Kirov-class battlecruisers

[SA2003]

Once, these were the pride of the Soviet Naval forces. At 252 m (827 ft) long, and with a displacement of 28,000 tons, they were and are the giants of their class, the largest battleships of any class or type in the world since the American Iowa-class were retired.

After the USSR fell apart, at first the four of themwere handed over to the new Russian government and were put away in reserve.

When Vladimir Putin took the reigns in 1999-2000, one of his goals was to rebuild Russia's Naval prowess. He ordered the first Kirov, Yury Andropov, the newest one, launched first in 1989, refitted with modern weaponry and equipment and put back into service.

Yury Andropov became Peter the Great















The only larger Naval vessels are US aircraft carriers.

By 2020, the 3 other steel titans will be in active service once again:

Admiral Nakhimov (former Kalinin)

To be back in the Navy by 2012.

Admiral Lazarev (Frunze)


and

Admiral Ushakov (Kirov)


Both to be modernized by 2020.

Eventually, each of those will become the battleship of each of Russia's four Fleets (Black Sea, Baltic, Northern, and Pacific Ocean).

[USSWisconsin]

Wonderful pictures! These are awesome ships, some might argue about the term battleship, I believe they are officially heavy missile cruisers. They are the closest thing to a modern version of the battleship that are still in service, but their light armor and medium gun armament would make them large cruisers by technical description. Still I believe they belong in a battleship ship discussion, due to their size and firepower (I would personally describe them as Guided Missile battlecruisers).

Would you please tell us more about this picture? It is very interesting.

[gunnut]

Wonderful pictures! These are awesome ships, some might argue about the term battleship, I believe they are officially heavy missile cruisers. They are the closest thing to a modern version of the battleship that are still in service, but their light armor and medium gun armament would make them large cruisers by technical description. Still I believe they belong in a battleship ship discussion, due to their size and firepower (I would personally describe them as Guided Missile battlecruisers).

Would you please tell us more about this picture? It is very interesting.

I would say that's the SA-N-6 launcher from inside the ship. I have never seen a picture like that.

[Dreadnought]

Hmm, refitted by 2020 and back in the Navy in 2012? This one I would have to see to believe three of these back in service. The past points to many problems with them and their upkeep since the collapse of the Soviet Union before being handed over to the Russian Government. I'm not saying its not going to happen, what I'm saying is the Russian Government/Navy must somehow have money to burn to completely rebuild the ships from the hull up. If you remember when Peter the Great made a voyage to South America it needed a heavy Sea Tug to accompany it during its trip. In this Economy and with carrier plans?

I mean China will no doubt have carriers active very soon, so will India and the Russian Navy does still have/seldomly operate the Kuznetzov.

According to what the Navy and Government have stated they plan on carriers but from where? The Varyag project really opened their eyes to reality as far as how laxed their shipbuilding programs and facilities have become for Capital ships. They supposedly invision 6 carriers (2 groups of 3) and unless they plan on investing heavily in building yards and logistics then I dont see these ships having that great of investment for them to be completely rebuilt by 2010 especially if they also have these carrier programs in mind, one of the two projects is going to suffer the axe. My guess is it will be atleast one or even two of the class not making it back in. That is unless they plan on securing the nuclear propulsion plants and burning distilliate in the two boilers but that would by far inhibit any sort of range or full speed power.

Seems its not just me that seems to recognize an ideas of what lay ahead as far as rebuilding or funding these ships.

Old Kirov cruisers back in service?
Written by FLH
Tuesday, 22 September 2009 20:19
Could it be that the Russian Navy soon will operate another nuclear 'Kirov'-class cruiser, or perhaps two, or three? Is Russia going to rebuilt those old, rusting laid-up 'Kirovs'?

Will the 'Pyotr Veliky' (099) - Russia's one and only nuclear 'Kirov'-class cruiser in service - soon be accompanied by its old 'sisters'; 'Admiral Ushakov', 'Admiral Lasarev' and 'Admiral Nakhimov' (image below)?

NB: For more photo's and images, also on the 'Kirov'-class cruisers, see our 'Photo-Gallery', which is currently under construction, but still worth visiting.

