This week three additional 1/3000th scale vessels departed the shipyards destined for Cold War Soviet service and to bolster the growing Libyan Navy. As is usual I will provide a few photos of the models as well as a brief overview of the class.

In Soviet terms the models are designated as Project 1234 Ovod (Horsefly) and were produced in three main sub-classes between 1969 to 1991. Their NATO reporting name, for which they are more commonly known, is “Nanuchka”. The initial sub-class was identified as the Nanuchka I and comprised seventeen vessels. These were supplemented by ten Nanuchka II vessels for export. Finally, a further nineteen Nanuchka III vessels and a single Nanuchka IV were built for Soviet service.

Unlike to Osa-class missile boats, who were limited to coastal waters, the Nanuchka-class were designed for more extended operations. As such they provided a greater threat to NATO surface combatants. With their increased size and range they are classed as guided missile corvettes. While a number of Soviet vessels would regulalry conduct patrols in the Mediterranean their sea handling abilities were poor in heavy seas. They have a length of 59 metres and displace around 660 tons standard with a crew of around 60. Their range was 2,500 nautical miles at 12 knots which was significantly reduced when travelling at their maximum speed of 30 to 32 knots.

The Soviet vessels carried six SS-N-9 Siren anti-ship missiles with a range of 120 km (64 nautical miles). This was significant increase to the earlier SS-N-2 Sytx missiles carried on the Osa-class vessels. The missiles were mounted three per side and launch forward. Air defence comprised a twin retractable SA-N-4 Gecko surface to air missile launcher with a capacity of 20 missiles. Gun armament comprised a twin 57mm turret mounted aft on the Nanuchka I and II. This was replaced by a single 76mm turret aft on the Nanuchka III which was further supplemented by a 30mm six barrel close in weapons system (CIWS). This CIWS system was also mounted aft but above the 76mm gun turret. One Nanuchka III vessel was further updated in 2019 when its six SS-N-9 missiles were replaced by sixteen SS-N-25 Switchblade anti-ship cruise missiles.

Ten export ships were built and designated as Project 1234E. These carried four SS-N-2 Styx missiles rather than the more advanced and classified SS-N-9. The model used was the SS-N-2C which has a longer range of 80 km (43 nautical miles) compared to the original Styx.

The dates of export are as follows: Indian Navy – three units all 1977; Algerian Navy – three units between 1980 to 1983; Libyan Navy – four units 1982 to 1985. One Algerian vessel was subsequently upgraded in 2000 to carry sixteen SS-N-25. At the same time a six barrel 30mm CIWS was also added.

My models are from the Navwar range (N782) and come three to a pack. Given a pack has a current price of £1.90 they seem a great buy to me. The model itself measures 18mm in length with a width of around 4mm. I have mounted mine on a plasticard base which measures 33mm x 15mm. The detail on the casting is extremely crisp and provides a good representation of the vessel. The model’s anti-ship missile launchers are in this scale relatively thin and represent the Soviet vessels SS-N-9 rather than the export version SS-N-2 Styx, though at this scale it is hard to notice. The SAM missile launcher is modelled retracted but its location is clearly visible forward. The rear gun turret is clearly defined. The various radar and masts are also modelled though in this scale the masts are solid rather than open. As with my previous descriptions a wash and highlight really enhance these models. In all they are, I feel, a very pleasing model which is full of detail.

In Soviet service none were involved in combat. However, in Russian service the Nanuchka III corvette the Mirazah was likely involved in an engagement during the 2008 Russo-Georgian War off the coast of Abkhazia. Russian sources indicate that the Mirazah fired an SS-N-9 missile which sank a Georgian ship, though this has generally been discredited. Instead, it seems possible that fragments from a SS-N-9 missile, fired from the Mirazah, damaged a Moldovian flagged cargo vessel.

Perhaps of interest is that this Russian task force, which included four other corvettes in addition to the Mirazah, was supported by the Kashin class destroyer Smetlivey and the Slava-class cruiser Moskova. The Moskova of course was sunk in April 2022 after being struck by two Ukranian Neptune missiles.

