Kirov-class battlecruisers

[SA2003]

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!

I am not saying they copied the whole design. But I heard they took some characteristics there, general ones.

Compare yourself



Not identical, but there are similarities.

[Dreadnought]

IMO, Not even remotely close in appearance.

By stating the above one could also speculate that Soviet/Russian Carrier programs were based upon the Graf Zepplin which Russia sailed to Poland loaded with war prize machinery, tractors etc on her decks after WWII and then sunk it with dive bombers. And we both know that didnt happen either.

History shows that Russia was interested in a few of the German designs, Graf Zepplin being one of them.

How you are seeing any resembelence of design is beyond me. Maybe the portholes length and color and thats about it.

I can think of a choice few ships that may resemble Bismarcks designs but the Kirov class in its entirety is surely not even in the ballpark from any design aspects.

Even the "Mikhail Kutuzov" would be alot closer to Bismarcks charateristics then Kirov class would ever dream of being.

[SA2003]

IMO, Not even remotely close in appearance.

By stating the above one could also speculate that Soviet/Russian Carrier programs were based upon the Graf Zepplin which Russia sailed to Poland loaded with war prize machinery, tractors etc on her decks after WWII and then sunk it with dive bombers. And we both know that didnt happen either.

History shows that Russia was interested in a few of the German designs, Graf Zepplin being one of them.

How you are seeing any resembelence of design is beyond me. Maybe the portholes length and color and thats about it.

I can think of a choice few ships that may resemble Bismarcks designs but the Kirov class in its entirety is surely not even in the ballpark from any design aspects.

Even the "Mikhail Kutuzov" would be alot closer to Bismarcks charateristics then Kirov class would ever dream of being.

Well, the Bismarck was an interesting ship, much ahead of its time. Closer to the end of the war, the Germans even wanted to build aircraft carriers based around its hull design. That never materialized. But it is true that USSR, after the War, got their hands on the schematics for the Bismarck. Among other things. That they used some of that information in the building of both the Kirov and also the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is speculation and rumor.

But, in my opinion they did include some of it in the Kirov design. Not all. In fact, I hope not, since there were actually certain flaws in the Bismarck design that may well have helped its eventual sinking.

[Dreadnought]

Well, the Bismarck was an interesting ship, much ahead of its time. Closer to the end of the war, the Germans even wanted to build aircraft carriers based around its hull design. That never materialized. But it is true that USSR, after the War, got their hands on the schematics for the Bismarck. Among other things. That they used some of that information in the building of both the Kirov and also the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is speculation and rumor.

But, in my opinion they did include some of it in the Kirov design. Not all. In fact, I hope not, since there were actually certain flaws in the Bismarck design that may well have helped its eventual sinking.

IMO, Structure and soundness of that strutcural integrity tells me Kirov is a ball of tinfoil compared to Bismark where as Bismarck was like a claw foot bath tub. Solid as a rock and built internally to be such through thorough compartmentization and the different material including armor used in the building of the ships . The Kirov class has very large open bays for those missle silos. Bays that would permit these structures to be weak and unsupported unlike the internals of Bismarck. And In comparison would not take one fraction of the beating the Bismark took. I do agree that many intell docs on Germanys Navy were taken, but not as many as you would think that have resurfaced outside of Russia and not repatriated to Germany. And if you notice on these lists the Graf Zeppelins prints appear as well as Prince Eugan etc etc.

For instance: A very good sight
A link to many original German warship designs including Uboats, Cruisers, CV's, torpedo boats etc. These are the originals scanned to reduce their size.

The Dreadnought Project

[USSWisconsin]

Well, the Bismarck was an interesting ship, much ahead of its time. Closer to the end of the war, the Germans even wanted to build aircraft carriers based around its hull design. That never materialized. But it is true that USSR, after the War, got their hands on the schematics for the Bismarck. Among other things. That they used some of that information in the building of both the Kirov and also the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is speculation and rumor.

But, in my opinion they did include some of it in the Kirov design. Not all. In fact, I hope not, since there were actually certain flaws in the Bismarck design that may well have helped its eventual sinking.

Are you referring to the external hull form? The structure of Bismark was rather dated, even in WWII, with its sloped armor deck located low in the ship - modern ships don't use the same type of armor protection and design used in battleships any longer. Also the 3 screw propulsion system is not widely used, as it has significant disadvantages.

[gunnut]

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.

Without carriers, Russia could not project power into Africa, Australia, or South America. Note the US not only has carriers, we have dozens of bases around the world.

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

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


Gepard-class frigates

These look very European. Did Russia buy/lease/license the design from Europe?

[Xbow]

Pop Goes The Kirov?