During an interview with 'Ekho Moskva' Russia's Deputy Minister of Defense, Vladimir Popovkin, said that in particular the nuclear powered cruisers are subject to reconstruction programs, which are now being developed (Read more: 'BarentsObserver').

Russia's Navy now only operates one 'Kirov': the 'Pyotr Veliky', the Northern Fleet flagship (image left). The other three 'Kirov'-class cruisers have been laid-up since the Soviet Union fell apart.

The three in-active 'Kirov'-class cruisers are in a very bad shape after being laid-up for almost 20 years. Restoring or rebuilding these huge warships will not only be expensive but will also take a great effort for the Russian shipyards.

Next to this 'mothball-plan', Russia also has a hand full of other 'mothball-plans' and also has plans to built new ships and submarines. All and all, the Russians shipyards, in theory, but also in real life, have loads of work to do, and all this while these shipyards are way behind in planning, are way behind in being up to date, are way behind in being effecient, are way behind in being 'modern', etc. etc.

So, is this just another hoax, some kind of Russian 'blabla' or again Russian Navy rethoric? Well, maybe, we just don't know, but let's not forget that this is the Russians talking! One never knows what to expect!

http://dutchintell.com/index.php/rus...ack-in-service

IMO, Just boggling to understand how they expect to rebuild their shipbuilding industry while buying Mistral class from the French?

[surfgun]

It would appear to be large revolving missile platform that is not fully loaded, the tubes (6?) would revolve around and the missiles would be fired out of a single missile hatch. At least that is what it appears to be to me.

[SA2003]

Wonderful pictures! These are awesome ships, some might argue about the term battleship, I believe they are officially heavy missile cruisers. They are the closest thing to a modern version of the battleship that are still in service, but their light armor and medium gun armament would make them large cruisers by technical description. Still I believe they belong in a battleship ship discussion, due to their size and firepower (I would personally describe them as Guided Missile battlecruisers).

Would you please tell us more about this picture? It is very interesting.

RPK-2 Viyuga cruise missiles (RPK-2 Viyuga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[SA2003]

Hmm, refitted by 2020 and back in the Navy in 2012? This one I would have to see to believe three of these back in service. The past points to many problems with them and their upkeep since the collapse of the Soviet Union before being handed over to the Russian Government. I'm not saying its not going to happen, what I'm saying is the Russian Government/Navy must somehow have money to burn to completely rebuild the ships from the hull up. If you remember when Peter the Great made a voyage to South America it needed a heavy Sea Tug to accompany it during its trip. In this Economy and with carrier plans?

I mean China will no doubt have carriers active very soon, so will India and the Russian Navy does still have/seldomly operate the Kuznetzov.

According to what the Navy and Government have stated they plan on carriers but from where? The Varyag project really opened their eyes to reality as far as how laxed their shipbuilding programs and facilities have become for Capital ships. They supposedly invision 6 carriers (2 groups of 3) and unless they plan on investing heavily in building yards and logistics then I dont see these ships having that great of investment for them to be completely rebuilt by 2010 especially if they also have these carrier programs in mind, one of the two projects is going to suffer the axe. My guess is it will be atleast one or even two of the class not making it back in.

Russia doesn't need carriers IMHO

It has so much landmass, if they can build enough airstrips, there is European side, Siberia, Far East, North. America needs carriers to get its planes to different continents. Same for China. Russia is in Europe, Asia, and close to Middle East. She does not need carriers. Fact.

And for small operation, they are buying those Mistral carriers from the French.

And the Russian Navy has plenty of new technology, actually.

Steregushchy-class corvettes, for example, which use stealth technology


Gepard-class frigates


Lada-class attack subs


Borei-class ballistic missile subs (will replace Typhoons)


Don't take me wrong. I think Putin's plans for the Navy are... ambitous, to put it mildly. But, a man can dream, right I want to dream my homeland will rule her seas one day again :D

[Dreadnought]

Russia doesn't need carriers IMHO

It has so much landmass, if they can build enough airstrips, there is European side, Siberia, Far East, North. America needs carriers to get its planes to different continents. Same for China. Russia is in Europe, Asia, and close to Middle East. She does not need carriers. Fact.

And for small operation, they are buying those Mistral carriers from the French.

