kirov class battle cruiser

[carman1877]

If russia did attack a country or NATO.(unlikely) the Kirov Class no no counterpart. To sink it they would have to use subs such as Virginia Class. In which case the kirov has ASW to protect it. Im not saying its unsinkable but it could tank out at least 1 or 2 us missile cruisers before they could take it down. U ask me thats a pretty good ship. If it would have seen combat we could better avaluate it. Hey, maybe it will oneday.

 

[ASFC]

I did not say the Kirov is a rubbish class, or that it would be easy to sink. I just said that like most Warships it will be useless for Arctic Warfare-for which you are better of with Icebreakers, Ice strengthened patrol ships and subs. There isn't going to be NATO missile cruisers/destroyers (or any countries destroyers for that matter) in the high Arctic until it is at a point where there is little Ice all year round, and if that point ever comes the Kirov class will probably have been retired by then.
Which then leads us to where this thread seems to be going-does the Russian Navy invest in a 'modern battleship' concept as Feanor put it or buy Aircraft Carriers to replace ships like the Kirovs.

 

[carman1877]

Yeah, i just love the Kirov Class Battlecruiser. I would like to know how weapons work on the Kirov Class? but u are right ASFC ice breakers and smaller ships are better for that type of patrol. how ever if the kirov Class dont patrol that it has no reason to leave port. other than if they are at war.

 

[Feanor]

To be honest I would invest in both, and create combined operating groups that include one of each plus escorts. Given that a Kirov-style future project would be much cheaper then a proper aircraft carrier (don't forget the airwings, etc. needed for it), I'd build no more then 4 such groups, giving one that can permanently operate in both the Pacific and Northern fleets.

 

[carman1877]

thats a good idea. the russian's are just low on funding

 

[Salty Dog]

To be honest I would invest in both, and create combined operating groups that include one of each plus escorts. Given that a Kirov-style future project would be much cheaper then a proper aircraft carrier (don't forget the airwings, etc. needed for it), I'd build no more then 4 such groups, giving one that can permanently operate in both the Pacific and Northern fleets.

AFAIK the whole concept for development of the Russian aircraft carriers is to provide indigenous fleet air defense. Without a CV, Russian battle groups take a step backwards and will need to rely only on land based air support.

One of the features of Russian/Soviet ship defense systems are robust AAW, even going to triple-redundancy, the low cost solution for a fleet without CV provided fleet air defense.

 

[Actual]

AFAIK the whole concept for development of the Russian aircraft carriers is to provide indigenous fleet air defense. Without a CV, Russian battle groups take a step backwards and will need to rely only on land based air support.

One of the features of Russian/Soviet ship defense systems are robust AAW, even going to triple-redundancy, the low cost solution for a fleet without CV provided fleet air defense.

Lets also consider that the Kiev Class CL had a more powerful SSM missile battery than air group. Only at the end of the Cold War, did the Soviet Navy have anything close to a viable aircraft carrier.

 

[carman1877]

Like I said before Russia has a funding problem. So i believe they should either make a couple new KIirovs or a couple new Kuznetsov or other carriers. just build a few of one one. Russian usually builds like one or two of each ship, instead they should build many of one type.

 

[nevidimka]

Regarding the number of Kirov in service, how many does Russia has in service now? AFAIK, 1 is operational in North fleet, while another is in docks awaiting upgrades. Is the 1 awaiting upgrade now operational in the Pacific?

As far as Kirov's go, they can be made relevant in today's conflict. Although it was born a carrier Killer, it can easily be modified to carry hundreds of Land Attack Cruise Missile's.

Also I also would entertain the idea of a newer more advanced replacement to the Shipwreak, which would have even longer legs to the famed Shipwreaks.

 

[Grand Danois]

i think it would take up too much space. That's why you see so many ships go with the 155 mm now.

I'm not up to date with the use of 155mm class guns in the Asian navies, however I can only count one that is likely to be deployed and that's the AGS on 2-3 platforms (DDG-1000). IOw a rarity.

