Project 1164 Atlant: Slava Class cruiser

GarryB wrote:An all nuke powered fleet is not sustainable or affordable, but now they are standardising their fleet essentially into a few different corvettes and about two different frigates, one standard and one heavy going forward then they don't need a wide variety of conventional military propulsion systems.

Nukes in the traditional sense I agree, but with the work they have done with Poseidon, who knows what size, power  and technology it uses. Is it a conventional steam turbine type plant? nuclear battery? sterling engine? no one knows. If its relatively inexpensive, they can build a future fleet with nuclear cruise and gas turbine or battery boost. Maybe for less or a bit more, who knows.

Well being a doomsday weapon it comes down to how it will be used... will it be launched to patrol the sea 24/7 like an SSBN sub and be activated when needed, or will it be sitting in subs like torpedoes ready to be launched when required.

I rather suspect the latter, which means they might sit inert and not running for decades and then be expected to work for days or weeks or possibly months at most... I doubt they would need them to operate for years, which means their reactors could be running hot and hard with good shielding but not high quality 100 year long engineering behind them.

A bit like the Thunderbird too... a nuclear powered jet engine... both are essentially disposable one shot weapons so having a super expensive propulsion design might not be so great, but then I don't think any sort of nuclear propulsion system is going to turn out super cheap either.

If their new nuclear propulsion systems can be designed so they don't need to be refuelled during their entire operational life that should cut costs and make them much better propulsion systems new technologies and materials should allow improved performances with smaller more compact systems... it should be interesting.

Relevant to this thread it would be interesting for them to perhaps test some new nuclear power plants for Orlan and Atlant type ships during their next upgrade which would enable them to test new nuclear propulsion systems being developed for new destroyers and new cruisers. The extra power should allow them to also install new radar and new sonar of increased performance that could also be used on the new large ship types.

Benya wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Simple, one at a time...   I'd put Varyag thru next, as Moskva has P-1000 Vulkans, so leave her till last.

The "Duet" is basically 2 of these guns built into one complex. You can find them on Buyan-M-class corvettes. As for the Ustinov, it could have 3 of these instead of 6 single ones would make sense IMO.

they could just add 2 Pantsir-M if they can fit. I mean atleast the Slava class gets better CIWS with guns and missiles. But if they cant Duet would be a perfect replacement

And regarding P-1000 i have one question.

On the Wikipedia (i know its unreliable) i saw on the P-900 page that the P-1000 can be launched from the UKSK allegedly.

No 1: which missile has more firepower? P-900, P-1000 or P-800?

And could they add UKSK, Redut, and Pantsir to a Slava class?

Navy fanboy wrote:And regarding P-1000 i have one question.

On the Wikipedia (i know its unreliable) i saw on the P-900 page that the P-1000 can be launched from the UKSK allegedly.

No 1: which missile has more firepower? P-900, P-1000 or P-800?

And could they add UKSK, Redut, and Pantsir to a Slava class?

*There is no way that a P-1000 Vulcan missile could fit into an UKSK launcher
*The Vulcan is the "heavier" missile in terms of sheer firepower.
*They can probably do all that but I would think they may go for a slanted launcher in place of the Vulcans. They could probably fit 8 Oniks in place of 2 Vulcans. Unfortunately they may not go for a full mod of these cruisers.

Given how the Slava is designed I think an upgrade to a VLS is really difficult. Only way would be to add slanted UKSK launchers but those aren't in service in any other ship.

No 1: which missile has more firepower? P-900, P-1000 or P-800?

Not sure what you mean by fire power.

P-900 meaning the Calibr family of missiles is probably the most versatile including long range land attack and anti ship and high speed anti ship variants, which combines long range subsonic flight with short distance high speed to penetrate enemy air defences, while the P-1000 is enormous, slower in terms of top speed but sustains that speed all the way to the target and is enormous... while the P-800 is much smaller and much lighter than the P-1000 and is faster and has comparable range in the current versions.