*So in other words what you are saying is that although the Chinese (2 carriers in building), India (2 carriers in building), France (1 carrier in building and one active) and the British (1 carrier in building) pose no resistance to Russia or her future interests? I think they tend to believe other according to the articles posted by link below. By building these carriers they will indeed be able to transport warplanes to their theaters of interest not to mention their already existing land based aircraft in cases such as China and India. They will also create jobs, save current jobs and renew their shipbuilding capabilities as Russia's economic rivals.

FACT: These carriers in building (even the older ones) will be brand new compared to Russia's sole carrier (Kuznetzov) which is already 26 yeard old and is also set for drydocking for the next 5 years, that is if it goes into drydock in 2012. Leaving the Russian Navy with ZIPPO as far as a CV is concerned.

Chinese carrier intrests : http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/I...hineseNavy.pdf
India carrier intrests : Bharat-Rakshak.com :: NAVY - Indian Aircraft Carrier (Project-71)
British carrier interests : Navy wins battle for two new aircraft carriers... but one will be mothballed to reduce costs | Mail Online
French carrier interests : U.K. Move Could See French Aircraft on British Carriers - Defense News

*A slight misconception on American warplanes needing a carrier to get to other countries, perhaps you should know that the US has bases in over 63 countries worldwide. So in effect your statement of them needing a carrier is untrue. However a CVBG does provide for instant refueling and rearming and logistics and can be almost anywhere within 72 hours and less.

FACT:

All of the Upper Brass in the Russian Navy are calling for Carrier Fleets and have been for the last few years.

Why does Russia need new aircraft carriers? - BarentsObserver
New Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier
Russia wants to build new aircraft carrier - BarentsObserver

*Fact is I would rather trust the Russian President, Prime Minister Admirals and Naval Commanders words then your opinions. That is unless you know better then they do which direction their surface fleets design will go?

*As for the Mistrals being for small operations, are you referring to Amphibious operations? Which ofcoarse would be a first for the Russian Navy in a very very long time I might add. So it might not be as small of an operation as you percieve and I doubt they would treat it as such as well considering the amount of military cargo they can carry.

Or could the two Mistral ships be used is such a larger operation as to what the USS Kearsarge is engaged in right now?

You seem to claim FACT, but yet seem uneducated on the subject of recent carrier program aspirations from different navy's, Economies, Ship building logistics and the amount of US air fields on the globe that wouldn't require a CVN force to strike from.

It would seem the Russia Navy is more interested in Carriers and Submarines as priority. This is why I believe these ships will get the axe when times get tight.

[chakos]

Could the Russian Navy not just build a class of 3-4 cruisers from scratch with the same core capabilities as the Kirovs, using the latest technology and simplifying the fitouts for less?

A kirov is basically a transport for 20 (old) long ranged anti shipping missiles protected by a large anti-air and anti-sub complement, im sure it could be done a lot simpler than what is currently available.

For one you would ditch the naval SA-8 system as it may have been useful before the massive amounts of 'Tors' were installed it now seems rather redundant. The S300 advanced variants handle the long range stuff and the Tors handle the short range stuff, you can even simplify it further by using the smaller short range quad packed missiles (cant remember the designation at the moment) in the S300 launchers and do away with the Tors as well if you want to keep it simple.

Get rid of the anti sub missiles, i can understand the ship having a defence against submarines but as for chasing them, well your not going to use your flagship for that.

Replace the Granites with Kh-15 and club variants for a mixed surface strike capability and be able to carry closer to 50 than the 20 granites.

Overall you could have a ship with the same core capabilities of the Kirov, brand new for comfortably 10000T less displacement if you really wanted to rather than updating these relics.

They are cool looking ships and bring a lot of bang to the fight but unlike the Iowas they havent aged well at all and furthermore unlike the Iowas dont really bring anything to the fight that cant be brought by a smaller less complex vessel ( like 9 massive 16inch guns).

I think the Slavas are far better much better designed cruisers, they are simple, well armed, pack a punch and most of all work more than they dont.

