I've been meaning to ask this for a while. is it possible to draw power from nuclear surface ship or nuclear submarine to provide power for the coastal town or small cities?
kirov class battle cruiser
- Thread starter nevidimka
- Start date
plasmahawk
Member
You most certainly can, and it has been done, I read somewhere, where I can not find that one Alfa class soviet submarine was kept running non stop in order to prevent its reactor (cooled by liquid metal ) from setting, and it generated power for a near by village/town.
and I think this might be it.. maybe I am wrong: http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=l106n236899102p2&size=largest
Also see here: Russia to build floating Arctic nuclear power stations | World news | The Observer
Cheers
Plas
There's a project for actual floating nuclear power plants. No point in using an old battlecruiser for it.
.................Now, they swing the pendulum between:
Kirov*
and
Udaloy*
*see pict
=====
Extra #1...
Indonesian Navy new "unknown" submarine**
Some local take this picture near their Naval base in East Java
@@@
Silently they upgraded their capability...
**see pict
Extra #2...
A subs..***
A caucasian
A red & white flags
Very interesting...
***see pict
Last edited:
Polish. Flag's upside down.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #286
Whats the state of Nakhimov upgrade presently? in the sole functioning Kirov, the AD is taken care by improved range S-300. Will Nakhimov continue the same or will they incorporate S400's?
Also whats the fate of the Granits? While they are impressive, their huge size limits the numbers that can be carried and I believe wasts an awfull lot of space for such a big ship.
I belive a hybrid of air breatings cruise with terminal supersonic missile with 1000km+ range type of missile should replace those shipwreaks. And the addition of Tomahawkski's on board that huge frame should give it more multirole ability. To not only destroy navy battlegroups, but also take out land targets on limited scale shore campaign's? Surely the Russians should be looking at maximising its space area to squeeze in more missiles all the while increasing its deadliness.
I do not feel that brahmos is the answer to replace the shipwreaks as they are very short ranged compared to the shipwreaks and will force the kirov's to get much closer to engage an enemy ship. With Russia aggresively covering the globe with GLONASS, its time they take advantage of the sattelite's guidance and build a 1000km+ range AShM that would not have any anolog in the world just like the Granits did.
Also whats the fate of the Granits? While they are impressive, their huge size limits the numbers that can be carried and I believe wasts an awfull lot of space for such a big ship.
I belive a hybrid of air breatings cruise with terminal supersonic missile with 1000km+ range type of missile should replace those shipwreaks. And the addition of Tomahawkski's on board that huge frame should give it more multirole ability. To not only destroy navy battlegroups, but also take out land targets on limited scale shore campaign's? Surely the Russians should be looking at maximising its space area to squeeze in more missiles all the while increasing its deadliness.
I do not feel that brahmos is the answer to replace the shipwreaks as they are very short ranged compared to the shipwreaks and will force the kirov's to get much closer to engage an enemy ship. With Russia aggresively covering the globe with GLONASS, its time they take advantage of the sattelite's guidance and build a 1000km+ range AShM that would not have any anolog in the world just like the Granits did.
It's all up in the air at the moment.
It would be nice. Too bad I don't see any of those.
Where could such a shore campaign be? Would you send your second largest warship into those areas, when you are not even able to suppress a small Caucasion airforce, just to fire a few missiles any other less expansive to operate/lose platform could deliver?
It would simply be very cost inefficient. Its like putting AShM on a carrier/aviation cruiser...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #289
how so? you cant use the basis of georgia to refute such a capability. Russia is a large land mass country with equally large shoreline. Potential for a future conflict its land is not impossible , hence a deterrent capability . The Kirov size should be used by Russia to their advantage. The more missiles and role they could fit it into, increases its relevance, and reduces the need for a large carrier force, considering the cost of it.
I dont this they are cost inefficient at all. Just like a Carrier battle group, a Kirov battle group could be formed that would immediately overwhelm any battle group below the US carrier battle group.
I dont this they are cost inefficient at all. Just like a Carrier battle group, a Kirov battle group could be formed that would immediately overwhelm any battle group below the US carrier battle group.
Yes, I agree to the last point.
Leave the shore capability to other assets, concentrate the Kirov capability on sea/missile engagements.
Not another Jack of all/many trades, master of none, like with the soviet carrier doctrine...
How is such an improved Kirov going to find targets for it's 1000km+ missiles?
It's ability to employ these weapons outside of the range of land based russian recce assets will be severely diminished. So it's role as some sort of carrier substitute will be, too.
It's not like the Russian Navy is still reaching out into the Oceans with hundreds of Backfires, Bears and Backfires.
The point stands that apart from better ASuW capabilities such a ship wouldn't bring much more to the table than a single Tico. And I want to hear the voices which claim that a lonely Tico is a massive asset of power projection against any but the most humble state.
It's ability to employ these weapons outside of the range of land based russian recce assets will be severely diminished. So it's role as some sort of carrier substitute will be, too.
It's not like the Russian Navy is still reaching out into the Oceans with hundreds of Backfires, Bears and Backfires.
The point stands that apart from better ASuW capabilities such a ship wouldn't bring much more to the table than a single Tico. And I want to hear the voices which claim that a lonely Tico is a massive asset of power projection against any but the most humble state.
Humming Drone
New Member
Careful what you ask for
Russia called a Tico in Black Sea a "security threat".
Yes, this example does not meet the criteria you mentioned exactly, but a ship is a political influence more often than a military one.
Imagination does wonders...
Liana with 14F138 Lotos-S for land targets and 14F139 Pion-NKS for naval targets. Or in other words just like it did before with US-PM.
