kirov class battle cruiser

Chrom, where do you think the USAF and USN OTHR systems point? The CTF doesn't have to rely on organic sensing at long range as they are hooked into a broad area system.

Assuming that the USN can't see anyone outside of the CTF sensor grid demonstrates that you are only thinking of site organic battlespace management.

The Soviets didn't think that they could contain the USN carrier groups and that the best they could do is 20%. Russia is nowhere near the projection footprint of the Soviet Union.

and how long have we heard about Su-34's being in volume production etc...? they were offered in export derivative to australia in Su-27 guise over 7 years ago and they still don't have volume.

There are also many late production Tu-16s, now in storage, that could be pressed back to service! Depending on the tactical situation, with or w/o refueling, they can get within range to launch new or old medium/long-range missiles!

Performance: maximum speed 960 km/h (597 mph), service ceiling 15000 m (49,200 ft), range with maximum weapon load 4800 km (2,983 miles)
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/tu16-01.htm

Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yGmmEtnPg&feature=related"]YouTube - Raketonosci (Tribute to Soviet Rocket Carriers)[/ame]

And I forgot to include AN-22s as possible AShM carriers- they use

.. the NK12 turboprops - which also power the Tupolev Tu-95/Tu-142 Bear family of bombers and maritime patrol aircraft and are the most powerful turboprop engines in service - comprehensive navigation and precision drop avionics, and massive undercarriage and tailplane.
..range with max payload 5000km (2692nm)
A few dozen remain in commercial and military service.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=36

Click to expand...

!

http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/an22.htm

http://www.truveo.com/Antonov-An22-Antaeus-part2/id/156407412

gf0012-aust said:

Chrom, where do you think the USAF and USN OTHR systems point? The CTF doesn't have to rely on organic sensing at long range as they are hooked into a broad area system.

Assuming that the USN can't see anyone outside of the CTF sensor grid demonstrates that you are only thinking of site organic battlespace management.

The Soviets didn't think that they could contain the USN carrier groups and that the best they could do is 20%. Russia is nowhere near the projection footprint of the Soviet Union.

Click to expand...

Did that include soviet tactical nuclear capability or just conventional capability? As i understood it the Red fleet had a marked nuclear superiority over the USN.

OK, a future Kirov class may not have the Aerial striking capability that the carrier posess, but the carrier also doesnt posess the long range overwhelming striking ability that is provided by the cruiser. PLease correct me if i'm wrong, a cruiser of the size of Kirov has two advantages that a destroyer may find hard to posess, that is the number of long range missiles that it can carry, n the size of the premier Anti ship missiles that the russian arsenal has n may develop in future. I've seen pictures of russian sramjet/ramjet engines that are soo small it can be fitted in a cruise missile easily. And future developments looks like heading that way.

Its true that the thingking of the Soviet ways are over. Negating the American Navy is not anymore the only objective the new russian navy should n will be based around. An all around capability should be available on its new boats without compromising its ability to defend agsint the US navy.

In a possible land atack scenario, a Kirov class will be able to lead a massive land attack knocking out strategic targets, while denying the airspace around it against a lesser enemy. It can also work in concert with an aircraft carrier in forming total domination over a target country's air,naval, n land platforms. Ay the same time it retains the ability to lead a battle on its own due to its immense firepower, n that wouldnt need mobilising the thousands of manpower n money etc when an aircraft carrier is used.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

Did that include soviet tactical nuclear capability or just conventional capability? As i understood it the Red fleet had a marked nuclear superiority over the USN.

Click to expand...

Roughly (and out of conversational convenience its real rough) the Soviets had nuke yield advantage, the american approach was to aim for a closer CEP for finessing the shot.

eg the soviet philosophy was to saturate and overwhelm by sheer physical shock and dominance of the battlespace. they were less able to achieve that at the maritime level

Another way Kirovs could be used are BMD/ASAT.
The long-range bombers won't need to be always present over the remote ocean areas- only when actually scouting and striking. The map on the right shows 4 AFBs in Siberia & the Far East that Tu-95s/22s/160s would use.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxky4ku__K0&feature=related"]YouTube - Russian bombers on exercise[/ame]

Firehorse said:

Another way Kirovs could be used are BMD/ASAT.

Click to expand...

I think you need to look at loadout and fitout issues. Just because a platform has VLS/PLS doesn't mean it has latency for other roles - esp in the case of the 2 remaining Kirovs, ASAT.

I get your point, but are they less capable than USN/JMSDF CGs as far as the missile accomodation is concerned? If what Galrahn sais is true-

the PtG has become a test platform for new naval weapon systems and electronics.

Click to expand...