Also didnt one of the Kirovs have a reactor accident in the Med a few years back and is now laid up in a corner of some base in Russia, basically a radioactive hulk? Good luck convincing dock workers that setting foot on that baby is worth the overtime

[SA2003]

*So in other words what you are saying is that although the Chinese (2 carriers in building), India (2 carriers in building), France (1 carrier in building and one active) and the British (1 carrier in building) pose no resistance to Russia or her future interests? I think they tend to believe other according to the articles posted by link below. By building these carriers they will indeed be able to transport warplanes to their theaters of interest not to mention their already existing land based aircraft in cases such as China and India. They will also create jobs, save current jobs and renew their shipbuilding capabilities as Russia's economic rivals.

FACT: These carriers in building (even the older ones) will be brand new compared to Russia's sole carrier (Kuznetzov) which is already 26 yeard old and is also set for drydocking for the next 5 years, that is if it goes into drydock in 2012. Leaving the Russian Navy with ZIPPO as far as a CV is concerned.

Chinese carrier intrests : http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/I...hineseNavy.pdf
India carrier intrests : Bharat-Rakshak.com :: NAVY - Indian Aircraft Carrier (Project-71)
British carrier interests : Navy wins battle for two new aircraft carriers... but one will be mothballed to reduce costs | Mail Online
French carrier interests : U.K. Move Could See French Aircraft on British Carriers - Defense News

*A slight misconception on American warplanes needing a carrier to get to other countries, perhaps you should know that the US has bases in over 63 countries worldwide. So in effect your statement of them needing a carrier is untrue. However a CVBG does provide for instant refueling and rearming and logistics and can be almost anywhere within 72 hours and less.

FACT:

All of the Upper Brass in the Russian Navy are calling for Carrier Fleets and have been for the last few years.

Why does Russia need new aircraft carriers? - BarentsObserver
New Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier
Russia wants to build new aircraft carrier - BarentsObserver

*Fact is I would rather trust the Russian President, Prime Minister Admirals and Naval Commanders words then your opinions. That is unless you know better then they do which direction their surface fleets design will go?

*As for the Mistrals being for small operations, are you referring to Amphibious operations? Which ofcoarse would be a first for the Russian Navy in a very very long time I might add. So it might not be as small of an operation as you percieve and I doubt they would treat it as such as well considering the amount of military cargo they can carry.

Or could the two Mistral ships be used is such a larger operation as to what the USS Kearsarge is engaged in right now?

You seem to claim FACT, but yet seem uneducated on the subject of recent carrier program aspirations from different navy's, Economies, Ship building logistics and the amount of US air fields on the globe that wouldn't require a CVN force to strike from.

It would seem the Russia Navy is more interested in Carriers and Submarines as priority. This is why I believe these ships will get the axe when times get tight.

Well, I read that it would cost many billions just to build the facilities/docks/etc, for the construction of aircraft carriers in Russia (because at this time there is no such thing there). That's before we address the costs of actually building even one carrier. Then, how much will Russia have to spend on maintenance for these things? Also, the costs and trouble of training huge, specialized crews for such ships (it takes what, a couple thousand people, at least, to man a carrier). I believe that it all is not worth it. Let China fool around with it if they want (and having talked to PLAN men, many think it is a bad idea; as do many in Russia's Combat Naval Forces).

You can trust President Medvedev over me, sure. Just keep in mind that, with all my respect to the President, he has never in his life served in the military, while I have spent 3 years of my life in the Naval Forces. So, yes, I do feel more qualified on this subject.

If they are smart, they will invest in submarine warfare. Submarines have always been Russia's strengh, Alfas, Deltas, Akulas, those were the backbone of the Soviet Navy. That is what Russia needs, more new subs. More Ladas. A new 'quiet' sub can take down a carrier. Sneak up on it (remember the incident where Chinese sub came up next to a American carrier?). If done right, the carrier wouldn't know what hit it. Russia already has the foundation for this, plenty of submarine building docks, mostly up North, Severomorsk, Murmansk, etc.

A large, modern submarine fleet can deter any carrier activity anywhere near Russia. And I do not see her involved in any large overseas adventures. Small, nearby operations (like Georgia 2008), can, as I said, be easily accomplished with the Mistrals. As Admiral Vladimir Korolev, commander of Black Sea Fleet, said (I think it was him who said it), 'with this ship, what took us a couple days to do in 2008, we will be able to accomplish in 30 minutes'.

That is enough for me.

[SA2003]

Could the Russian Navy not just build a class of 3-4 cruisers from scratch with the same core capabilities as the Kirovs, using the latest technology and simplifying the fitouts for less?