It will be recalled that Libya received four Nanuchkas. These were the Ain Zaara; Ain al Gazala; Ain Zaquit; Tariq Ibn Ziyad. Two Libyan Nanuchkas were engaged in the Gulf of Sidra in March 1986 by American forces. Here the Ain Zaquit was sunk and the Ain Al Gazala damaged, though the later was repaired and returned to service. The Ain Zaara was destroyed by British aircraft in 2011. As noted previously their missile armament capability is reduced compared to the Soviet vessels due to export versions being armed with the older SS-N-2C missile. However, they have an increased range compared to the SS-N-2B missiles used by Libyan Osa-class vessels. As such they provide a little additional capability to my Libyans.

As to service in other navies it would seem that the Indian vessels were all decommissioned between 2002 and 2004. Most Soviet Nanuchkas I class vessels had been decommissioned by the early 2000s. The more modern Nanuchka IIIs began to be decommissioned from the early 2000’s though a number served until 2020. Indeed, five are still in service with the Russian Navy in 2025. Finally, all three Algerian vessels remain in active service in 2025.

While my vessels are initially for use with the Libyan Navy I can’t but help think they may well find service with the Soviet or Russian navies at some point. However, I am getting ahead of myself. In the coming weeks the Libyans are scheduled to get some further reinforcements and once available it is possible their Nanuchkas will sortie…

As I have recounted before my Cold War naval project was originally focussed in three parts. First was the naval aspects of the Falklands War which had long held my interest. In addition I envisaged a few hypothetical actions between the Royal Navy and the Soviet Union in the Mediterranean or Atlantic. Eventually some actions between various South American countries were on my radar, perhaps using decommissioned Royal Navy vessels – along with others. However, I have been so taken by our actions off the coast of Libya the modern naval project has taken something of a diversion.

One of my regular opponents has provided the core of the Libyan forces to date, elements from his own smaller Soviet squadron. Having been so impressed with these missile boats, as well as the plausible engagements they create, I decided to purchase a few models for the Libyans myself. As a result a small group of missile boats have recently departed the shipyards destined for Libyan service. In particular four Project 205 Moskit or, in NATO parlance, Osa-class missile boats. Now in Russian Osa means “Wasp”. A very suitable name as they have considerable sting. A little description on the vessels is in order.

The Osa-class was a development of the early Komar-class of missile boats and built in two primary sub-classes – namely the Osa 1 and Osa 2. The main differences between the two were the engines with the Osa 2 having a slightly higher speed and the missiles carried. Production started in 1960. In all around 400 boats were built in the Soviet Union with additional units produced China – numbers are confusing. The vessels had a length of 38m with a stocky beam of 7.64m and displaced between 171 to 192 tons standard the displacement depending on model. Their speed was 38 to 42 knots with the Osa-2 having the increased speed.

Their typical armament was four P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 “Styx”) anti-ship missiles mounted two per side. The missiles carried ranged from earlier mode of the Styx to longer range versions. A notable difference is the shape of the missile launchers with some being rectangular form while the later a cylindrical form. Chinese models also carried Chinese versions of the Styx. To place this missile in context each Styx missile had a mass of some 2,580kg with a range of 40 to 80 kms depending on the model. In addition the boats carried a defensive armament of two unmanned AK-230 twin 30mm close in weapon system (CIWS) turrets with one mounted forward and one aft. Finally, a hand held SAM missile was carried though some export units, such as those in Egypt, adding a multiple SAMs all mounted on a single rail launcher.

While a significant numbers were in Soviet or Chinese service others were exported to what can only be described as a “who’s who” of countries. The Osa 1 was to be found in the service of sixteen countries while the Osa 2 served in the navies of seventeen.

My models are from the Navwar 1/3000th scale range (N799) where a pack comprises four models. They measure a mere 7mm in length with a width of about 3.5mm at their widest point. I have mounted them on a 1.5mm thick plasticard base that measures 33mm by 15mm. This provides ample room for the model and label while also providing room for the sea texturing – which I find adds to the visuals. The model was simple to paint and I used Vallejo 70.990 for the hull and upper works with Vallelo 940 for the deck colour.