Basically Calibr and Onyx are compatible with the UKSK as we know it... now the UKSK system has two enormous tubes each with four hatches to carry four Calibrs and Onyxs within each of the large tubes... it is possible I suppose that those four tubes and four hatches could be replaced with one big hatch so a P-1000 could be loaded and launched, but in terms of performance having four Onyx or four Calibr missiles is probably more useful.

Just as an example the 20 Granits (P-500) on the Orlan class are being replaced by 80 tubes for their current new missile types including Onyx and Calibr and also Otvet anti sub missiles.... that is a vast improvement in performance.

And could they add UKSK, Redut, and Pantsir to a Slava class?

The UKSK launchers would need to be of the angled type which has not been deployed yet... the alternative would be to build up a massive structure somewhere on the ship to locate them.

The Granit had to be replaced because it is no longer in production, but the Vulcan might still be possible to make and it is not a terrible missile as a stopgap.

Obviously UKSK is more versatile and useful, but Vulcan would still be an effective weapon even today.

@Mir

Yeah i should have check that at start, have never seen the diameter of both missiles.

And Pantsir on a Slava would be an amazing .

@GarryB

Does the Slava class have any stealthy features? i saw your post in Upgraded Nakhimov

And if she does how big would she be roughly on a radar?

Rumours are Ukraine hit Moskva with 2 Neptune Anti ship missiles.

What does add it is that the ship had an explosion which ignited the ammunition. If Ukraine did hit Moskva they are extremely lucky as they have lied a huge number of time this whole campaign.

What i everyones thoughts?

Navy fanboy wrote:Rumours are Ukraine hit Moskva with 2 Neptune Anti ship missiles.

What does add it is that the ship had an explosion which ignited the ammunition. If Ukraine did hit Moskva they are extremely lucky as they have lied a huge number of time this whole campaign.

What i everyones thoughts?

Neptune if I'm correct is a Kh-35 knockoff. If I'm correct.

Anyway, it would be surprising but also not at same time, such cruise missiles are a massive threat and the Moskva wasn't exactly modern ship with modern ways to counter such cruise missiles. As per media, Russian government says fire on board which ignited the ammunition. How did the fire start though? Well, they say they are investigating it. Wouldn't be first time nor last a fire was started on board a ship either by accident or negligence.

Over time we will learn of what it's fate is and what caused it. Till then, it will need to be replaced, even If they don't have a 1-1 replacement of such a vessel.

Replaced with what? They only have two ships of that class left.

They could put a Modified Udaloy as a replacement. 16 Kh-35 and 8 or 16 VLS with Kalibre, and others

Gorshkov class be a decent temp replacement until super Gorshkov

I could see a Gorshkov serving as a stop gap measure. But the Udaloy basically has naval Tor. Not good enough.
Udaloy is mostly anti-submarine/anti-ship design.

Hmm that is a valid point Wonder if more newer AA missiles will be moved into Crimea to protect Russian naval assets

Moskva Cruiser is lost .... what a bunch of incompetent idiots..... and you still dream how the Russian navy is capable to fight NATO...

Russia needs a total reset of the whole system,.. this is nothing more than pure humiliation.

sepheronx wrote:

Navy fanboy wrote:Rumours are Ukraine hit Moskva with 2 Neptune Anti ship missiles.

What does add it is that the ship had an explosion which ignited the ammunition. If Ukraine did hit Moskva they are extremely lucky as they have lied a huge number of time this whole campaign.

What i everyones thoughts?

Neptune if I'm correct is a Kh-35 knockoff. If I'm correct.

Anyway, it would be surprising but also not at same time, such cruise missiles are a massive threat and the Moskva wasn't exactly modern ship with modern ways to counter such cruise missiles.  As per media, Russian government says fire on board which ignited the ammunition. How did the fire start though? Well, they say they are investigating it. Wouldn't be first time nor last a fire was started on board a ship either by accident or negligence.

Over time we will learn of what it's fate is and what caused it. Till then, it will need to be replaced, even If they don't have a 1-1 replacement of such a vessel.

