact nations (the Turks would suspend their right of passage through the straits, for obvious reasons, & seize or attack any of their ships which tried it), & NATO members (the Turks would lift all restrictions on the passage of their shipping). Therefore, there is no need to postulate the non-existence of the Montreux agreement for US carriers to enter the Black Sea in a shooting war.

 

[Lostfleet]

Actually what I tried to ask was, if there was a shooting war, how would the carriers operate at the Black Sea and would it be wise to send them there,

( good point about the lifting of all restrictions during the war , I forgot the NATO connection)

 

[kato]

If there was a shooting war, the carriers would likely stay at home since by the time they arrive anywhere there would be nothing left...

 

[gf0012-aust]

If there was a shooting war, the carriers would likely stay at home since by the time they arrive anywhere there would be nothing left...

The 5th Fleets role in the Med was to stop or buffer a breakout as well as maintain it as an american naval centre of operations. (look at the number of facilities that the USN and USAF had around the Med. It had any number of naval facilities to fall back on.

In fact, during the Cold War, the Med was referred to as "an American Lake"

Also, remember that at the peak of the Cold War the US had multiple CV centred battle groups in the Med as well as ASW Carrier Based H-K Groups also co-located. The USN alone wielded enormous air power - and cold war Air Wings were large - close to double the size of current air wing committments.

 

[kato]

I'd call Napoli "home" for the 5th, much like Sasebo for the 7th

Fact is that in a war scenario, effectively the Mediterranean forces would have contained the enemy locally, there wouldn't have been any "expeditions".

As for the original:

The aircraft engagement border over the Black Sea pretty much ran across it in the middle from the Turkish/Bulgarian to the Turkish/Soviet border. Without much of a "pocket" in the middle due to the engagement ranges of SA-5 batteries located along its northern edge.
This engagement border could perfectly well be kept by fighters based out of Turkey, hence no need for a carrier in that theater.

Also, i'd presume there would have been good chances for Turkey mining the northern mouth of the straits, simply to prevent any Soviet sub diving breakthrough attempts.

 

[swerve]

...
The aircraft engagement border over the Black Sea pretty much ran across it in the middle from the Turkish/Bulgarian to the Turkish/Soviet border. Without much of a "pocket" in the middle due to the engagement ranges of SA-5 batteries located along its northern edge.
This engagement border could perfectly well be kept by fighters based out of Turkey, hence no need for a carrier in that theater.

Concur. Also, a carrier would be at great risk in the Black Sea. Nowhere to hide, hostile coasts in three directions, within range of land-based missiles, its air wing constrained by land-based SAMs, within reach of FACs & coastal subs which would whittle away its escorts . . .

...
Also, i'd presume there would have been good chances for Turkey mining the northern mouth of the straits, simply to prevent any Soviet sub diving breakthrough attempts.

Minimum depth 36 metres, minimum width 700 metres (& 750 metres at another point), bridged. I wouldn't like to be in any sub trying to sneak through, mines or no mines.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Concur. Also, a carrier would be at great risk in the Black Sea. Nowhere to hide, hostile coasts in three directions, within range of land-based missiles, its air wing constrained by land-based SAMs, within reach of FACs & coastal subs which would whittle away its escorts . . .

Not to mention soviet naval aviation that close to home. Thats full payload, not pretty.

Any way the only reason i can think for sending a CBG into the black sea would be to hit the soviet naval facilities in the northern shore, and that would not be worth the cost IMO.

Minimum depth 36 metres, minimum width 700 metres (& 750 metres at another point), bridged. I wouldn't like to be in any sub trying to sneak through, mines or no mines.

I agree, moderate ASW capability would be devastating in that terrain, mines or not.

The only unknown factor in the ability of the Turks to hold the line is how hard Ivan would have hit them. Perhaps land based fighters may not have been viable after a nuclear exchange.

 

[kato]

The only unknown factor in the ability of the Turks to hold the line is how hard Ivan would have hit them.

Would be the same with a CBG though. It's not like there weren't enough nukes to assign 50 or so to a naval strike bomber group to sink that CBG.

 

[Feanor]

Would be the same with a CBG though. It's not like there weren't enough nukes to assign 50 or so to a naval strike bomber group to sink that CBG.

Would it take 50? Or much less? It doesn't take nukes to overwhelm the AEGIS.

 

[Salty Dog]

The 5th Fleets role in the Med was to stop or buffer a breakout as well as maintain it as an american naval centre of operations. (look at the number of facilities that the USN and USAF had around the Med. It had any number of naval facilities to fall back on.

In fact, during the Cold War, the Med was referred to as "an American Lake"

Also, remember that at the peak of the Cold War the US had multiple CV centred battle groups in the Med as well as ASW Carrier Based H-K Groups also co-located. The USN alone wielded enormous air power - and cold war Air Wings were large - close to double the size of current air wing committments.

Actually the USN 6th Fleet is in the Med. The 5th Fleet is in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea. The 5th Fleet was started up again in July 1995 (It was disbanded in 1947).

The 6th Fleet also had a considerable Amphibious Ready Group assets centered around an LPH/LHA.

 

[Lostfleet]

Can Aegis light up all of the Black Sea?

Do you guys know what kind of coastal anti-ship missiles were located on the northern shores of Black Sea ( I wonder if they could take any ship in Black Sea)

 

[Firehorse]

I'm glad that someone started this thread!
Well, let's look at a map first:
http://www.iapscience.com/img/Black_Sea_map.png

The Black Sea is like a trap, with 1 way in, 1 way out. Before it can be reached, there are numerous islands in a narrow Aegean Sea, from which the CBG could be easily spotted by Soviet spies; the same for the Sea of Marmara it's between 2 narrow strights; and once past the Bosporus, the CBG will be mainly defending itself, as there are powerful radars in the Crimea and N.Caucasus shore (I have seen them myself in the 80s), besides subs (even Northern Fleet SSGNs sometimes operated there), MPAs, Tu-16/22s, MiG-25s and sattelites above- plenty of means to triangulate it in a relatively small area. The Caspian flotilla missile boats could also be sent across the Volga-Don canal to reinforce the Black Sea Fleet.
I'm no chemist, but correct me here, with H2S dissolved below 200m, large underwater explosions could release the deadly gas to the surface & downwind, shutting down all flight ops.
So, if a CBG ever entered there it would have been suicidal.

 

[kato]

... chemical weapons against carriers? huh?

NBC Protective Gear, both personal and as citadels, was developed for a reason.

And WW1 methods for deploying chemical weapons are rather... outdated. Especially when your target can move out of a cloud at 30+ knots.

 

[Firehorse]

How well can they work on the flight deck in that protection gear?
Well, it's a mute point- a CBG, in the Black Sea (or any other closed sea near the Soviet Union) would have been certainly nuked in a real all-out war if all other means failed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

How well can they work on the flight deck in that protection gear?

Completely - thats why they were designed. Deck crew aren't doing lace work

Well, it's a mute point- a CBG, in the Black Sea (or any other closed sea near the Soviet Union) would have been certainly nuked in a real all-out war if all other means failed.

It is definitely a moot point. No one needs to put an opposing carrier into the Black Sea.

Again, what tactical requirement exists for an enemy to insert a battle fleet into confined space and exposed to precision munitions when objectives can be achieved by other means?

This is NOT 1972