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.

surfgun

If you are right(and I think you are) the thing that is shocking to me is the total lack of compartmentalization, splinter and blast protection in such a critical area! One hit from a major weapon (Harpoon or Exocet) that penetrates into that area would have a pretty good chance of setting off a chain reaction that could blast the big girl in half or at least gut the forward half of the ship.



If those are VL cans are for SA-N-6 missiles, every rotary magazine would be host to six 1,480 kg missile that are packing a 100kg warheads and perhaps 800 kg of solid propellant each. A grand total of 600kg of HE (RDX?) and 4800kg of something similar to Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) for just one of the 12 rotary launchers. A grand total of 7200kg of RDX and 57,600kg of APCP in what appears to be the forward missile room.

Then of course just aft of those mountings you'd have 20 P-700 Granits. 140,000 pounds of missiles with a total 15,000kg of RDX equivalent, solid rocket fuel boosters and who knows how much fuel for those KR-93 jet engines. I wonder if those two missile rooms are isolated to prevent a complete melt down?

I see no reason why they couldn't have isolated every one of those rotary magazines and set it up so that the blast from a secondary would be directed up and away from the other cells.

If they are that poorly protected those ships are starting to look like enormous Kaitens to me. At best the P-700 has a range of 625km (~385mi) meaning that a Kirov would have to penetrate well into the range of a carriers fighter aircraft that could armed with harpoon missiles before it could launch a swarm. They had to figure that at best it would be a one for one trade.
Of course I could very easily be wrong!

Kaiten/Kirov

[surfgun]

A fully loaded Kirov would apparently make a very interesting roman candle! If hit with the proper weapon.
I can't imagine that these ships being viable for much longer. Soviet mechanical devices were always questionable in quality and now add on a few decades of age! They must be a maintenance nightmare!

[USSWisconsin]

I agree, the Kirov would not be very survivable - she's a one chance weapon vs a USN CBG - and only if she gets very lucky (perhaps as a follow on to 1980's air attack that had blinded the US ships or after a successful submarine torpedo and missile barrage). To an undamaged navy with global situational awareness - she would be a sitting duck loaded with explosives and very vulnerable indeed. Her only "heavy" armor is 76mm around the reactors (reactors always need this kind of shielding whether they are warships or not) - with a weapons load out like that, a few widely spaced 15-20mm bulkheads aren't going to cut it - if hit by a "poon" in a missile gallery and even less if they take a Tom... Against the USN, she was a political show boat - deadly on paper - or against a blinded and weakened foe.


Another related thread
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/bat...ser-takao.html

an older thread (closed)
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/bat...rov-class.html

[kato]

If those are VL cans are for SA-N-6 missiles

Those are standard S-300F sealed launch containers. The free-hanging mounting without an outer compartment is standard, and as far as i know also used in the non-rotating VLS version the Chinese got going.

One hit from a major weapon (Harpoon or Exocet) that penetrates into that area

Ah, but it has to penetrate there first. Note that the wall behind the containers is pretty close. There's probably at least 5 meters worth of compartments between that and the outer hull itself.

[Xbow]

Those are standard S-300F sealed launch containers. The free-hanging mounting without an outer compartment is standard, and as far as i know also used in the non-rotating VLS version the Chinese got going.


Ah, but it has to penetrate there first. Note that the wall behind the containers is pretty close. There's probably at least 5 meters worth of compartments between that and the outer hull itself.

Isnt the SA-N-6 the seagoing designation of the S-300F?

Penetration? Oh yes I am quite sure those massive 3/4in thick bulkheads are impenetrable by anything less than a 1800 pound depleted uranium APDS round with a 300lb RDX bursting charge fired from a 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun..at point blank range of course! And I am equally certain that the Harpoon missile with its minuscule 488 pound warhead wouldn't even be able to scorch the paint on the mighty Kirov's bulkheads.

Actually If I was launching Harpoons at the Kirov I wouldn't worry about penetration, that's going to happen to a devastating effect. No, I'd worry about its CIWS defense that might be very good at taking out subsonic wave riders.


It wasn't much of a chance but the XM-BULL-16/12 APDS round depicted above might have been able to penetrate the massive armored bulkheads that protect the forward missile room of a Kirov class BC....if they could hit it several times in exactly the same spot that is. Its amazing how resistant to penetration three bulkheads made of 3/4 inch Russian steel is.

kato, I am not trying to be a total ass, the Kirov class is probably the most beautiful and aggressive looking set of ships to hit the sea since they stopped making battleships.