I thought the Neptune was 1980s technology? Why wouldn't Moskva be able to detect and destroy them.

lancelot wrote:Replaced with what? They only have two ships of that class left.

For now, Gorshkov. Or thr supposed Super Gorshkov.

marat wrote:Moskva Cruiser is lost   .... what a bunch of incompetent idiots..... and you still dream how the Russian navy is capable to fight NATO...

Russia needs a total reset of the whole system,.. this is nothing more than pure humiliation.

Maybe you are forgetting but Russia is facing one of the most militarized states in all of Europe, larger than majority of European countries, that was funded, armed and trained by NATO for the last 8 years plus also have a massive arsenal left over by the USSR.

It sucks that the Moskva was hit.  Although, right now nothing is set in stone as to what exactly happened.  It may have been hit by a anti-ship missiles, or it may be something else as KVS has said in the Ukrainian thread.

But lets be honest here, Ukraine is far better than what Argentina was in the 80's and they managed to destroy 2 destroyers, 2 frigates and a few other ships of the British.  This is wartime and there is always a chance.

The question that needs to be raised is why exactly was the Moskva in that particular spot.  Providing AD cover for ships maybe? But then again, the Crimea covers majority of the air so who knows.  Maybe this is indication that more ships need to be made with shtil and newer AD systems.  Otherwise, it wasn't a new ship and ships do sink.

limb wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Navy fanboy wrote:Rumours are Ukraine hit Moskva with 2 Neptune Anti ship missiles.

What does add it is that the ship had an explosion which ignited the ammunition. If Ukraine did hit Moskva they are extremely lucky as they have lied a huge number of time this whole campaign.

What i everyones thoughts?

Neptune if I'm correct is a Kh-35 knockoff. If I'm correct.

Anyway, it would be surprising but also not at same time, such cruise missiles are a massive threat and the Moskva wasn't exactly modern ship with modern ways to counter such cruise missiles.  As per media, Russian government says fire on board which ignited the ammunition. How did the fire start though? Well, they say they are investigating it. Wouldn't be first time nor last a fire was started on board a ship either by accident or negligence.

Over time we will learn of what it's fate is and what caused it. Till then, it will need to be replaced, even If they don't have a 1-1 replacement of such a vessel.

I thought the Neptune was 1980s technology? Why wouldn't Moskva be able to detect and destroy them.

The AD system of the Moskva was the S-300F. Something that isn't particularly useful I would presume against drones compared to Shtil. Moskva wasn't really new either. Its a big heavy hitter ship against land and sea targets but I would presume not really all that much useful in a modern conflict. Gorshkov I believe is better armed just less armed than Moskva.

sepheronx wrote:

lancelot wrote:Replaced with what? They only have two ships of that class left.

For now, Gorshkov. Or thr supposed Super Gorshkov.

marat wrote:Moskva Cruiser is lost   .... what a bunch of incompetent idiots..... and you still dream how the Russian navy is capable to fight NATO...

Russia needs a total reset of the whole system,.. this is nothing more than pure humiliation.

Maybe you are forgetting but Russia is facing one of the most militarized states in all of Europe, larger than majority of European countries, that was funded, armed and trained by NATO for the last 8 years plus also have a massive arsenal left over by the USSR.

It sucks that the Moskva was hit.  Although, right now nothing is set in stone as to what exactly happened.  It may have been hit by a anti-ship missiles, or it may be something else as KVS has said in the Ukrainian thread.

But lets be honest here, Ukraine is far better than what Argentina was in the 80's and they managed to destroy 2 destroyers, 2 frigates and a few other ships of the British.  This is wartime and there is always a chance.

The question that needs to be raised is why exactly was the Moskva in that particular spot.  Providing AD cover for ships maybe? But then again, the Crimea covers majority of the air so who knows.  Maybe this is indication that more ships need to be made with shtil and newer AD systems.  Otherwise, it wasn't a new ship and ships do sink.