, and having those for the

S-300F Air Defence Missile Complex with 12 launchers http://www.radiationworks.com/nuclearships.htm#ushakov

..later variations were also developed to intercept ballistic missiles. ..The new missiles also introduced the ultimate track-via-missile guidance method and brought with it the ability to intercept short-range ballistic missiles. http://www.answers.com/topic/s-300?nr=1&lsc=true

Click to expand...

-So, IMHO, testing & deploying naval BMD would make sense!

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/1144.htm

The land-based S-300PMU2 Favorit is very impressive indeed!

Firehorse said:

I get your point, but are they less capable than USN/JMSDF CGs as far as the missile accomodation is concerned?

Click to expand...

Whens the last time that PtG deployed successfully without a mechanical failure?

Whens the last (or any) time that it conducted and demonstrated BMD capability? (Sea based BMD is a bit more complex that land based BMD)

Its fine to argue possibilities, but in the same breath I can say lets theorise about converting Kitty Hawk into a VLS arsenal ship as it has the real estate and capacity for a fit out.

• Is it achievable? - yes
• Is it structually do-able? yes
• Have the americans demonstrated technical proficiency in system marriage in the past? - yes
• Does platformage need to be considered? - yes
• Have the americans successfully demonstrated discretionary capability? - yes
• Does yes for the above imply latency? - yes
• Do they have yard slack to undertake conversion? - yes
• Are availability rates of the vessel as is high? (implying current robustness) - yes
• Does its withdrawal create a capability vacuum? - No

Just because there are a whole pile of project affirmatives does not mean that it translates into an outcome. Thats the difference between theorising about "woulda coulda shoulda" and an actual deliverable time sympathetic solution.

I think most ppl here are not advocating modifying the existing Kirov into roles that it currently doesnt have. The kirov may be used to test new technology, but thats the end of its role.

The thread is about a future Kirov class ship, seeing that the current kirov will be retired not so far in the future, n Russia is in the process of rebuilding its navy to be a blue water navy. A Land attack Cruise missile ship has more relevance to Russian Navy than 1 based purely as Anti US carrier role that the old Kirov has, albeit retaining the role of former.

The kirov was based on the technology level of the soviets 30 years ago. Surely now they have advanced to give a future class ship more deadly capability than was achievable b4, or even expand its role. The Kirov has problems n bad track record due to it being built to soviet doctrine. They have come a long way now, n The Russians will not repeat the mistakes of the Soviets. They would have improved construction and safety, hence i dont believe a new class ship will be in trouble like the Kirov is.

nevidimka said:

I think most ppl here are not advocating modifying the existing Kirov into roles that it currently doesnt have. The kirov may be used to test new technology, but thats the end of its role.

The thread is about a future Kirov class ship, seeing that the current kirov will be retired not so far in the future, n Russia is in the process of rebuilding its navy to be a blue water navy. A Land attack Cruise missile ship has more relevance to Russian Navy than 1 based purely as Anti US carrier role that the old Kirov has, albeit retaining the role of former.

The kirov was based on the technology level of the soviets 30 years ago. Surely now they have advanced to give a future class ship more deadly capability than was achievable b4, or even expand its role. The Kirov has problems n bad track record due to it being built to soviet doctrine. They have come a long way now, n The Russians will not repeat the mistakes of the Soviets. They would have improved construction and safety, hence i dont believe a new class ship will be in trouble like the Kirov is.

Click to expand...

I agree that any new Russian cruiser should have land attack SLCM capability whilst retaining anti-ship SLCM capability. The latter is easy as the Russian navy already employs these. However, I do know of any SLCM land attack versions (there are air launched ALCM versions). Perhaps I missed the SLCM versions somewhere.

It would be interesting should "Tomahawkski" SLCM variants find their way into the Russian Navy inventory.

I'm amazed by the fascination these Kirov CGs still have over people, just like battleships right into WW2.
With the USN planning to deploy DD-1000 superdestroyers capable of carrying hundreds of cruise missiles, a sort of follow-on to the Kirovs might be built if Putin believes it worth it.
However in today's more likely conflict scenarios the Russian Navy would rather need more multi-purpose ships to replace the heavily depleted Sovremenny and Udaloy classes of destroyers. Spending loads of money on new Kirovs would be a waste of resources.
I've also read in this thread that these new Kirovs could be an alternative to the claimed Russian plan for several new aircraft carriers as power projection ships. I disagree, because sending cruise missiles into a coastline doesn't solve all your problems... Russia needs LPDs, LSTs, LHDs, better equipped Marines and the means to support them when they have landed. The cover of cruise missiles helps but it is not the priority...

cheers

So, a new Kirov class cruiser is not relevant? Think again.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...cts_for_Zumwalt_Class_Destroyers120015077.php

The zumwalt class to be built. 2 of them to be lead ship tailored for land attack n litoral dominance.

nevidimka said:

So, a new Kirov class cruiser is not relevant? Think again.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...cts_for_Zumwalt_Class_Destroyers120015077.php

The zumwalt class to be built. 2 of them to be lead ship tailored for land attack n litoral dominance.