A kirov is basically a transport for 20 (old) long ranged anti shipping missiles protected by a large anti-air and anti-sub complement, im sure it could be done a lot simpler than what is currently available.

For one you would ditch the naval SA-8 system as it may have been useful before the massive amounts of 'Tors' were installed it now seems rather redundant. The S300 advanced variants handle the long range stuff and the Tors handle the short range stuff, you can even simplify it further by using the smaller short range quad packed missiles (cant remember the designation at the moment) in the S300 launchers and do away with the Tors as well if you want to keep it simple.

Get rid of the anti sub missiles, i can understand the ship having a defence against submarines but as for chasing them, well your not going to use your flagship for that.

Replace the Granites with Kh-15 and club variants for a mixed surface strike capability and be able to carry closer to 50 than the 20 granites.

Overall you could have a ship with the same core capabilities of the Kirov, brand new for comfortably 10000T less displacement if you really wanted to rather than updating these relics.

They are cool looking ships and bring a lot of bang to the fight but unlike the Iowas they havent aged well at all and furthermore unlike the Iowas dont really bring anything to the fight that cant be brought by a smaller less complex vessel ( like 9 massive 16inch guns).

I think the Slavas are far better much better designed cruisers, they are simple, well armed, pack a punch and most of all work more than they dont.

Also didnt one of the Kirovs have a reactor accident in the Med a few years back and is now laid up in a corner of some base in Russia, basically a radioactive hulk? Good luck convincing dock workers that setting foot on that baby is worth the overtime

Hmm... Didn't hear about that. Will look it up. I doubt it though. Only Peter the Great is actually in service and sailing right now, and it wasn't anywhere near the Mediterranian then (it only first sailed outside the North Sea when it went for that joint training with the Venezuelan Navy a few months back).

[USSWisconsin]

Are there any pictures of the four steaming together? - that is something I'd like to see.

I like the design, the bow is particularly pleasing to look at. Are those RPK-2 tubes pictured inside the stern along side the aft main gun mount?

[SA2003]

Are there any pictures of the four steaming together? - that is something I'd like to see.

One day there will be, I hope. I love those ships. My father served on the Lazarev, back when it was known as the Frunze. He is still proud of it. Says back then, men in the Soviet navy would do anything to get transferred there. Everyone wanted to be aboard a Kirov. Amazing ships. Design is partially based on the German Bismarck. Red Army, when was in Germany, found the blue prints for the Bismarck, brought them home. They made the first Kirov from them, adding more modern weapons and equipment.

I like the design, the bow is particularly pleasing to look at. Are those RPK-2 tubes pictured inside the stern along side the aft main gun mount?

I believe they are.

[Dreadnought]

Well, I read that it would cost many billions just to build the facilities/docks/etc, for the construction of aircraft carriers in Russia (because at this time there is no such thing there). That's before we address the costs of actually building even one carrier. Then, how much will Russia have to spend on maintenance for these things? Also, the costs and trouble of training huge, specialized crews for such ships (it takes what, a couple thousand people, at least, to man a carrier). I believe that it all is not worth it. Let China fool around with it if they want (and having talked to PLAN men, many think it is a bad idea; as do many in Russia's Combat Naval Forces).

You can trust President Medvedev over me, sure. Just keep in mind that, with all my respect to the President, he has never in his life served in the military, while I have spent 3 years of my life in the Naval Forces. So, yes, I do feel more qualified on this subject.

If they are smart, they will invest in submarine warfare. Submarines have always been Russia's strengh, Alfas, Deltas, Akulas, those were the backbone of the Soviet Navy. That is what Russia needs, more new subs. More Ladas. A new 'quiet' sub can take down a carrier. Sneak up on it (remember the incident where Chinese sub came up next to a American carrier?). If done right, the carrier wouldn't know what hit it. Russia already has the foundation for this, plenty of submarine building docks, mostly up North, Severomorsk, Murmansk, etc.

A large, modern submarine fleet can deter any carrier activity anywhere near Russia. And I do not see her involved in any large overseas adventures. Small, nearby operations (like Georgia 2008), can, as I said, be easily accomplished with the Mistrals. As Admiral Vladimir Korolev, commander of Black Sea Fleet, said (I think it was him who said it), 'with this ship, what took us a couple days to do in 2008, we will be able to accomplish in 30 minutes'.

