kirov class battle cruiser

Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Congratulations, you're right. Except that this whole thread has long since lost touch with reality. Russo-Japanese war?! Ability to sink US super carriers? Those things aren't even remotely relevant. I think I've already said this a couple of times, but here's once more: the purpose of reactivating the Kirovs would be to provide blue water capability (anti-piracy missions, international exercises, and port visits), experience of operating the ships again, modernization orders for the naval yards, and the ability to dominate 2nd and 3rd tier naval powers.

Politics and economics have a lot more to do with this then strictly military goals.
 
B

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Feanor said:
Congratulations, you're right. Except that this whole thread has long since lost touch with reality. Russo-Japanese war?! Ability to sink US super carriers? Those things aren't even remotely relevant. I think I've already said this a couple of times, but here's once more: the purpose of reactivating the Kirovs would be to provide blue water capability (anti-piracy missions, international exercises, and port visits), experience of operating the ships again, modernization orders for the naval yards, and the ability to dominate 2nd and 3rd tier naval powers.

Politics and economics have a lot more to do with this then strictly military goals.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right of course. Wasn't trying to encourage any further detours into absurdity, merely pointing out that capability is determined by more than just missile characteristics. :)

Is the Kirov class the most appropriate vessel available for the sorts of duties you're describing? Seems like a bit of overkill for anti-piracy, and as far as gaining experience in operating large ships, is a nuclear-powered vessel the best choice? I would have thought the new frigates would be taking priority.

edit: My reservations are mainly in terms of operating costs etc - they can't be cheap vessels to run! Happy to stand corrected on any of the above though, as my naval knowledge is pretty limited :)
 
T

tphuang

Super Moderator
Balancer said:
How will Atago survive? do you know any real evidence that its SAM can intercept simultaneous barrage of 10-20 supersonic missiles(Mach 3 or even 4) with deception jammer system , maneuvering guidance system,and part of its group will go very low attitude and has armor which together with high kinetic energy can let it reach the target even with some damage made by antimissile sysem of the target.
Moreover even 1 Granite missile success means 100% that Atago is destroyed and sunk in minutes or seconds. At the same time , i have plenty evidence regarding tests of SAM of Kirov cruisers against subsonic targets imitating Harpoon missile and even 2-3 successes of Harpoon does not guarantee that Kirov will be destroyed totally (2 harpoons were not enough for even 3 times smaller and older Wainwright during tests)

As i see the discussion is becoming "ship X is much better as it has better electronics and computers" but why do not pay attention that this ship has only 8 antiship subsonic missiles (copies of harpoon) with 3 times shorter range and to launch even this 8 missiles Atago will have to get very close to Kirov . Doubtless all Granites will have been launched very long before Atago reaches its missiles range

I deliberately do not compare Kirov and Tico/Burk , as such battle is impossible , as this ships are designed to operate in carrier groups and will not act without air support.
Click to expand...
you are turning this into a my <insert your phrase here> is greater than your <insert your phrase here>. You are never going to see a 1 to 1 battle, so let's throw that out of window.

Here is what you need to think about. Think about what they are designed for and how well they accomplish it. And if you really want to go for a simple ship vs ship, then look at their AAW capability, their ASW capability and their ASuW capability. You can also look at the serviceability of the ships and how stealthy they are and such. All things to consider.

For example, it's great that Kirov has 20 shipwreck missiles and 96 RIF missiles (which should have secondary anti-shipping modes), but the question is how will it find them? How can it possibly utilize the fully range of shipwreck or even use it from 100 km out? Does the helicopter provide it with targeting info? Or are they going to use the OTH radar and does that actually give fine enough targeting data? Next part, how does shipwreck missiles handle modern ESM and not get tricked by decoys and lock on to the right target. Thirdly, how effective will kirov be at guiding multiple missiles at the target even if it has the right targeting data?

Things to think about and now you can do the same analysis on other fighting components.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Bonza said:
You're absolutely right of course. Wasn't trying to encourage any further detours into absurdity, merely pointing out that capability is determined by more than just missile characteristics. :)

Is the Kirov class the most appropriate vessel available for the sorts of duties you're describing? Seems like a bit of overkill for anti-piracy, and as far as gaining experience in operating large ships, is a nuclear-powered vessel the best choice? I would have thought the new frigates would be taking priority.

edit: My reservations are mainly in terms of operating costs etc - they can't be cheap vessels to run! Happy to stand corrected on any of the above though, as my naval knowledge is pretty limited :)
Click to expand...
Well they're cheap to "acquire". And of course they look a lot more impressive then some frigates. So it's also a matter of prestige... Finally it's also the experience of operating ships of that size.
 