The size of the territory is not a factor, otherwise, Russia would already win. You cannot compare the Ukrainian navy with the Argentinian in 1980, Argentina had carriers, cruisers, most modern destroyers, specialized naval attack planes, and most modern antiship missiles. Their navy in 1980 was stronger than the Ukrainian navy now.

Ukraine is not even near to standards of most modern western armies, especially in the navy.

They are not bad either, apart from the navy which was practically nonexisting, but now becomes glorious...., but that is not the point, point is that Russia is terrible. This is Finland in 2022.

The major ship, which intended to confront NATO is lost against Ukraina......... Ok that landing ship that was humiliation and incompetence alsp, but this........

And i know, a hundred excuses will be found now (you have already started), everything apart of: We suck... we need to change everything....

Russian navy suck... so many disasters, during peace, so huge casualties in the local war against an almost nonexisting navy.... but ok, just find excuses that will help you to be better in the future...

This is such a dissaster, Moskva is lost this is unbelievable...

sepheronx wrote:The AD system of the Moskva was the S-300F.  Something that isn't particularly useful I would presume against drones compared to Shtil.  Moskva wasn't really new either.  Its a big heavy hitter ship against land and sea targets but I would presume not really all that much useful in a modern conflict.  Gorshkov I believe is better armed just less armed than Moskva.

It also has the Osa and CIWS. Not just the S-300F. If it was indeed a missile, it was likely a problem with either the sensors or the command and control.

marat wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

lancelot wrote:Replaced with what? They only have two ships of that class left.

For now, Gorshkov. Or thr supposed Super Gorshkov.

marat wrote:Moskva Cruiser is lost   .... what a bunch of incompetent idiots..... and you still dream how the Russian navy is capable to fight NATO...

Russia needs a total reset of the whole system,.. this is nothing more than pure humiliation.

Maybe you are forgetting but Russia is facing one of the most militarized states in all of Europe, larger than majority of European countries, that was funded, armed and trained by NATO for the last 8 years plus also have a massive arsenal left over by the USSR.

It sucks that the Moskva was hit.  Although, right now nothing is set in stone as to what exactly happened.  It may have been hit by a anti-ship missiles, or it may be something else as KVS has said in the Ukrainian thread.

But lets be honest here, Ukraine is far better than what Argentina was in the 80's and they managed to destroy 2 destroyers, 2 frigates and a few other ships of the British.  This is wartime and there is always a chance.

The question that needs to be raised is why exactly was the Moskva in that particular spot.  Providing AD cover for ships maybe? But then again, the Crimea covers majority of the air so who knows.  Maybe this is indication that more ships need to be made with shtil and newer AD systems.  Otherwise, it wasn't a new ship and ships do sink.

The size of the territory is not a factor, otherwise, Russia would already win. You cannot compare the Ukrainian navy with the Argentinian in 1980, Argentina had carriers, cruisers, most modern destroyers, specialized naval attack planes, and most modern antiship missiles. Their navy in 1980 was stronger than the Ukrainian navy now.

Ukraine is not even near to standards of most modern western armies, especially in the navy.

They are not bad either, apart from the navy which was practically nonexisting, but now becomes glorious...., but that is not the point, point is that Russia is terrible. This is Finland in 2022.

The major ship, which intended to confront NATO is lost against Ukraina.........  Ok that landing ship that was humiliation and incompetence alsp, but this........

And i know, a hundred excuses will be found now (you have already started), everything apart of: We suck... we need to change everything....

Russian navy suck... so many disasters, during peace, so huge casualties in the local war against an almost nonexisting navy.... but ok, just find excuses that will help you to be better in the future...

This is such a dissaster, Moskva is lost this is unbelievable...

But it was hit by land based missiles, not a Ukrainian vessel shooting missiles.  Quite a bit different.  Plus Argentina I believe sunk those ships using anti-ship missiles fired by Mirage jets.

