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.
The final section of the Soviet naval staff paper reviewed the situation in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. In comparing the naval and air forces, it assessed the available weapon systems on both sides as approximately equivalent. The Soviet naval object was to support Soviet foreign policy, in exerting pressure on the United States forces in the area, and assisting the fraternal United Arab Republic forces to deny full control of the Persian Gulf to Iran. The course of action recommended was to reinforce the Soviet naval air squadron re-established at Aden with an additional squadron of Backfire bombers, and one of Foxbat fighters. The task group based on a Kiev-class, anti-submarine carrier, now visiting Mauritius, should proceed to the Red Sea, preparatory to the declaration of a War Zone there, should this become necessary. Under the heading ‘Command Communications and Control’, the naval staff advised the establishment forthwith of a Flag Officer Soviet Middle East Forces (FOSMEF), with headquarters ashore at Aden. The agreement of the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY) government should not be difficult to obtain. FOSMEF would require a full operational staff, an air deputy and a political adviser. A communications echelon would be set up, with an organization appropriate to the major operational task envisaged. FOSMEF would, for the time being, be responsible administratively to the Commander-in-Chief Soviet Black Sea Fleet, at Sevastopol. Operationally, he would be directly responsible to the Commander-in-Chief Soviet Fleet.
When the Soviet naval staff paper was taken by the Main Military Council, together with several other important papers, the Conclusions and Recommendations were approved.
APPENDIX 3: NATO Naval Command Structure
It was natural in 1951 to create first an Allied Command Europe, in order to establish US forces on the ground, where they would discourage the Soviet Union from any further westward advance. It was also natural to create an Allied Command Atlantic, in order to ensure the reinforcement and re-supply of the US ground forces. It was inevitable, also, that both supreme commanders should be US officers. It was, perhaps, equally natural, and inevitable, that Great Britain, especially with Winston Churchill once again returned to power as Prime Minister, was not ready to subordinate the Royal Navy entirely to an American admiral with his headquarters on the far side of the Atlantic. Not until it had been agreed, therefore, to set up an Allied Commander-in-Chief, Channel, with supreme commander status, and a British admiral in the post, would Churchill agree to the activation of SACLANT. The Channel command was confined to the southern North Sea and the English Channel; and it was hoped that the worst possibilities of operational misunderstanding, at the command boundaries, would be eliminated by ensuring that the same British officers who exercised certain British national commands, and appropriate subordinate commands in Allied Command Atlantic (ACLANT), would also hold the subordinate posts in the Channel Command. The wartime mission of SACLANT would be to maintain intact the communication lines of the Atlantic Ocean, to conduct conventional and nuclear operations against enemy naval bases and airfields, and to support operations carried out by SACEUR, while the Commander-in-Chief, Channel (CINCHAN) was ‘to control and protect merchant shipping, to endeavour to establish and maintain control of the area, and to support operations in adjacent commands’.