That is enough for me.

The Soviets had plans for further Carriers when it collapsed and its forward thinking designs prove they were on their way to improving the existing programs they already had including catapults on the newer designs.

A bit of info on Soviet and Russian building programs:
http://www.rjlee.org/rcar.html

And although I do agree they lack the facilities, the rebuild of the Varyag taught them some valuable lessons no doubt. The very same lessons that China and India will learn as well.

The Kirov's have been mothballed for over 20 years for the most part. If they couldnt take care of submarines for years during that time span then what makes you think then took any better care of whats left of the Kirovs especially their redundant weapons systems that would require a total overhaul and replacement as well as the nuclear powerplant, living conditions, sensors etc etc.
All this to save ships that werent properly maintained in the first place?

[Dreadnought]

Design is partially based on the German Bismarck. Red Army, when was in Germany, found the blue prints for the Bismarck, brought them home. They made the first Kirov from them, adding more modern weapons and equipment


?

Sorry, although I do know that Russia took many naval documents (and a carrier loaded with machinery) and a few other prizes back to Moscow after Berlin (where they were kept) fell I find it rather diffacult to believe for a moment that the Kirov class built (1973-) and probably designed a few years before had any origins from the KM Bismarck design built in (1936) some 37 years earlier.

There is not barely one feature the two share outside of length and somewhere close in draft?

In beam Bismarck is wider, In weight Bismark is twice the Kirov's weight, In draft Bismarck is deeper, particularly at maximum draft. The propulsion and layout of propulsion is completely different between the two ships. Bismarck also had twice the crew numbers so the entire habitat and its capability were different as well. the weapons not even comparible.

Even the compartment layouts are clearly different, Kirov not having a fraction of the Bismarcks compartments and the Kirov class having large open well compartments for the missle bays that are quite visible through the transome stern hull doors.

So where is this relationship in design between Kirov and Bismarck come in besides nowhere but close in length and painted grey?

Kirov:
Displacement: 24,300 tons standard, 28,000 (full load)
Length: 252 m (827 ft)
Beam: 28.5 m (94 ft)
Draft: 9.1 m (30 ft)
Propulsion: 2-shaft CONAS, 2× KN-3 nuclear propulsion with 2× GT3A-688 steam turbines
140,000 shp[1]
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h)
Range: 1,000 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 30 knots (56 km/h) (combined propulsion),
unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power
Complement: 710

Bismarck:
Class and type: Bismarck-class battleship
Displacement: 41,700 tonnes standard
50,900 tonnes full load
Length: 251 metres (823.5 ft) overall
241.5 metres (792.3 ft) waterline
Beam: 36.0 metres (118.1 ft) waterline
Draft: 9.3 metres (30.5 ft) standard
10.2 metres (33.5 ft) full load
Propulsion: 12 Wagner high-pressure boilers;
3 Blohm & Voss geared turbines 150,170 shaft horsepower (111.98 MW);
3 three-blade propellers, 4.70 metres (15.42 ft) diameter
Speed: 30.1 knots (34.6 mph; 55.7 km/h) during trials (one work claims a speed of 31.1 knots (35.8 mph; 57.6 km/h) [1]
Range: 8,525 nautical miles (9,810 mi; 15,788 km) at 19 knots (22 mph; 35 km/h)
Complement: 2,092: 103 officers 1,989 men (1941)

I'm not sure how you get your information but im not believeing for a moment that Russia would use a 37 (give or take a few) year old design from Bismarck (that is if they even got it to begin with) to be used during somewhat of the beginning at the height of its naval power until the late 1980's/early 1990's when clearly there is no real match in the overwelming majority of characteristics.

And although you claim to have served a navy (assuming Russian) for three years as mentioned above and with all due respect but I fail to see how you could possibly compare the two vessels sharing a design origin of sorts outside of being somewhat the same length and being the color grey.

No other charteristics are evident to me unless you would like to point them out and also your above facts about American carrier groups are a bit misplaced. Apparently you are not too sure about what comprises a CVBG or its assigned escort classes or duties.

Sorry, but raising the flag of BULLSHIT on this one!