Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

hoom wrote:

william.boutros wrote:
Kirov is a 25,000 ton project and yet it only carries 174 missiles whereas US destroyers carry 122 missiles for 9,000 ton displacement. Why is that?

Numbers are wrong.
Unmodernised PtG has:
20* Granit
96* S-300
64* Kinzhal (old naval Tor, space for 128 but only half installed)
192* Kashtan missiles
372 total. (+64 if had full Kinzhal load)

Anyway number of missiles isn't the only important factor. The number of targets engaged at the same time is also important. The S-300 radar can engage just one side at a time (no 4 face arrays).

william.boutros wrote:Please don't count Kashtan Missiles. These are very short range missiles.

why do they need the flotation aids?

GarryB wrote:

most likely AK 192 single 130mm gun same as in Gorshkov. But we will see.

Why put the gun of a frigate on a cruiser?

marat wrote:

GarryB wrote:

most likely AK 192 single 130mm gun same as in Gorshkov. But we will see.

Why put the gun of a frigate on a cruiser?

Because that is biggest and the most modern gun they have. They do not have new 152 or 203 naval guns designs, or at least not in mature stage.

marat wrote:

GarryB wrote:

most likely AK 192 single 130mm gun same as in Gorshkov. But we will see.

Why put the gun of a frigate on a cruiser?

Because that is biggest and the most modern gun they have. They do not have new 152 or 203 naval guns designs, or at least not in mature stage.

Big_Gazza wrote:

marat wrote:

GarryB wrote:

most likely AK 192 single 130mm gun same as in Gorshkov. But we will see.

Why put the gun of a frigate on a cruiser?

Because that is biggest and the most modern gun they have. They do not have new 152 or 203 naval guns designs, or at least not in mature stage.

Don't they? How do you know?  AFAIK we didn't see the A-192M publicly until one was bolted onto the Adm Gorshkov.  I won't be surprised at all to see them fit out with a navalised version of the 2S35.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Why would they do that.....Naval guns these days don't need to be bigger than 150m. that gun isn't even really meant to engage large surface combatants

The days of big barrel guns on ships is long and past.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Why would they do that.....Naval guns these days don't need to be bigger than 150m. that gun isn't even really meant to engage large surface combatants

The days of big barrel guns on ships is long and past.

Firing at ground targets is still relevent. For exemple during landings or to destroy a port.

Also the bigger the gun is the bigger a propelled round (with a ramjet engine) would be and the longer ranges it will go would be.

Not for ship-mounted guns, missiles can do that far better with much greater accuracy this isn't WW2.

Any range you could get with a "bigger" gun is worthless since missiles will always be longer range.

Are you realllllllly trying to go down this route?.

Big_Gazza wrote:
Don't they? How do you know?  AFAIK we didn't see the A-192M publicly until one was bolted onto the Adm Gorshkov.  I won't be surprised at all to see them fit out with a navalised version of the 2S35.

Isos wrote:

Not for ship-mounted guns, missiles can do that far better with much greater accuracy this isn't WW2.

Any range you could get with a "bigger" gun is worthless since missiles will always be longer range.

Are you realllllllly trying to go down this route?.

Missiles are expensive and their number is much more limited because the number of UKSK is still limited.

Their warheads are also not so powerfull. 2 rounds of 152mm should do the same dammages.

I'm not talking about firing on Washington but on targets like in Georgia, Ukraine, baltic states or Kurils if Japan invades where the ships can come much closer to the shores because of lack of defences. It would be artillery support and tactical strikes on shore targets. Each gun will have some 100-200 rounds, far greater than 16 kalibr, and they also go faster enabling real time fire support against mobile troops.  

Sovromenys 4x130mm gun were specifically made for that btw.

Isos wrote:French used their destroyer's guns to hit coastal targets in Libya. A modern gun will have rocket/ramjet powered guided rounds with 150-200km range.

There are plenty of juicy targets on the shores : internet connexion centers, fuel depot, enemy ships, weapon storage, radars, civilian infrastructures in the ports...

Sovs are old now but their guns were ver good back in the time. They would have bombed the shit out of Sweeds of Japanese durung landings.

Moreover, like isreali/egyptian war showed, naval guns are still usefull for naval wars. If the missiles miss you are left only with that.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
The guns would require enemy forces to be fairly close to the coastline after that they are useless.

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
The guns would require enemy forces to be fairly close to the coastline after that they are useless.

Given that shore bombardment in support of amphibious forces is generally all about softening up the defenders and weakening their ability to resist, i'd say that's not exactly problem!  

You are aware that major infrastructure like ports and bridges and naval depots are near the coastline?  

Other uses are for interdiction of shipping in blockade or anti-piracy operations. You can send a clear signal with arty without wasting a multi-million dollar missile.  Nothing will stop a merchant ship faster than a 100mm HE exploding in the water a few hundreds meters from their bow, or a shell sailing 10m over the bridge deck.