Click to expand...

Two different mission requirements. The Zumwalts are designed to deal with the USMC's call for a NGFS asset to replace the Iowas. USN was not going to pump money into Iowas when it was a cost ineffective asset, (and that USMC would not be investing any development monies). So Zumwalt is the answer.

Kirovs are predominately area denial and air denial assets. They're almost at the opposite spectrum of the requirement curve.

gf0012-aust said:

Two different mission requirements. The Zumwalts are designed to deal with the USMC's call for a NGFS asset to replace the Iowas. USN was not going to pump money into Iowas when it was a cost ineffective asset, (and that USMC would not be investing any development monies). So Zumwalt is the answer.

Kirovs are predominately area denial and air denial assets. They're almost at the opposite spectrum of the requirement curve.

Click to expand...

Fully agree. The Russian Navy first has to rebuild its Marines assets. With only one Ivan Rogov LPD left there's not much of an amphibious projection force. Next, programmes such as 22350 should be accelerated to ensure replacement for the heavily depleted force of Sovremenny and Udaloys. Only then should they bother investing in Zumwalt-type behemoths designed to support Marines in land attack missions.
New Kirovs would look a bit like the German battleships of WW2, very powerful ships (anti-surface and with strong anti-aircraft defences) with no clear mission other than destroy anything in their path until they attract enough attention by enemy aircraft carriers and get destroyed themselves.

cheers

contedicavour said:

New Kirovs would look a bit like the German battleships of WW2, very powerful ships (anti-surface and with strong anti-aircraft defences) with no clear mission other than destroy anything in their path until they attract enough attention by enemy aircraft carriers and get destroyed themselves.

cheers

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you mentioned attracting attention of aircraft carriers. In WW2 carrier battles decoys were a widely used tactic. Examples are the Shoho and the island of Midway at the battle of midway. Midway was especially effective because it required different munitions to attack it. I think it would be interesting to see the Kirov in this roll.

"It is interesting that you mentioned attracting attention of aircraft carriers. In WW2 carrier battles decoys were a widely used tactic. Examples are the Shoho and the island of Midway at the battle of midway. Midway was especially effective because it required different munitions to attack it. I think it would be interesting to see the Kirov in this roll."

I think you misunderstand history.

Shoho was not a decoy but was escorting the Japanese invasion force.

If you consider Shoho a decoy then you would to be consistent have to view the oiler Neoho and the destroyer Sims as decoys which of course they werent.

Midway was the Japanese main objective plus the fact the Japanese kept a keen eye out for the US carrier fleet. No decoy.

The Leyte Gulf battle would be a more appropriate example.

And that didnt turn out to well:

"The US air strikes continued until the evening, by which time Task Force 38 had flown 527 sorties against the Northern Force, sinking Zuikaku, the light carriers Chiyoda and Zuiho, and the destroyer Akitsuki. Chiyoda was lost with all hands. The light carrier Chitose was crippled, as was the cruiser Tama. Ozawa transferred his flag to the light cruiser Oyodo."

"The IJN failed to achieve its objective, suffered very heavy losses, and never afterwards sailed to battle in comparable force. The majority of its surviving heavy ships, deprived of fuel, were to languish inactive in their bases for the rest of the Pacific War. (Fuller 1956, Morison 1956)."

Using warships as decoys is a desperate, last-ditch gamble.

It is not "interesting" but suicide.

But Im all for the Russians using such loser tactics if they so desire.

rickusn said:

"It is interesting that you mentioned attracting attention of aircraft carriers. In WW2 carrier battles decoys were a widely used tactic. Examples are the Shoho and the island of Midway at the battle of midway. Midway was especially effective because it required different munitions to attack it. I think it would be interesting to see the Kirov in this roll."

I think you misunderstand history.

Shoho was not a decoy but was escorting the Japanese invasion force.

If you consider Shoho a decoy then you would to be consistent have to view the oiler Neoho and the destroyer Sims as decoys which of course they werent.

Midway was the Japanese main objective plus the fact the Japanese kept a keen eye out for the US carrier fleet. No decoy.

The Leyte Gulf battle would be a more appropriate example.