The Germans dumped Monarch. The British are looking at putting a 155mm/39 on a 4½" mounting. Don't expect them to use it actually, not very dual-purpose, it will be specialised and the 5" & 4½" in use have excellent range/weight of fire compared to that.

If gunfire support is needed, then IMV, it is best done from a GP or ASuW frigate with classic 5" gunfire. More specialised fire support in the littorals: use NetFires natures or air power.

Now enter the heavy cruiser with Iskander/Scarab/POLAR with the mission of disrupting the enemy in depth and with volume fires. Short response time, great availability, lots of firepower and diversity of warheads.

Could also be used for strategic strikes.

 

[Firehorse]

Take a look at some of the OPVs, patrol frigates & the like out there. E.g. the Danish Thetis class - 8300 nautical miles range, 60 days endurance without resupply, ice-strengthened. They patrol Arctic waters & the North Atlantic, in all weathers, all year round: heavy and ice-covered seas are exactly what they're built for.

I appreciate what they have, but for several years now, the Russians weren't building up to date OPVs other than for export.
The Russian Navy - Overview
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/index.html

There are currently no fregates assigned to the Northern Fleet. http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1720&catid=243&type=frigates

Of the 13 corvettes there, none were comissioned after 12.8.1994.
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=1720&catid=243&type=corvettes


The Maritime Border Guard also has

Frigates (FFG): 6 (1 reserve)
Light Frigates (FFL): 12
Offshore Patrol Vessels: 27

, spread over the entire Russian Federation's ice-free coastline. And I doubt they are suitable for ops in deep Arctic, even if some could be transferred from other fleets!
They may be enough for routine patrols, but for the real-world naval standoffs preceeding international recognition of their claims you need something bigger.
Russian Warships to Patrol Arctic Again
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5369914

The Russian Navy also places more attention on the Arctic region, resuming its regular naval presence in that area, after 17 years of noted absence. In June and early July 2008 the Russian Udaloy class anti-submarine ship Severomorsk entered the arctic circle for about a month' deployment, replaced by the Slava class missile cruiser 'Marshal Ustinov' in mid July.
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0808/070802_russian_navy_in_the_arcrtic.html

Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm

 

[carman1877]

Regarding the number of Kirov in service, how many does Russia has in service now? AFAIK, 1 is operational in North fleet, while another is in docks awaiting upgrades. Is the 1 awaiting upgrade now operational in the Pacific?QUOTE]

There is two in sevice:

Admiral Nakhimov
Pyotr Velikiy

And one might reenter service depending on funding:

Admiral Lazarev

 

[Feanor]

AFAIK the whole concept for development of the Russian aircraft carriers is to provide indigenous fleet air defense. Without a CV, Russian battle groups take a step backwards and will need to rely only on land based air support.

Hence why I'd love to see combined taskforces, that have the firepower of a very heavy cruiser, and the organic air support of a carrier. In my opinion it's not even necessary to build a full size super carrier. Something of intermediate size, say capable of carrying 48 fighters (2 regiments), 4-8 ASW/AEW helo's and 2-3 small AWACS would be enough. Keep in mind the entire VVS right now has 7 regiments of Su-27's. Meaning that a 4 carrier Navy with 3 regiments per carrier would have more air superiority fighters then the entire VVS. (another reason why I'm skeptical of the 5-6 super carrier plans, they would call for over 400 carrier fighters, and they'd have to be 5th gens)

One of the features of Russian/Soviet ship defense systems are robust AAW, even going to triple-redundancy, the low cost solution for a fleet without CV provided fleet air defense.

One doesn't replace the other. In my opinion both are desirable.

 

[StevoJH]

Hence why I'd love to see combined taskforces, that have the firepower of a very heavy cruiser, and the organic air support of a carrier. In my opinion it's not even necessary to build a full size super carrier. Something of intermediate size, say capable of carrying 48 fighters (2 regiments), 4-8 ASW/AEW helo's and 2-3 small AWACS would be enough. Keep in mind the entire VVS right now has 7 regiments of Su-27's. Meaning that a 4 carrier Navy with 3 regiments per carrier would have more air superiority fighters then the entire VVS. (another reason why I'm skeptical of the 5-6 super carrier plans, they would call for over 400 carrier fighters, and they'd have to be 5th gens)



One doesn't replace the other. In my opinion both are desirable.