The detail was extremely crisp with the main components clearly visible including the CIWS turrets fore and aft as well as the four Styx launchers. The wash, a diluted Citadel Badam Black, lifts the model and brings out the detail. I then use a light grey, mixed with a little white, to indicate surfaces hit by light before a final coat of Vallejo matt varnish to seal the base. As for the sea base I use Tamiya XF-8 Flat Blue with a lighter blue (Vallejo 70.925 mixed with 50:50 with white) as a dry brush on the base. A little white is added sparingly for wave caps and the ships wash as it cuts through the sea. The base edge is painted matt black with black or blue carefully applied around the label edging. I find this an important step as it removes any white lines from the printed paper label.

Unlike many modern warships that never fired in anger the Osa-class vessels have been found engaged in several wars, though their record was mixed. Indian Osa-class boats conducted a successful attack against Pakistan as part of Operation Trident on 4th-5th of December 1971. Here three Indian missile boats conducted a night attack sinking one Pakistani destroyer and damaging another. In addition two other ships were sunk and fuel storage facilities destroyed. This was followed by the equally successful Operation Python on the night of the 8th and 9th of December. Here one Osa, supported by two Indian Whitby class frigates again attacked the Pakistan port of Karachi. The Osa fired all its missiles sinking a fleet tanker, two merchant vessels and oil storage fascilities.

The Syrians, equipped with two earlier Komars and one more capable Osa-class along with two other vessels, were less successful at the Battle of Latakia on the 7th of October 1973. Superior Israeli tactics and the uses of electronic countermeasures enabled the Israeli Sa’ar missile boats to counter the Syrians without loss. A day later the Egyptians suffered a similiar defeat at the Battle of Baltim. Here four Osa-class boats fired their Styx missiles at long range which were countered by Israeli chaff clouds. Their missiles exhausted the Egyptians retired before three of the four boats were eventually caught by the Israeli boats and their shorter range Gabriel missiles. Both these battles highlight the vulnerbilities of the Styx missiles to countermeasures.

Other motable actions involving the Osa-class were in the Persian Gulf. In November 1980 the Iranians launched Opertaion Morvarid which resulted in attacks on Iraqi oil rigs. The Iraqis counter-attacked with four torpedo boats and five Osa-class boats. Two Osas were lost by Iranian Kaman-class missile boats firing Harpoon missiles. One Iranian boat was sunk but soon after the remaining Iraqi ships were lost to Iranian Phantom jets. Staying in the Persian Gulf Iraqi Osa’s were engaged in the 1991 Gulf War including by Royal Navy Lynx helicopters armed with Sea Skua missiles. Here Iraq lost her remaining Osa boats, save one that escaped to Iran.

All these battles have the potential for some interesting actions and in time I can see a number being played out on the table, or at least a variation of them.

However, I intend to use my models for actions around the Libyan coast initially. The Libyans received twelve Osa 2 missile boats between October 1976 and July 1980. They were the Al Katum, Al Baida, Al Nabha, Al Safhra, Al Mosha, Al Sakab, Al Bitar, Al Sadad, Al Zuara, Al Ruha, Al Fikah and the Al Mathur. Of these the last four were still operational in 2009 though out of service by 2011. These Libyan vessels seem to be armed with the SS-N-2B version of the Styx missile with a range of 40 km or 21 nautical miles.

The Libyan use of the Osa was less dramatic than some states – with the most documented action being very unfavouable. During 1986 in the Gulf of Sidra incident five Libyan vessels including some Osa-class boats headed towards the American fleet. A Libyan radar locked on to an American aircraft resulting in the Libyan vessels being engaged. At the end two Libyan vessels were sunk, one disabled and one damaged all a result of attacks by American Harpoon missiles and aircraft. I have not found any reference to the Osas firing their missiles in this engagement.

So in summary these Osa-class boats are a useful addition. Hopefully it won’t be too long before they are deployed. However, before they do a few more Libyan vessels need to join them. Stay tuned for more craft joining them on patrol…

After a little diversion it’s back to the Cold War naval project as two new Soviet Project 641 diesel-electric submarines departed the shipyards. The NATO reporting designation which people may be more familiar with is the Foxtrot-class. Now I said “new” previously in the loosest possible for by the 1980s the 1950’s design was obsolete. However, rather than dismiss them outright let’s take a short review of their history and of course the models in 1/3000th scale.