Iirc there is one regiment worth of left in OSC West, and one in OSC East. That was before the reforms. Also about ~150 Tu-22M3s in DA, along with Tu-95 and 16 Tu-160s. So should the need arise on a single theater, they could concentrate the necessary assets. That of course is not the main issue. The main issue is that the current military doctrine doesn't require anything of the sort.
We now know that the Georgian airforce flew 1 combat mission (not count recon flight by UAVs) in the entire war, with Mi-24 gunships. The mission did absolutely nothing, and caused 0 casualties. All the reports of Georgian Su-25s were actually cases of Russian Su-25s, including a nasty friendly fire incident where they bombed their own column, and then almost shot down their own plane (the one doing the bombing). So what exactly do you mean when you say "are not even able to suppress a small Caucasion airforce"? Are you referencing the UAVs, which proved unpleasantly difficult to down with AAA and MANPADS? Or the absence of A-50s to coordinate the VVS effort? Because to the best of my knowledge there were CAPs in the air for the duration of the conflict, presumably why the Georgians didn't use their Su-25s.
Tico is an important asset. While a lone tico is not a huge threat while supported by allied forces it can change the game.
I would imagine the Kirov is much the same. By itself its just a ship. But combined with allied (not the Allied) forces it could shift power in a region dominated by smaller nations.
Long range land attack missiles could be cued by people on the ground, UAV's, fighters, bombers etc.
During East Timor crisis, the US sent a lone Tico to act as the lynch pin for the multinational forces. With out that support no one could be sure about air cover (and under water), not that indonesia has a large and powerful airforce, but a few random modern aircraft operating a few miles off there coast is a worrying prospect. So it was a game changer. It then became clear who was on which side. Opening fire on a US cruiser protecting a multinational force is a whole lot different to firing on tiny Australian frigate with some colonial ships.
When your dealing with fractional states and grey area conflicts things become more complicated. The sort of thing that is getting popular now.
I would imagine the Kirov is much the same. By itself its just a ship. But combined with allied (not the Allied) forces it could shift power in a region dominated by smaller nations.
Long range land attack missiles could be cued by people on the ground, UAV's, fighters, bombers etc.
During East Timor crisis, the US sent a lone Tico to act as the lynch pin for the multinational forces. With out that support no one could be sure about air cover (and under water), not that indonesia has a large and powerful airforce, but a few random modern aircraft operating a few miles off there coast is a worrying prospect. So it was a game changer. It then became clear who was on which side. Opening fire on a US cruiser protecting a multinational force is a whole lot different to firing on tiny Australian frigate with some colonial ships.
When your dealing with fractional states and grey area conflicts things become more complicated. The sort of thing that is getting popular now.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #297
Exactly. A Kirov Battle group could achieve a modern russia's objectives i more ways than engaging a Huge carrier fleet in a cold war scenario ( even though that scenario is false).
Regarding its rearmament. wouldnt the next logical step is to improve on the current range of the Granits? a missile of the Brahmos/Sunburn class seriously handicap's it compared to its current ability.
If China is looking at building a AShBM, y not improve on the range of the Granits? Is it impossible to acquire trargets at 1000+ km range? Can the Guru's help enlighten me.
Other than that the ship surely is able to carry tomahawkski cruise missiles that could be used to engage land targets like terrorist sites or shutting down vital sites at the opening days of a limited scale conflict like the 1 in georgia, while giving it more mission profile to the current 1.
Just my 2 cents on how these ships could be maxmimised on their potential, since they are gonna be used for another 20-30 years?
Regarding its rearmament. wouldnt the next logical step is to improve on the current range of the Granits? a missile of the Brahmos/Sunburn class seriously handicap's it compared to its current ability.
If China is looking at building a AShBM, y not improve on the range of the Granits? Is it impossible to acquire trargets at 1000+ km range? Can the Guru's help enlighten me.
Other than that the ship surely is able to carry tomahawkski cruise missiles that could be used to engage land targets like terrorist sites or shutting down vital sites at the opening days of a limited scale conflict like the 1 in georgia, while giving it more mission profile to the current 1.
Just my 2 cents on how these ships could be maxmimised on their potential, since they are gonna be used for another 20-30 years?
A logical step would be a dual terminal seeker for the Granit to combat high-value land targets in a symmetric encounter against a decent IADS.
As said - Liana.
In the narrow sense I meant the disability of the russian side to achieve air superiority. --> High danger for enemy aircraft (including UAVs) to be shot down and low danger for own aircraft to be shot down.
Georgian UAVs were still flying (and thus gathering intel), while R lost even a Tu22M on recon mission, although R knew exactly the Georgian air defence capabilities (since the used euipment was from R/SU).
Wouldnt the Brahmos terminal seeker fit this description?
I wonder which (possible/real) "terrorist" organizations are meant here?
Georgia has a black sea coast. Even if the Kirov were equipped with such missiles, I really doubt that R would have sent the Kirov through the Bosporus as they had a fleet and airbases nearby.
I understand that you meant it as an example, but I fail to see an example were it would be much different.
Kato s suggestion made much more sense, increasing mission capability without decreasing the capability to conduct the real missions. Thats a win win situation.
Whereas yours would be a tradeoff where I fail to see the benefits.
Lack of SEAD/DEAD capabilities, and more importantly experience, is not the same as inability to achieve air superiority. More to the point, in the end they did achieve air superiority, they were just slow about it.
I don't have exact info on UAV missions for the Georgian side, do you? Otherwise I'm not so sure they were flying after the third day.
EDIT: To get this back to topic, what's your issue with a modernized Kirov?