Documents / FOIA release
This is Volume II of National Intelligence Estimate 11-14-79, Warsaw Pact Forces Opposite NATO, issued by the Director of Central Intelligence and dated January 1979. The National Foreign Intelligence Board concurred with it. It was the first comprehensive estimate of Pact forces facing NATO since 1971. It covers Pact doctrine, the ground, air, naval, nuclear and chemical forces, command and control, and campaign plans for war in Europe. It judges that Central Europe would be the decisive arena, and it lists Pact weaknesses in pilot training and antisubmarine warfare. The document contains no UFO material.
“Sea”60+ pages
Top Secrt 144. The Soviets currently maintain an active in- latter view believe that the timing and extent of Soviet ventory of about 180 cruise-missile and torpedo attack interdiction operations depend more upon the disposi- submarines in their western fleets. Of these, the some tion and tactics of NATO naval forces and upon Soviet 115 long-range units based in the Northern Fleet, the intentions and expectations as to the course of the only fleet in the western USSR with largely unre- conflict, than upon the prior achievement of other stricted access to the North Atlantic sea lanes, form a naval tasks. According to this view, circumstances such potential strike force for interdiction. The demands as an early stalemate in Central Europe or a NATO placed on resources by the Soviet Navy's other mis- decision not to deploy carrier and amphibious forces sions would limit the number of submarines available immediately into the Norwegian Sea would lead the for interdiction because large numbers of Soviet naval Soviets to mount a substantial interdiction effort forces would have to be devoted to controlling the during the early phase of a conflict when NATO Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and much of the Norwegian would be convoying critical war material, including Sea, as well as their approaches, against incursion by elements of US divisions and their equipment,, to Western carriers, amphibious forces and submarines, Europe. and because a portion of the Soviet attack submarine 147. There are also disagreements over Soviet capa- force probably would be committed to operations bilities to execute an interdiction campaign, irrespec- against NATO naval bases and in the open ocean. biiistexceannerciocmagirse- tive of the Soviet committment to interdiction. These 145. There is disagreement within the Intelligence disagreements stem from different judgments and Community .concerning the extent, emphasis, and interpretations of evidence regarding: torpedo loads, timing of the interdiction campaign. Some believe " replenishment opportunities, turnaround time, transit that the Soviets would commit some of their subma- distance, combat attrition, and target information. rine fleet to an interdiction campaign, but not a large portion unless they had earlier defeated NATO carrier - Torpedo Loads. According to the first view, and amphibious forces without losing many of their Soviet naval strategy stresses the likelihood of a submarines. Others believe " that the Soviets would short nuclear war and the importance of striking regard interdiction of US reinforcements to Europe to a few high-value targets. The torpedo capacities be of such significance and their submarine inventory of Soviet submarines are consistent with this of sufficient depth to warrant use of substantial num- strategy, but would severely limit the number of bers of attack submarines in this effort while still attacks against merchant ships the submarines accomplishing their other missions. could make while on station during an interdic- 146. Those holding the former view believe that the tion campaign (see table II-9). Soviet cruise Soviets would be deterred from seriously trying to missile submarines, which constitute nearly one- exploit the West's dependence on long sea lines of third of the USSR's fleet of long-range general communication unless attrition-or Western strat- purpose submarines, carry few (the C-class) or no egy-reduced the threat from NATO's nuclear strike (the E-I1 and the J-class) torpedo reloads. Soviet and projection forces. According to this view, the long-range torpedo attack submarines can carry presence of NATO carriers in or near areas like the 16 to 22 torpedoes, but in practice many of these Norwegian and Mediterranean Seas would cause the would not be used against merchant ships be- Soviets to commit large forces in counteraction, heavy cause recent evidence shows that combat-ready losses would result, and the Soviets would lack the Soviet submarines are loaded with ASW and submarines to engage simultaneously in strong anti- nuclear torpedoes, as well as antiship weapons. fleet and antishipping operations. Those holding the The second view holds that the Soviet long-range " The holders of the first view are the Central Intelligence attack submarines most likely to participate in Agency; the Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, De- such a campaign (principally the N-class, F-class, partment of State; and the Director, National Security Agency. and T-class) clearly carry sufficient torpedoes toThe Director of NSA further believes that the extent and degree of a campaign against the sea lines of communication is largely conduct a significant number of attacks on West- scenario dependent and that, in a prolonged crisis, where the ern shipping. Additionally, the loading of indi- outcome is in serious doubt, the attractiveness of interdiction in vidual. submarines would be contingent on as- advance of a conflict goes up. signed missions; submarines would not neces-" The holders of the second view are the Director, Defense sarily have a mix of different weapon types in Intelligence Agency, and the Director of Naval Intelligence, Department of the Navy. wartime as is customary in peacetime. 11-42 Top aL
Not linked to a story yet.
FOIA release, from the cia-readingroom collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 201 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.