And that didnt turn out to well:

"The US air strikes continued until the evening, by which time Task Force 38 had flown 527 sorties against the Northern Force, sinking Zuikaku, the light carriers Chiyoda and Zuiho, and the destroyer Akitsuki. Chiyoda was lost with all hands. The light carrier Chitose was crippled, as was the cruiser Tama. Ozawa transferred his flag to the light cruiser Oyodo."

"The IJN failed to achieve its objective, suffered very heavy losses, and never afterwards sailed to battle in comparable force. The majority of its surviving heavy ships, deprived of fuel, were to languish inactive in their bases for the rest of the Pacific War. (Fuller 1956, Morison 1956)."

Using warships as decoys is a desperate, last-ditch gamble.

It is not "interesting" but suicide.

But Im all for the Russians using such loser tactics if they so desire.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the enemy's main objective was. Midway acted as a decoy. The fact that it was Japan's main target only support's the argument that it was a decoy. You would want your opponent to focus on the decoy. Midway was a brilliant trap and the island of midway was the bait.

To put it in a more modern situation let's say 4 nimitz carriers in the western barents. Russia would have 2 battle groups one lead by a kirov and one with two carriers one the admiral kuznetsov and the other a light carrier like the admiral gorshkov. The kirov group would operate north of Murmansk and have air cover from mig-31s. The the carrier group would operate farther to to the east outside the range of E-2's could safely operate and just try to remain undetected. The kirov group would just try to get within range of the carrier group and wait to die when the air strike comes Russia would hit the group with everything they had while some of the F-18s were away. Do I think this situation is likely? No. Do I think Russia would win? Maybe but probably not. But who could say that it wouldn't be interesting.

kilo said:

It doesn't matter what the enemy's main objective was. Midway acted as a decoy. The fact that it was Japan's main target only support's the argument that it was a decoy. You would want your opponent to focus on the decoy. Midway was a brilliant trap and the island of midway was the bait.

Click to expand...

The island of Midway was not a decoy. For it to be used as a decoy the US would have had to actively used it as one, which means they would have been the ones who chose the theater. They did not. The IJN planned to attack Midway well in advance of the US's knowlage of it. They could have struck in many places, THEY chose Midway not the USN. If it was a decoy the US would have had to both decided that the battle would be at the place of their choosing and taken actions that would ensure the IJN did what they wanted, i.e. leave midway out there as a decoy. This is not what transpired. The USN knew they were going to be engaged soon, becasue the IJN needed to meet the major PACFLT units in battle and destroy them. Yamamoto chose Midway becasue of its strategic signifacance, not becasue of any action taken by the US. The only reason Nimitz was able to ambush the Jap's was becasue JN29 was broken (japanese naval codes) and the elint illustrated the IJN's intentions. A similar situation could have occured if yamamoto decided to attack the Illution's with full strength and was descovered by the allies, would the Illution Islands have been a decoy then?

To put it in a more modern situation let's say 4 nimitz carriers in the western barents. Russia would have 2 battle groups one lead by a kirov and one with two carriers one the admiral kuznetsov and the other a light carrier like the admiral gorshkov. The kirov group would operate north of Murmansk and have air cover from mig-31s. The the carrier group would operate farther to to the east outside the range of E-2's could safely operate and just try to remain undetected. The kirov group would just try to get within range of the carrier group and wait to die when the air strike comes Russia would hit the group with everything they had while some of the F-18s were away. Do I think this situation is likely? No. Do I think Russia would win? Maybe but probably not. But who could say that it wouldn't be interesting.

Click to expand...

This is way too simplistic, your only takeing avery small ammount of real capability into account. US OHR footprint and sat intell would clearly illustrate what the ruskies were doing, they woldnt just be limited to the E-2C's range. Therefore whats the point? They Kirov group could effectively be attacked by SSN's anyway which would be operateing in the area, and then you've just lost a huge and expenseive asset by leaveing it exposed for little or no gain. Anyway if russian naval aviation was a threat it would probably be visited by a few B2's before any of this transpired.

rickusn is right, its a stupid tactic. Your basically sacrificeing a huge and capable asset to simply distract your enemy slightly with little or no dividends.

Call it what you want but in a purely tactical sense midway distracted the japanese from the american carriers.

As for the scenario I proposed I specificaly said I did not think such a situation was likely. I think maybe you thought I was saying the US and Russia would not go to war. That is only half of it. I also meant that I think the US would handle it differently. As for an actual situation what you said sounds pretty good. Because of the US's overwhelming superiority any tactic of defense will seem ridiculous. But in more close run situations like midway bait/distractions/decoys can be effective due to naval striking power being grouped into a limited number of missiles/aircraft (and submarines and mines).