Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


kirov class battle cruiser

This is a discussion on kirov class battle cruiser within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; For all of the above reasons, I won't be surprised if one day Kirovs are offered for sale to India ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old February 6th, 2008   #16
Banned Member
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 763
Threads:
For all of the above reasons, I won't be surprised if one day Kirovs are offered for sale to India or China. Those 2 could have a better use for them! The only other use of them, IMO, would be patrolling the ice-free Arctic, provided that they'll be still in commision by that time. Russia can periodically send her CBG to N.Atlantic & Med. Sea, like she did recently, but permanent presence of smaller ships can serve as a reminder and deterrance, without "gun-boat diplomacy/big stick" intimidation of other navies.

Last edited by Firehorse; February 6th, 2008 at 09:33 PM.
Firehorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2008   #17
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
India bought the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (ex-Admiral Gorshkov) and China the carrier Shi Lang (ex-Varyag/Kusnetsov class). With less than posh experiences for both, I doubt seriously China or India will buy another used hull from Russia. Both are beyond that stage nowadays.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2008   #18
Banned Member
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 763
Threads:
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Dog View Post
India bought the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (ex-Admiral Gorshkov)
To sweaten the deal, they may just offer Kirov, and Indians may want it, unless there is lenghty modernization required. China new what she was getting to from the start, and if Kirov class fits them then why not? They still have many years of hull life remaining! Both IN & PLAN have higher optempo and are eager to go "blue water"!
Firehorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2008   #19
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
To sweaten the deal, they may just offer Kirov, and Indians may want it, unless there is lenghty modernization required.
Do you mean to say that Russia will give the ex-Kirov to India for free??? Even so, I doubt India will take it. The ex-Kirov in any navy will be a black hole for money.

from an article in *************.com dated 26/04/2007:

"Russia will not be able to deliver the refitted aircraft carrier Gorshokov next year as scheduled. The delivery has now been pushed to 2010 and it's going to cost $113 million extra.

This cost is over and above the $ 1 billion that India is paying for its refit and upgrade. The delay is apparently because Russian builders underestimated the length of cabling required -- it's not 700 km but 2,400 km, they have told the Indian Navy." what next???
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2008   #20
Banned Member
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 763
Threads:
For free or at very low price. The same may go for China- the Chinese are upset that India gets more advanced Russian weapons than they do. The PLAN even more in need of capable CV escorts/independent CGs than RFN or IN to protect SLOCs & "show the flag". I suspect that the Russians managed to keep them in decent enough shape to be written off anytime soon!
Firehorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2008   #21
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
the Chinese are upset that India gets more advanced Russian weapons than they do
Very true. China is supplying Pakistan with fighter aircraft and missiles. As Pakistan is the prime opponent for India, you can be sure that India-Russia politics is not helping the Chinese situation.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2008   #22
Super Moderator
Major General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,016
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
I read one of the reasons why the Mk 13 launchers were taken off the O.H. Perry class is that after a missile launch, too much of its radar reflective paint flaked off, exposing the ship.
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.

Quote:
So there have been efforts to make a ship stealthier.
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.
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008   #23
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
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.
The forward CONREP stations were to bring aboard the SM-1 missile coffins. Since the SM-1 was removed, these CONREP stations went with them. Anyway, one less deck item to chip and paint.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008   #24
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,007
Threads:
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?
nevidimka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008   #25
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 189
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
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.
Jon K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008   #26
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,842
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
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?
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.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008   #27
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
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.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008   #28
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,007
Threads:
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.
nevidimka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008   #29
Banned Member
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 763
Threads:
Post

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.
Quote:
Table1. Decommissioned/scrapped/inactive/reserve ships

TYPE| CATEGORY, NAME YARD COMMISSION FLEET
BCGN KIROV | CRUISERS
ADMIRAL USHAKOV #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ 30.12.1980 NOR
(until April 22, 1992 known as Kirov). Keel laid down on March 27, 1974. Launched on December 27, 1977, and commissioned by the Navy on December 30, 1980. 6.3.1981 entered NOR. 4.1 2.1984 awarded by USSR MoD Pennants. Based at Severomorsk. Inactive since 1990 when there was an accident in the ship's machinery. Kirov-1, inactive, was stricken in 1998. 2002 decommissioned. Scrapped.