A kirov replacement design, and a Kuznetsov replacement. Remove the heavy antiship missiles and other space wasting equipment from the carrier replacement. Make the Kirov replacement have either conventional or nuclear propulsion, not both (steam + nuc)

 

[John Sansom]

Whether it's a kalashniklov, a Kirov, or a carrier, it's extraordinarily difficult to make a useful off-hand comment on what can or should be done by the Russian defence establishment. I guess one needs a very well informed insight into that country's economy, evolving or otherwise, before getting into tthe didactics of the situation. Still, given Russia's aerial offensive and defensive research and production capabilities, it's not diffficult to come down on the side of carrier construction. The other factor demanding consideration is the Russian psyche. Carriers are without doubt a very "public" way of expressing a nation's strength. Putin and Medvedev have shown they are determined to do just that....so carriers and more carriers are a likely priority item.

 

[nevidimka]

Regarding the number of Kirov in service, how many does Russia has in service now? AFAIK, 1 is operational in North fleet, while another is in docks awaiting upgrades. Is the 1 awaiting upgrade now operational in the Pacific?QUOTE]

There is two in sevice:

Admiral Nakhimov
Pyotr Velikiy

And one might reenter service depending on funding:

Admiral Lazarev

So the second 1 ( Admiral Nakhimov) is in service then? The upgrades are complete then?
Is there a link to the news? Also what types of upgrades went into the ship?

And where is the Admiral Lazarev currently sitting? Do they have the funds to upgrade and turn around the ship?

And AFAIK, they cannibalised 1 of the 4 ships to keep the others working, so it should be the Kirov then? coz that is the oldest ship of the 4 produced? And do you know where currently is the Kirov now?

 

[StevoJH]

So the second 1 ( Admiral Nakhimov) is in service then? The upgrades are complete then?
Is there a link to the news? Also what types of upgrades went into the ship?

And where is the Admiral Lazarev currently sitting? Do they have the funds to upgrade and turn around the ship?

And AFAIK, they cannibalised 1 of the 4 ships to keep the others working, so it should be the Kirov then? coz that is the oldest ship of the 4 produced? And do you know where currently is the Kirov now?

Status of ships (according to wiki):
#1 (Kirov/Admiral Ushakov): Decommissioned in the early 1990's after a reactor accident, either scrapped or waiting for scrapping.
#2 (Frunze/Admiral Lazarev): Decommissioned in late 1990's after the fourth and last ship was commissioned, was reported in 2004 that if the funds became available it would be refitted and recommissioned
3#: Kalinin/Admiral Nakhimov) Commissioned 1988, refitted 1999-~2006, Active in service
#4: (Yuri Andropov/Pyotr Velikiy): Commissioned 1998, active in service.
#5: Cancelled during construction

Edit: Each of the ships has 3 seperate AA missile systems, each with two illuminators, plus 6 Kashtan CIWS and a 130mm gun. Not an easy target on the best of days if those missile systems are any good.

 

[Salty Dog]

Perhaps we need to take a step back and fully examine the mission requirements and Naval Doctrine of the Russian Navy to support Russian policies and politics.

Then we can discuss whether a battle cruiser, an aircraft carrier, both, or neither will fulfil The Russian Navy's needs.

 

[John Sansom]

No problem with that, Salty Dog. I guess I was tending to step out of the military considerations with the suggestion that we discover who's carrying the political weight on a question of this nature, and how far they're willing to push in either direction. The "weight" seems to be obvious at the moment but I'm not overly sure it will end up lending itself to what we may feel are sensible conclusions. That doesn't alter the fact that you are absolutely right. I just worry about the wild cards.

 

[Feanor]

Russia is in the middle of writing a new doctrine that will (rumors) include force projection requirements, as well as coastal defence, COIN, and peacekeepeing missions for the VMF. The old doctrine doesn't form any coherent requirements for the Navy.