kirov class battle cruiser
- Thread starter nevidimka
- Start date
That may of been a minor reason, the OHP's are not very stealthy on the best of days and having some paint flake off the launcher isn't going to expose it that much.
Mostly the Mk-13's were removed to save money and man-power. The SM-1's weere aproaching their "use by" date and the USN didn't have the money or the need to upgrade, so they ripped them out, and sold the parts to other navies that still use Mk-13's and in the process managed to reduce the crew requirements on those ships by 10 or so.
Actually their was something fairly major done on the OHP's, at least the USN ones, their used to be 2 bars on the front superstructure that were hinged posts for CONREPS, they were also big radar reflectors and lately they have been removed and the area smoothed over.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
isnt stationing aircraft carier of one's coast is also equivalent to gunboat diplomacy? Why is it applicable for 1 n not the other?
Russia is planning to have the second largest navy in the world. How are they gonna establish that with a fleet of old destroyers and frigates? Will that make them stand out as a major power? I doubt so. Currently the shipwreaks can only be carried in large numbers by the Kirov's n the Oscars. hence if they are scrap the Kirovs, wouldnt they be deprived of this formidable weapon on a surface platform?
Russia is planning to have the second largest navy in the world. How are they gonna establish that with a fleet of old destroyers and frigates? Will that make them stand out as a major power? I doubt so. Currently the shipwreaks can only be carried in large numbers by the Kirov's n the Oscars. hence if they are scrap the Kirovs, wouldnt they be deprived of this formidable weapon on a surface platform?
Well, where are the orders for ships?
Of course there's the Royal Navy route, eg. build two showships (albeit multifunctional ones) and almost scrap rest of the navy, but that's perhaps not the optimal route. I think future Russian Navy will be something between size of RN and Dutch Navy, building and maintaining CV's and large surface combatants is not cost effective for a medium navy. If Russia will go for CSG route, they will have maybe two CSG's with weak escorts, suitable for a navy which has a lot of close allies, but not even enough ships to maintain one in station.
Russian 22350 ship would seem to suit Russian Navy needs well. It has area SAM and Yakhont SSM's. Some kind of surface launched Kh-55 could provide long range cruise missile for a small size hull. The only problem is that with very small order numbers the systems for the ship will be of one-off quality, which means difficulties in upgrading them. Better route, IMHO,would be joint development with India to create a larger user base.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sure if a Kirov 1 or 2 (aka the hypothetical new one) was maintained properly and could be afforded it is a very effective tool of power projection, comperable in most aspects to a pocket/medium sized carrier. However the fundimental question needs to be answered before you decide you want to build big, bad ass suckers like a Kirov. How do you want to build your navy? (this has been touched on by others)
Building large instrements of power projection can be counter productive if you have not built your foundations right, which means frigates and destroyers. Even with a huge and very capable vessel like a kirov, if you have to send you entire fleet as escorts every time you want to actually deploy your big, bad ass asset, your not going to be able to sustain effective operational capability. Power projection and naval power are built by small units, meaning frigates and destroyers, then you have the crowning glory, a carrier or Kirov.
If it was my choice, i would be investeing in newer sovmernies and multi purpose frigates in decent numbers, then ahphibious capability and then (only if i had $hite loads of money) annother Kusnetsov so i had 'round the clock capability. There are so many things the russians need to get right before they could even start thinking about a new Kirov, as awesome as they are.
Should Russia have the will, the money, and plans to expand and build new warships, . . . the design and building of warships will be a HUGE challenge.
The only new Russian warship project post cold war is the Steregushchy class corvette. This is in contrast to the Aegis DDGs worldwide, Horizon class, FREMM, etc.
This tells me that Russia has gone backwards to start again with smaller warships. A corvette is just a step up from a patrol boat.
Since Russian shipbuilding has been relatively stagnant over the past decade, the skilled designers, welders, shipfitters, electricians and electronics specialists have moved on due to lack of work, old age and retirement. Russia will need to cultivate a new cadre of shipbuilding professionals and this is no easy task as a warship is infinitely more complex than a commerical vessel.
