Russian Underground Submarine Factory

[SajeevJino]

Balaklava, in Ukraine , can even today be remembered for having been one of the secret places in Russia that was extremely famous for its Nuclear Submarine Base . The place witnessed a huge underground submarine base and amazing docks, in USSR, and this was functional till 1996 when the last Russian submarine left Ukraine . But the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 compelled the Russian Army to leave the place.
.
.
It was a big underground submarine base and docks once in USSR. After the Soviet Union collapsed and Russian army left Ukraine it was partly abandoned and some of its parts was converted into a museum later

 

[SajeevJino]

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[SajeevJino]

.

.

.

.
.
.

.

.

.

 

[SajeevJino]

.

.

.

.

.

 

[sayareakd]

now they take tourists to this site.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

 

[Ray]

Fascinating.

I am sure the US will make good use of it!

Sweden has the same, right?

 

[Payeng]

If I am not wrong Soviets were heavily investing in submarines when US was investing on surface fleet, Soviet preferred the submarines because they are stealthy and can hide out, more over they have the geographical advantage to hide the boomers in North pole.

After looking at those arrangement one thing that comes out of my mouth is 'Waah' (cool)

 

[Yusuf]

If I am not wrong Soviets were heavily investing in submarines when US was investing on surface fleet, Soviet preferred the submarines because they are stealthy and can hide out, more over they have the geographical advantage to hide the boomers in North pole.

After looking at those arrangement one thing that comes out of my mouth is 'Waah' (cool)

Amercians invested equally in their submarines. Soviets may be had to do more sub surface as the Americans had so many carriers.

It's fascinating to ear stories on TV about the US and soviet hunter killers at each others and tracking them so closely in a race to annihilate each other.

 

[Armand2REP]

Yes you can hide submarines in such a base, but can you service them?

 

[Payeng]

Amercians invested equally in their submarines. Soviets may be had to do more sub surface as the Americans had so many carriers.

It's fascinating to ear stories on TV about the US and soviet hunter killers at each others and tracking them so closely in a race to annihilate each other.

Soviets viewed Aircraft carriers as instruments of capitalist and imperialist for aggression purpose but they felt the need of ASW carriers to hunt down sub fleets of the west. It was only after Nikita Khrushchev the doctrine was reviewed in favour for a full fledged aircraft carrier to counter rival advancement in Naval capabilities, Soviet doctrine was based on massive retaliation rather then power projection and moreover they considered aircraft carriers as vulnerable to attack, submarine fleet suits their geographical location and doctrine, While west felt the need for power projection and invested heavily on Carrier fleet, soviets were investing heavily on submarine fleets and other surface fleet to take down a complete carrier battle group.

 

[asianobserve]

Put simply, since the USSR cannot match NATO above the surface so they took their military below the surface. But alas! The alliance was just as formidable below the surface...