But be that as it may the fact is that the Kirovs are unarmored ships that pack an incredible amount of missile firepower but they were not designed to slug it out and resist and contain a whole hell of a lot of damage. Their sole mission was to move in fast and in a coordinated strike with Oscar II subs and TU-22Ms and launch a swarm of P-700's at a carrier and then get the hell out of dodge....and sink majestically into the deep if they didn't get in and out clean.

The truth is the class was among the first ships to be mothballed by the Russians at the end of the Soviet Era. Hell they were wharf decorations before the fall of communism. However they kept the Slava class cruisers that were in fact designed to be smaller more efficient ships that could accomplish the same mission as The Kirovs.

The Kirov Class: too many eggs in one basket, not enough survivability, and too expensive to operate for the capability they provided. The Slava on the right proved to better at doing the Job the Kirovs were designed to do.

Now they're bringing them all back which tells me that as much as they want to the Russians cant yet build medium sized carriers like the Admiral Kuznetsov in St. Petersburg. All their big stuff was made at Nikolayev South (Ukrane) The refurbished Kirovs are stop gap measures to cover for their lack of force projection capability while they are expanding the yards in St. Petersburg not a reaffirmation of their design or former purpose.

If they were smart they'd fill those P-700 tubes with some big nasty 1500 mile range Land attack cruise missiles packing 500kg warheads and figure out how to work the P-800 Oniks through the same VL rack as the SA-N-6/S-300F now that would be a nasty sucker. And while they are at it they should dump that rotary magazine and the big open missile gallery and go to a straight VL rack system that is armored and compartmentalized.

But are we actually sure that the open gallery is actually on the Kirov class?
Check this out Those rotary mounts look more like the SA-N-6 rotary mounts on the Slava class cruisers look at the link.

[USSWisconsin]

In all fairness to the Kirov class, they are 1970's heavy missile cruiser designs - Improvements like armored PVLS systems are much later developments - the Kirov's were a concern to the USN when they were first fielded - but by the end of the cold war, they had been countered by improvements in the USN. I doubt they are going to get a refit like the Renown or QE did before WWII - with increased protection and compartmentalization. They are probably just getting them operational to have impressive platforms to show the flag and intimidate lesser navies. They are still majestic ships, their lack of staying power doesn't really diminish that - any more than it did for the Invincible class battle cruisers of WWI. They are cruisers afterall - and historically - staying power was rarely a part of these types. Comparing them to battleships is not a good measure of their design - the Kentucky class CGN's or early Ticonderoga class ships would be a better comparison.

[surfgun]

Xbow, Re: the link-photo that you provided, the gap between the two set of tubes appear to be wider in the aerial photo, than in the within missile gallery photo (optical illusion?). Though the number of sets tubes appear to be consistent.

[kato]

Isnt the SA-N-6 the seagoing designation of the S-300F?

SA-N-6 is the NATO designation for the seabourne missile system, more precisely for the original S-300F. NATO designations tend to not exactly be all that exact.

S-300F Fort (С-300Ф Форт) is the ship-based version of S-300P, the export version is called S-300F Rif (С-300Ф Риф). The more current version of the system is S-300FM Fort-M (С-300ФМ Риф-M) introduced around 1990, which substitutes 48N6Ye missiles instead for the original 5V55RM. The NATO designation for S-300FM is SA-N-20, the export designation is S-300FM Rif-M (С-300ФМ Риф-M).

Currently most Kirovs and Slavas mount Fort, the Kirov class cruiser Piotr Velikiy mounts Fort-M, the Chinese Type 051C mount Rif-M.

go to a straight VL rack system that is armored and compartmentalized.

The only VLS rack in existance that carries any noticable armor is the Mk56 PVLS. Which isn't going on any ship.

[Xbow]

The Kirov's are magnificent

They are still majestic ships, their lack of staying power doesn't really diminish that - any more than it did for the Invincible class battle cruisers of WWI.

I couldn't agree more! In the late 80's I saw one of those from the flight deck the USS Anchorage (LSD-36) at range of about 2500 meters. Talk about feeling humble in the presence of a ship like that! Especially since she could have backed off and sunk everything in the area.



The image that got me shooting my mouth off about the Kirov's durability showed an eight shot rotary launcher in a large open gallery. The Slava has such a system but it is essentially completely exposed. After studying the layout a bit there is in a question in my mind if the launchers are exactly the same. To come up to 96 missiles whatever is under the Kirov's 12 SA-N-6 missile hatches need 8 missiles each. Perhaps the difference in the Slava/ Kirov installation is that in the Kirovs they harden the VL system by submerging it deeper into the hull under some degree of horizontal armor protection.

I don't know perhaps the K girls are tougher than I gave them credit for.