So given all this, a large project with the magnitude of a Kirov class will be difficult to pull-off.
Time will only tell, and yes, . . . it will take plenty of time.
The only new Russian warship project post cold war is the Steregushchy class corvette. This is in contrast to the Aegis DDGs worldwide, Horizon class, FREMM, etc.
This tells me that Russia has gone backwards to start again with smaller warships. A corvette is just a step up from a patrol boat.
Since Russian shipbuilding has been relatively stagnant over the past decade, the skilled designers, welders, shipfitters, electricians and electronics specialists have moved on due to lack of work, old age and retirement. Russia will need to cultivate a new cadre of shipbuilding professionals and this is no easy task as a warship is infinitely more complex than a commerical vessel.
So given all this, a large project with the magnitude of a Kirov class will be difficult to pull-off.
Time will only tell, and yes, . . . it will take plenty of time.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
IIRC there were 2 schools of tought regarding the future Russian navy. The 1st was to concentrate on closer to shore vessels to pretect the sea boundary n give up the blue water navy. But recent turn of events show that russians are dumping that schol of thought n is going for an all out blue water navy to retain thier position as a big power.
I actually suggest a mix of kirov n carrier aviation in limited numbers, to be the part that is capable of power projection, while the rest of the navy to be built up with the Destroyers n frigates.
The current destroyers n frigates can be upgraded to fill this role, while the carrier n kirov to be built new, coz i think its the bigger ships that will prevent or win a war, not the smaler vessels.
I actually suggest a mix of kirov n carrier aviation in limited numbers, to be the part that is capable of power projection, while the rest of the navy to be built up with the Destroyers n frigates.
The current destroyers n frigates can be upgraded to fill this role, while the carrier n kirov to be built new, coz i think its the bigger ships that will prevent or win a war, not the smaler vessels.
I just read a Russian article that said to the effect that, ideally, RFN CBGs will deploy to the N.Atl/ Med. Sea every 6 months- that's a semi-permanent presence of a carrier, not permanent. Even if they had 1-2 more Kuznetsov CVs it won't make sense to do otherwise.
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1739&catid=268
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Kirov.jpg
So, unless things changed, only one of the Kirov class was scrapped, BTW-
, one active, mainly pierside, and two more are refitting/awating sea trials/overhaul. I bet for each of these huge ships they can build 2-3 smaller ones! But, since those are already built, it makes sense to keep them and/or sell them to the highest bidder. If Iranians got of hold of just one, you can forget about seeing any USN CSG in the Gulf!
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1739&catid=268
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Kirov.jpg
Gripenator
Banned Member
It's good to be back again after a long absence but back to the topic at hand.
A (One) Kirov would not be alright at all as a "CV Killer" even with 'decent' air cover in the current age just as during the Cold War for the simple reason that the assets constituting a CBG are more than enough to defeat most threats thrown at them (at that time factored to include 2-3 waves of saturation strikes by AS-6 AShM from Bears and Blinders) as well as 'Shipwreck' and 'Silex' shots from 1-2 Oscars. If anything, AAW coverage in the USN has gotten better with the older Ticos and Spruance DGs being retired and/or upgraded with Mk 41 VLS ensuring that:
a) Any such AShM would have mutiple KVs assigned to it before it even reaches the outer zones of the CBG
and
b) the Kirov would likely have been sunk in the first place by either the CBG's SSN escorts or independently operating SSNs in the CBG deployment zone.
The only effective way to "kill" a carrier in Blue Water would be a) a non existent tactical nuclear strike (which would provoke massive US nuclear retaliation) or b) overwhelm its AA coverage to ensure 'leakers' get through-meaning 2-3 Oscar SSGN, at least 2 SSN and at least a 4:1 AshM lauching bomber ratio backed up by a survivable targeting system-which I am not sure the Soviets had.
