kirov class battle cruiser

[nevidimka]

New Kirov's

Russia has been upgrading and keeping in service the 2 remaining Kirov's that they have. This shows the enormous capability the Kirov's provide for Russia's Navy.
I believe it would be a mistake if Russia does not carry on from the success of the Kirov's, granted they fix the problems with its minor hiccups.

Russia should build a new class of Kirovs of the same displacement but with a modern stealthy design. These ships should be more automated from the predesessor to reduce crew's to operate the ship. A new 1000km range Anti-Ship missile should be developed. This missile should retain the unique characteristics of the Shipwreaks. These missiles should also be able to be used as land attack cruise missiles. The ship's air defences upgraded with navalised S400, and latest ASW.

Considering US once mooted the idea of a massive missile cruiser, the new Kirovs should be equally good at AShW and Land attack using Cruise missiles, to make it operationally practical.

 

[Firehorse]

I doubt that it's possible to build a stealthy ship of that size. SSGNs and new SSGs are/will be stealthy enough for the roles you mention. Besides, the cost of operating nuclear powered surface ships is too high- even the USN got rid of those CGNs well before their time!

According to Navy officials, ships with the least potential for future growth and are the least cost efficient to operate have been proposed for decommissioning.
The high expense with overhauls and refueling, along with their high cost of supporting the necessary infrastructure, has made the nuclear cruisers a target for replacement.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6636/

During the late 1970s, two nuclear-powered cruiser options were considered for the new cruiser to mount the new Aegis defense system. The 17,200-ton nuclear- powered strike cruiser (CSGN) and the 12,100-ton CGN-42 [derivative of the CGN-38 class] were both rejected in favor of a design that mounted the Aegis system on the smaller, conventionally powered Spruance (DD-963) class hull. The CSGN was estimated to have a unit procurement cost double the DD-963 option, while the CGN-42 was estimated to have a unit procurement cost 30% to 50% greater than the DD-963 option. The DD-963 option became the 9,500-ton [light] Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruiser, the first of which was procured in FY1978.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/csgn-1.htm

 

[nevidimka]

Thanks for replying.

Regarding stealthy ships, i dont think there is a perfect stealthy ship. The main purpose is to delay detection until it can strike its target. Considering there has even been stealth Aircraft carrier design from the west, i think the smaller kirov can also be designed stealthily. With ia longer range AShM reducing the detection even slightly will help alot.

Russia has stated plans of building a fleet of aircraft carriers. But its much more expensive to operate the carriers compared to a kirov isnt it? I think it would be wise if russia reduces the number of carrier programme n replace it with kirov's.

If nuclear power is expensive to operate, would it be better if it were to have a hybrid drive of nuclear/electric engine?

These days carriers are used more as a political statement than attack, n Kirov has this capability. Adding the land strke capability will further enhance its political statement outside one's shore.

 

[Firehorse]

Their goals of asserting themselves again can be achieved without CVNs or CGNs- I doubt they'll be getting new CVNs, only smaller CVs. Slava class CGs are enough, together with SSGNs, SSNs, SSKs, and long range bombers. SR/IRBMs can also target land for le$$, and they'll be selling more missile boats & subs to their proxies. Russia is an Eurasian power and doesn't need to have a huge navy to go to the other side of the world. These points were already mentioned in my posts on other treads.

 

[kilo]

Aircraft carriers can provide air cover for the fleet CGs can't. Fighters have a much better record than SAMs in providing air defense. How many missiles did British destroyers shoot down in the Falklands? How many ships did the harriers protect from being attacked? As for land attack have aircraft lost the ability to drop bombs?

 

[nevidimka]

I think Kirov is a cheaper way of establishing a powerfull blue water navy that russia is attempting to rebuild, rather than building 6-12 carriers, like they have claimed before.

Plus if they park a Kirov right outside a country, it will provide a more serious political statement compared to slava class destroyers or SSGNs, SSNs, SSKs that lurk beneath the sea wouldnt it?

Perhaps they could balance the number of cariers with kirov class to reduce cost but maintain the effectiveness.

 

[Galrahn]

Plus if they park a Kirov right outside a country, it will provide a more serious political statement compared to slava class destroyers or SSGNs, SSNs, SSKs that lurk beneath the sea wouldnt it?

The only statement that would send is intimidation, and most countries don't respond to intimidation, unless they are very small and have few friends.

Russia can influence with larger numbers of small frigates than fewer large platforms. Russia is not going to be in a position to influence major powers for decades, so they might as well use the time to build smaller platforms to build up the next generation of officer corp, and build a stability operation to influence areas where there are emerging markets.

The game has changed since the cold war, it is about resources and markets, if Russia tries the cold war games they will be left behind by China and the west.

 

[merocaine]

The only statement that would send is intimidation, and most countries don't respond to intimidation, unless they are very small and have few friends.

Russia can influence with larger numbers of small frigates than fewer large platforms. Russia is not going to be in a position to influence major powers for decades, so they might as well use the time to build smaller platforms to build up the next generation of officer corp, and build a stability operation to influence areas where there are emerging markets.

The game has changed since the cold war, it is about resources and markets, if Russia tries the cold war games they will be left behind by China and the west.

Although I dont disagree with your points I would say that visible military power does make on impression on your opponents...re the US in 96 when they had their "thats not a knife" moment with the chinese

 

[Sea Toby]

Ships are becoming stealthier with intentional designs reducing their radar signatures, special reflected paint on their hulls, etc. Even the gun mounts have had their radar signatures reduce. 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.

So there have been efforts to make a ship stealthier.