The Moskva was to confront NATO 40 years ago.  A lot has changed in 40 years, for instance, I wasn't born and now I am an adult with a family within 33 years.  Moskva was also a missile cruiser.  Their job is mostly to shoot anti ship missiles.  I think they were indeed using it mostly for long range AD since it was the S-300F.  Use what you got.

And to add (sorry for the edits), Ukraine was trained, armed and what not by NATO for last 8 years. They are better armed and trained than pretty much majority of the armies of NATO besides maybe Turkey and USA (and possibly France to some degree).

lancelot wrote:

sepheronx wrote:The AD system of the Moskva was the S-300F.  Something that isn't particularly useful I would presume against drones compared to Shtil.  Moskva wasn't really new either.  Its a big heavy hitter ship against land and sea targets but I would presume not really all that much useful in a modern conflict.  Gorshkov I believe is better armed just less armed than Moskva.

It also has the Osa and CIWS. Not just the S-300F. If it was indeed a missile, it was likely a problem with either the sensors or the command and control.

Your right, it does.  Question is, did a missile actually hit it?  And how many missiles was launched at the cruiser?

You see, there are questions but no answers.  Salvo hit can be successful regardless and in the end, if they manage to pull off a salvo hit against the ship, then yeah, I can see it.  If it wasn't a salvo hit, then those shorads where just not sufficient for the job.

But we are all assuming right now as nothing is quite clear.

Russia has comfirmed that the cruiser has been damaged and the crew has left the ship.
If it was Ukrainian missiles Russia has serius problems, if the cruiser that carries advanced anti missiles defence can be hit all other vessels could be in danger.

https://news.usni.org/2022/04/13/russian-navy-confirms-severe-damage-to-black-sea-cruiser-moskva-crew-abandoned-ship

sepheronx wrote:

But it was hit by land based missiles, not a Ukrainian vessel shooting missiles.  Quite a bit different.  Plus Argentina I believe sunk those ships using anti-ship missiles fired by Mirage jets.

The Moskva was to confront NATO 40 years ago.  A lot has changed in 40 years, for instance, I wasn't born and now I am an adult with a family within 33 years.  Moskva was also a missile cruiser.  Their job is mostly to shoot anti ship missiles.  I think they were indeed using it mostly for long range AD since it was the S-300F.  Use what you got.

And to add (sorry for the edits), Ukraine was trained, armed and what not by NATO for last 8 years.  They are better armed and trained than pretty much majority of the armies of NATO besides maybe Turkey and USA (and possibly France to some degree).

No, some GB vessels were sunk by Exocet fired from Super Etendard, but one ship was destroyed by the improvized land-based launcher, and many more were destroyed/damaged by air bombs and rockets. But Britain fought (and won) war 12. 000km away from their home, and without losing any critical asset. ( no carriers or nuclear submarines lost).

But i know, Britons are stupid, fat, and incompetent and the Russian navy would eat them...

Moskov's job was to act as command ship of the task force and to provide radar cover, and air defense, on the open sea, against Nato naval aviation, submarines, and surface forces. And that was her task until yesterday, not 40 years ago.

Is it so hard to admit that this is a disaster and that all excuses are just plain bullshit?

Guys if somebody told you 2 days ago that Moskva would be destroyed( badly damaged) by Ukraina what would your reaction be? You would call that person an idiot, wouldn't you? So isn't that clear that this is an utter disaster and total humiliation of the Russian navy?

Luckily Kirovs are not in Black See....

Shocking news and a huge propaganda victory for the Ukrs no matter whether the ship was actually hit by a missile or not!
Apparently the cruiser sank after the ammo exploded. I would say if the cruiser was within 300kms from the Ukrs coastline then the missile strike would be a possibility, but I strongly suspect sabotage. We'll have to wait and see.

marat wrote:
Is it so hard to admit that this is a disaster and that all excuses are just plain bullshit?

Yes totally! Even a hard core Russian supporter like me thinks this is a disaster. FFS this is the flagship of the BSF!

Edit>> sorry made a bit of a fup when I tried to repost the info