Unless of course they could lure the CBG into the littorals-again, very unlikely.
In other words, given that there is a LOT we do not know about USN CBG tactics-"killing" a carrier for certain is impossible although Soviet "wannabe" navies such as the PLAN may like to try with predictable consequences.
IMO, having something like Kirovs and/or Slavas the PLAN will be in a better overall position- their main aim is to be on at least equal terms with India & Japan, while keeping the USN "at arms length", so to speak. Also, CGs aren't as menacing as CBGs and they could be used to assert China's claims when CVs aren't available or desirable, for political considerations. If they are still good for Russia, why not China?
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/russia-ukraine-sell-slava-class-cruiser-2903.html
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/russia-ukraine-sell-slava-class-cruiser-2903.html
Gripenator
Banned Member
You seem to think the platform alone amounts to having the capability as do a number of other "misinformed" people on this site. Merely filling up the numbers on your ORBAT does not mean that your naval force (or what is left of it) amounts to a credible arm of policymaking.
The PLAN cannot use CGs in any conceivable role simply because the doctrine/role, tactics and training do not exist for them-failure to develop doctrine and tactics leads to vessels being used in roles that do not fulfill their full potential at best and at worst leads to them being sunk with heavy loss of life akin to the stupidity that characterized the Kriegsmarine's (or Hitler) decision to use its capital ships and escorts as "fast surface raiders" against commerical shipping instead of more effectively tying down opposing RN vessels being sent against the Wolf Packs. The PLAN also lacks adequate SSK/SSN of sufficient survivability, speed and excellence to escort these behemoths in the littorals of E Asia.
Secondly, the logistics of equipping a vessel of this size for regular independent taskings is beyond the reach of the PLAN at present-all stocks of weaponry would have to be shipped/flown in from Russia-giving Russia leverage over the vessel and by extension the task group the Kirov is assigned to as a reduction in effectiveness would leave the task group w/o adequate protection-kind of like taking the CV out of the CBG.
Thirdly, the Kirov class is just too old and not worth the cost to improve/upgrade/buy-equivalent or better capability could be bought with the funds. Refer to the progress on the Gorshkov for the IN on an example of cost blowouts.
Fourthly, the Kirov has serious survivability issues-after 30+years of operation wear-and-tear has started to take effect or maybe progressed too far given the Russian Navy's record of servicability of fleets for the past decade.
Fact: Kirov CGs have massive IR, EM and noise signatures that a USN commander in a SSN would love to take advantage of-its widely rumoured that at least one Kirov has managed to be "bottomed" by a 688 SSN.
Last edited:
I agree that the upgrades are costly, but if there is a need for cruisers it may be worth it, and they could be refitted to the PLAN's reqs. Chinese never operated a CV, but are getting ready for that. OTH, operating a CG is a step below CV and above DDG/FFG. And if a country like Peru can have them, I rest my case!
Gripenator
Banned Member
You're beginning to seem as though you did not recieve a proper education or a refusal to learn despite your numerous trollish posts and others' replies.
Latin American countries in the 60's-80's made purchases for their navies on the basis of "mine is bigger than yours" due to their military dictator backgrounds.
The Peruvian Navy is retiring their unwise purchase (it is NOT a CG despite the "gun cruiser" designation, my own navy classifies it as a DD) very soon-some reports state that it may be this year, others in 2010.
Agree Re
LAN, but I'm not sure I see the value of some of your other points. Russia isn't looking to use its old fleet to fight a war against the US or Europe, if they ever intend to do that, they will build a new fleet.The Peter the Great was reported to be in the best shape of its long life last July when Admiral Ulrich visited. That isn't surprising, Russia spent a lot of money on her following a few bad episodes out of port. PrG has a crew, officer experience problem, not a material condition problem.
One observation I have read states the PtG has become a test platform for new naval weapon systems and electronics. As a big platform, that seems ideal, particularly when you observe the emergence of recent Russian Naval strategy.