080 ADMIRAL NAKHIMOV #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ 30.12.1988 NOR
(until 1992 known as Kalinin.) Keel laid down on May 17, 1983. Launched on April 25, 1986, and commissioned on December 30, 1988. ex-Kalinin, Kirov-3. 21.4.1989 entered NOR. 2004: Undergoing refit at Sevmash. Inactive. To be completely refitted with new computerized management systems and Onyx missiles. Planned sea trials for 2007. 07.2006 according to MoD minister S. Ivanov ship is modernizating instead of continue construction of SSGN Belgorod. Planned to re-enter navy in 2011. Modernization costs RUR 7 bn.

015 ADMIRAL LAZAREV #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ 31.10.1984 PAC
(until 1992 known as Frunze). Laid down on July 27, 1978. Launched on May 26, 1981, and commissioned on October 31, 1984. 7.12.1984 entered PAC. 21.8 - 22.11.1985 visited Luanda (Angola), Aden (Yemen), Vietnam. The ship is based at Severomorsk, but has been laid up over the last few years. It is expected that the vessel will be decommissioned; decommissioned Jun 99. May be recommissioned for Pacific Fleet if funds can be found. 2004: awaiting overhaul. 10.2007 located in Strelok bay.

ADMIRAL FLOTA KUZNETSOV #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ cancelled
planned for construction 31.12.1988 but 4.10.1990 cancelled

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1720&catid...mmisioned=true

Table1. Active ships
099(183) PETR VELIKIY #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ 1996 NOR
(until 1992 known as Yury Andropov). Keel laid down on April 25, 1986. Launched on April 25, 1989, and first sea trial completed in autumn 1995. The battle cruiser is scheduled to be transferred to the Pacific Fleet. Undergoing sea trials Northern Fleet, Kirov-4. 1999 twice took part in military exercises. 2003 took part in military exercises. Took part in military exercises on Feb 17-18, 2004. 08.2005 took part in military exersises on Northern fleet with President Putin aboard. 04.2007 visited by foreign media delegation. 07.2007 visited by US Navy CINC in Europe.
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1720&catid=243

Petr Velikiy
The much-delayed Petr Velikiy, which arrived in the Northern Fleet in November 1996 for acceptance trials, was finally commissioned on 18 April 1998, but in the Northern Fleet rather than in the originally planned Pacific Fleet. However, she was subsequently laid up at Severomorsk awaiting completion and repairs.

On 23 March 2004 Russia's navy chief reportedly said that the nuclear-powered Peter the Great missile cruiser, was in such dire condition that it could "explode at any moment" - only to backtrack on his statement a few hours later. Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said the massive cruiser had been badly maintained and could "explode any moment", adding that "it's especially dangerous because it has a nuclear reactor". Just three hours later, however, Kuroyedov retracted his ominous statement, saying he had been misunderstood by the media. "There is no threat whatsoever to the ship's nuclear safety," he said in a statement. "The ship's nuclear safety is fully guaranteed in line with existing norms." He added that some flaws in maintaining the cruiser's living quarters would be fixed within three weeks, after which the ship would become fully combat-ready.
The Petr Veliki cruiser docked for repair at Roslyakovo starting on 19 April 2004. The ship repairers will clean and paint the submarine part of the ship, repair the armature and examine the steering system. The floating dock PD-50, where the Admiral Kuznetsov had been repaired, was prepared for the flagship of the navy. As of July 2004 the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the Pyotr Veliky, heavy nuclear guided-missile cruiser, also fresh from repair, was carrying out missions so as to be in what is called "first-line" readiness in the second half of August 2004.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ussia/1144.htm
So, unless things changed, only one of the Kirov class was scrapped, BTW-
Quote:
According to the Zvezdochka plant, dismantlement of the former Admiral Ushakov would cost $40 million, all of which was allocated by Norway.
http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-battlecruiser-kirov
, 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
Firehorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008   #30
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 111
Threads:
I think a Kirov would be alright as a carrier killer if you had air cover but otherwise just send an Oscar. But for showing the flag nothing says drop the gun like a carrier battle group.
kilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:41 PM.