B

Balancer

New Member
tphuang said:
y
For example, it's great that Kirov has 20 shipwreck missiles and 96 RIF missiles (which should have secondary anti-shipping modes), but the question is how will it find them? How can it possibly utilize the fully range of shipwreck or even use it from 100 km out? Does the helicopter provide it with targeting info? Or are they going to use the OTH radar and does that actually give fine enough targeting data? Next part, how does shipwreck missiles handle modern ESM and not get tricked by decoys and lock on to the right target. Thirdly, how effective will kirov be at guiding multiple missiles at the target even if it has the right targeting data?

Things to think about and now you can do the same analysis on other fighting components.
Click to expand...
Yes Three helicopters can provide targeting data for Granite, which has digital inertial guidance system Missles can get in-flight updates from manned aircraft/ ship etc
The guidance system is mixed-mode, with inertial, active terminal guidance with radar and also anti-radar homing. Mid-course correction is probable.
Click to expand...
 
N

nevidimka

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #246
I believe the Kirov's will go through with modernization of all of its on board radars as well so as to provide it with the latest coverage, and targeting abilities to it against modern stealthy vessels.
 
kev 99

kev 99

Member
I just read a report that the Nakhimov will get a modernisation costing €20m, that doesn't sound particularly extensive to me for a ship that's over 20 years old and hasn't moved in 10 years.
 
K

Knjaz

New Member
kev 99 said:
I just read a report that the Nakhimov will get a modernization costing €20m, that doesn't sound particularly extensive to me for a ship that's over 20 years old and hasn't moved in 10 years.
Click to expand...
From russian sources it will cost about 20 billion rouble, which is approximetly 700 millions USD.

So all chances it will be pretty deep modernization.
 
N

nevidimka

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #251
The russians could do alot more at the same amount of money when compared to the west. So I think thats quite alot of modernization that they can fit in to the ship.
 
S

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
nevidimka said:
The russians could do alot more at the same amount of money when compared to the west. So I think thats quite alot of modernization that they can fit in to the ship.
Click to expand...
Or could they? The original price for the ex-Gorshkov modification was grossly way under priced and look at the price tag now just to complete it.
 
N

nevidimka

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #253
Salty Dog said:
Or could they? The original price for the ex-Gorshkov modification was grossly way under priced and look at the price tag now just to complete it.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that things are more cheaper in russia compared to the west. Gorshkov carrier is a different issue IMHO.
 
B

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Salty Dog said:
Or could they? The original price for the ex-Gorshkov modification was grossly way under priced and look at the price tag now just to complete it.
Click to expand...
Hadn't considered that. Does anyone have any word on the fuel state of the Kirovs? From what I remember of Galrahn's commentary over at Information Dissemination, replacement of the nuclear fuel would be a concern, but I don't know enough about nuclear naval systems to have much idea.
 
B

Balancer

New Member
the cruiser "Kirov" which was the first in 1144 project series (comissioned in 1980) was cancelled from scrapping. So it seems to me Russian Navy needs all 3 "kirovs" back. (+ 4th active Peter the Great)
 
1

1805

New Member
I just can't see a nuclear cruiser represents good value for money. The USN was very keen on the idea in the 70s. Did they pass a law requiring their contruction or something? And they then saw sense and realised it was the weapons system that counted and build a class of 20 crusiers and 60+ destroyers. SAMs are much better than the Falkland (nearly 30 years ago but the only real example of a waships facing a vaguely modern air attack.), but can they really protect assets independently of manned aircraft.

I think the biggest lesson from the Falklands was the attack on HMS Glamorgan. It recieved much less press, maybe becasue it didn't sink and it was later in the war and we were getting use to ships sinking! Athough a squadron of low flying attack aircraft with say 4 supersonic SSM is a huge problem, it is probably an unlikely one a moder navy would face. However SSMs being fired from the back of a lorries/shore batteries off the cost of Iran is very probably. Could western naval forces be driven from the Gulf as Napoleon drove the RN from Toulon?
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Balancer said:
the cruiser "Kirov" which was the first in 1144 project series (comissioned in 1980) was cancelled from scrapping. So it seems to me Russian Navy needs all 3 "kirovs" back. (+ 4th active Peter the Great)
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do you have a source?
 
S

SkolZkiy

New Member
This info is unofficial =) I've also read about this
About nuclear reactors - Kirov and Lazarev - the active zone of th reactor was took off. Lazarev for reloading and Kirov long before for scrapping - so they are ready for modernization
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top