The bulk of the funding is focused on Borei SSBNs, one of the most expensive aspects of any major power naval force. The rest of the shipbuilding money gets split finishing incomplete surface ships, dry dock repairs to existing forces, and the development of corvettes. In relation to the construction of SSBNs, these are inexpensive improvements that have mileage. If this continues as planned for a few years, Russia will have a new SSBN fleet with new weapons and systems developed ready to be put on new ships. By then Russia will have filled its gap years with old Soviet equipment and have its industry issues on track. Under that strategy, all these old platforms end up being ideal for crew/officer experience and small presence operations.
I expect to see Russia more involved in NATO and International naval forces in the near future, because those international groups already have the logistics to support forward operations by Russia, something they can't do very well themselves (evidence, 7 support ships for 4 warships this last deployment).
The strategy leaves funding for new systems development, which is why the PtG represents an opportunity. With plenty of space, vertical launch system, and nuclear power the PtG represents a great platform for training and R&D, similar to how the US Navy uses the CGs at Pearl Harbor for AEGIS BMD. We are seeing prototypes and first in class at the low end all the time, from new submarine tenders to new submarines to new corvettes.
Because of the strategy observed, I fail to see how the survivability, detectability, or any of these other metrics are relevant regarding the Peter the Great, because I don't see the ship being called to war against a foe that can outmatch the ship at sea during the rest of its service life, or at least for the short to mid term.
As I recall, the deal with the Indian Navy was that the hull would be provided free, India would have to pay for the refit and the MiG-29K air component.
Gripenator
Banned Member
My apologies, I was unaware of the recent modernization of the PtG CG as a testbed for new technologies and the overall content of my post refers to the liabilities of a Kirov CG in PLAN service.Agree Re
The Peter the Great was reported to be in the best shape of its long life last July when Admiral Ulrich visited. That isn't surprising, Russia spent a lot of money on her following a few bad episodes out of port. PrG has a crew, officer experience problem, not a material condition problem.
One observation I have read states the PtG has become a test platform for new naval weapon systems and electronics. As a big platform, that seems ideal, particularly when you observe the emergence of recent Russian Naval strategy.
The bulk of the funding is focused on Borei SSBNs, one of the most expensive aspects of any major power naval force. The rest of the shipbuilding money gets split finishing incomplete surface ships, dry dock repairs to existing forces, and the development of corvettes. In relation to the construction of SSBNs, these are inexpensive improvements that have mileage. If this continues as planned for a few years, Russia will have a new SSBN fleet with new weapons and systems developed ready to be put on new ships. By then Russia will have filled its gap years with old Soviet equipment and have its industry issues on track. Under that strategy, all these old platforms end up being ideal for crew/officer experience and small presence operations.
I expect to see Russia more involved in NATO and International naval forces in the near future, because those international groups already have the logistics to support forward operations by Russia, something they can't do very well themselves (evidence, 7 support ships for 4 warships this last deployment).
The strategy leaves funding for new systems development, which is why the PtG represents an opportunity. With plenty of space, vertical launch system, and nuclear power the PtG represents a great platform for training and R&D, similar to how the US Navy uses the CGs at Pearl Harbor for AEGIS BMD. We are seeing prototypes and first in class at the low end all the time, from new submarine tenders to new submarines to new corvettes.
Because of the strategy observed, I fail to see how the survivability, detectability, or any of these other metrics are relevant regarding the Peter the Great, because I don't see the ship being called to war against a foe that can outmatch the ship at sea during the rest of its service life, or at least for the short to mid term.
Gripenator
Banned Member
Except the terms and conditions did not specify the length of cabling and other issues involved-which contribute to the severe delay of the project.
Well, the Chinese could also use Kirov mainly for training- for one thing, operating those nuclear reactors on a large surface ship may come handy should they get a few CVNs or icebreakers! IMO, as these ships have 60 days endurance, they would be perfect for Indian Ocean/ W.Pac deployments. Also, they could buy its blueprints and build their own version of the class.