The class was designed to replace the earlier Zulu-class and was marginally broader and deeper with two of its three decks dedicated to batteries. This gave a theoretical underwater endurance of ten days, though at a very slow speed if this duration was sought. They displaced 1,952 long tons surfaced and almost 2,500 long tons when submerged. I have only been aboard one submarine and that was an Oberon in Sydney Maritime Museum. So for me it is useful to compare the Foxtrot with an Oberon. As such the Foxtrot’s length and displacement is not dissimilar to the Oberon.

The first Foxtrot was commissioned in 1958 and in all 75 boats were built with the last being completed in 1983. Those in Soviet service were produced from 1958 until 1971 with the first boat being retired from Soviet service 1976 the last in 1997. Of these Soviet Foxtrots two would later see service in the Polish Navy and one non operational unit in the Ukrainian Navy. This Ukrainian boat may have been reactivated briefly before its capture in 2014 by Russia. Despite production ceasing for the Soviets in 1971 further vessels were produced for export customers. The export customers and the dates of production or delivery being: India – eight boats (1967-1974); Libya – six boats (1978-1982) and Cuba – three boats (1978-1983).

The Foxtrots had a speed of 16 knots surfaced, 15 knots submerged or 9 knots when snorkling. Maintaining the submerged speed would however quickly drain the batteries which meant a speed of five to eight knots was more likely. The range of the Foxtrots was significant with 20,000 nautical miles possible. Effectively this meant that boats from the arctic could travel to the east coast of the United States and deploy for two weeks before returning to base without refuelling. In addition they could dive deeper than previous models with test depths of nearly 300 metres. This compares favourably to the Soviet Zulu-class of 200m and the Oberon’s 200 metres. From an armament perspective they had ten torpedoes tubes with six forward and four in the stern and carried 22 torpedoes or less if mines were carried.

The Navwar model (N716) is was clean and clear of flash. They come five in a pack but two are sufficient for my purposes currently. Perhaps I may at some point paint a couple of additional models. The length of the model is 30mm and I have mounted it on a plasticard base measuring 50mm in length and 15mm wide. As always the base is formed using very thin layer of caulking compound to represent the sea. I have used Vallejo 70.995 German Grey as the base colour with highlights of a medum grey and a light grey on the sonar dome on the bow. Below, the Foxtrots are shown with a Soviet Kashin-class destroyer to provide a degree of context.

So why have I bothered with a diesel-electric submarine from the 1950’s when I currently focussed on the Cold War in the 1980’s? Well, regular readers will know we have played a couple of fictional games off the Libyan coast nominally set in 1983. Here the Royal Navy has been engaged by Libyan forces while ensuring freedom of navigation in the Mediterranean. To date these games have been extremely enjoyable and in many ways are more plausible than a clash between NATO and the Soviets. Given that Libya operated six Foxtrot’s at this time the models seemed a useful addition to Mr Gaddafi’s navy. To add a little further flavour the Libyan submarines were allocated names rather than use generic numbers adding a little extra flavour. They Libyan Foxtrots are the Al Fateh, Al Ahad, Al Hunain, Al Mitraga, Al Badr and Al Khyber. I am sure that if the Al Fateh (the Conqueror) sinks a Royal Navy ship the people in Tripoli will be jubilant.

From what I have been able to ascertain the Libyan Foxtrots were manned by Libyan crews but maintained by Soviet technicians. A declassified CIA report from 1984 doesn’t see the Foxtrots as a significant threat to US warships in the Mediterranean though the report notes attacks on merchant vessels are possible and would provide a degree of deniability. However, I contrast this analysis with the concerns that the Royal Navy had with the Argentinian submarine threat during the Falklands War. So despite their age, and perhaps the inexperience of the crews, I can’t see them being written off. Further, minelaying operations by the Foxtrots are certainly noted as a threat.

I suspect these Foxtrots will add an interesting dimension to some of our future games, especially in the service of the Libyans. From a scenario design perspective there is nothing to prevent a Soviet Foxtrot poking around off the coast of Libya, or worse further into the Mediterranean. If they were engaged by the Royal Navy, suspecting them to be Libyan, it should create a potential international incident. Time will tell I’m sure…