 

[Firehorse]

The only statement that would send is intimidation, and most countries don't respond to intimidation, unless they are very small and have few friends.
Russia can influence with larger numbers of small frigates than fewer large platforms. Russia is not going to be in a position to influence major powers for decades, so they might as well use the time to build smaller platforms to build up the next generation of officer corp, and build a stability operation to influence areas where there are emerging markets.
The game has changed since the cold war, it is about resources and markets, if Russia tries the cold war games they will be left behind by China and the west.

I absolutely agree! Even if they have the $ to build new CVNs/CGNs it would be a waste to do that- given that energy prices may not stay high for too long, but large nuclear ships are not built like sousages. Those are relics of the Cold War.
I don't know how accurate is this article- US Mandates Nuclear Battleships, but even if they decide to get them, IMO it won't be reciprocated by Russia.

Like all of the nuclear cruisers which could steam for years between refuelings, the California class was designed in part to provide high endurance escort for the navy's nuclear aircraft carriers, which were often limited in range due to their conventionally powered escorts continuously needing to be refueled. ..the Soviet Navy's Kirov class (..were actually built with a combination of nuclear and fossil-fuel propulsion),..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_class_cruiser

Even if /when they get more CVs, IMO the geography won't necessitate nuclear propulsion for them and their escorts. US/R/FN CV/Ns can be shadowed by SSGNs/SSNs and maritime strike bombers; the seas around Eurasia aren't that huge for more Kirov CGNs follow-ons, especially taking into account the ASh missile threat they would face!

 

[Jon K]

The only statement that would send is intimidation, and most countries don't respond to intimidation, unless they are very small and have few friends.

Russia can influence with larger numbers of small frigates than fewer large platforms. Russia is not going to be in a position to influence major powers for decades, so they might as well use the time to build smaller platforms to build up the next generation of officer corp, and build a stability operation to influence areas where there are emerging markets.

I agree with you completely. What Russia needs are ships the Russian Navy can actually maintain and operate. To take part in international scene Russia also needs replenishment ships and amphibious capabilities.

Besides, if we are talking about intimidating some small country or about conducting a limited operation, with armaments of today one can form a networked task force with smaller ships and back them up with long-range bomber arm equipped with ALCM's and PGM's. Russia already has fairly good planes and cruise missiles for long range bomber arm for decades.

 

[philbob]

If a new modernize Kirov class battlecruiser was built i would spooge myselfnfloorl:

 

[nevidimka]

The power that the bigger ships project are irrefutable. Even the US is keeping the 4 Iowa class ships on dock ready for battle when situation arises.

If russia wants to project its power beyond its shoreline, a combination of nuclear powered carrier n missile cruiser will do just that.

Plus wouldnt a small number of nuclear powered Kirov's be cheaper to maintain in the long run compared to numerous numbers of diesel powered smaller ships? What more with the rising oil prises n diminishing stocks. Nuclear power would also allow deployment anywhere in the world with lesser cost. Also how many of those ships are able to carry the weapons that Kirov does?

 

[Jon K]

The power that the bigger ships project are irrefutable. Even the US is keeping the 4 Iowa class ships on dock ready for battle when situation arises.

You're wrong, besides, keeping Iowa's in reserve after WW II was a complete waste of money and resources.

If russia wants to project its power beyond its shoreline, a combination of nuclear powered carrier n missile cruiser will do just that.

Sure, as would a space-based strike system, but Russia does not have money to fund nuclear powered carrier battlegroups. As from my perspective it would make more sense for the Russian Navy (and armed forces in general) to adept to economical realities and develop armed forces which would be actually operational instead of showcase military.

Plus wouldnt a small number of nuclear powered Kirov's be cheaper to maintain in the long run compared to numerous numbers of diesel powered smaller ships? What more with the rising oil prises n diminishing stocks. Nuclear power would also allow deployment anywhere in the world with lesser cost.

In practice a "new Kirov" would become DD(X) style behemoth with Russian navy having one of those to carry the President around, with various one-off systems aboard which would, or would not, work.

Also how many of those ships are able to carry the weapons that Kirov does?

Well, how about Spanish F-100 Bazan or any other comparable new European or Asian design with VLS capacity, for starters? It has an area defense missile system, point defense missile system, ASW helo, gun suitable for bombardment and capability of launching cruise missiles if necessary. In case of F-100, this is reached with a crew of 240 personnel and displacement of 6250 tons.

 

[Salty Dog]

Plus wouldnt a small number of nuclear powered Kirov's be cheaper to maintain in the long run compared to numerous numbers of diesel powered smaller ships? What more with the rising oil prises n diminishing stocks. Nuclear power would also allow deployment anywhere in the world with lesser cost. Also how many of those ships are able to carry the weapons that Kirov does?

The Kirov class are relics of the cold war. It's main purpose was to destroy aircraft carriers without the luxury of ground based air support. These are very large and sophisticated and therefore very expensive to maintain, especially as Soviet systems were numerous and redundant. The redeundancy was due to low confidence of their own weapons systems. It would be interesting to see what upgrades were made and if systems were reduced.

The propulsion plant on the Kirov class whilst well known as nuclear, also had fuel oil boilers which could propel the ship with the nuclear plant shut down.

Modern gas turbine and diesel propulsion plants are quite a bit easier to run and less expensive to maintian than steam (nuclear or fuel oil).

Fleet sizes and operatons tempo are reduced significantly worldwide so there isn't the same fuel usage for surface warships now-a-days as back in the 60's and 70's.

While the offensive capability of the Kirov class in today's world is still quite potent and quite impressive, present day budgets for operations and especially maintenence may be prohibitive for a Kirov class, even for a cash rich country like Russia.

Better to go with greater numbers of smaller less costly CG/DDG with modern weapons, C3I, and cost efficient propulsion.

 

[Firehorse]

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.

 

[Salty Dog]

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.

 

[Firehorse]

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"!

 

[Salty Dog]

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???

 

[Firehorse]

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!