Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:13 pm**

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

The Russkies had - and I believe still have - nuclear powered battlecruisers, the Kirov class. No armour, but a big dreadnought size asskicker loaded down with missiles.

Statistics
Displacement: 28,000 tons
Dimensions:
Overall length: 826.8 ft (252.0 m)
Waterline length: 754.6 ft (230.0 m)
Beam: 93.5 ft (28.5 m)
Draft: 29.5 ft (9.0 m)
Propulsion System:
2 × KN-3 water pressurized nuclear reactors
2 × oil fired high pressure boilers
2 × GT3A-688 geared steam turbines 70,000 hp (52 MW) each
Two shafts with fixed pitch propellers
Performance:
Power: 140,000 hp (104 MW)
Maximum speed: 30 to 32 knots (56 to 59 km/h)
Endurance: 1000 nautical miles (1,852 km) at full speed
Weapon Systems
Guns
2 × 100 mm/59 cal AK-100 (Kirov)
1 × twin 130mm AK-130
AK-360 30mm rotary cannons as the CIWS system
Missiles
Surface-to-air missiles:
2 × twin retractable SA-N-4 Gecko missiles twin launchers
12-cell VLS for SA-N-6 Grumble missiles
Surface-to-surface missiles: VLS for SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles
Anti-submarine warfare
1 × twin cylinder launcher for SS-N-14 Silex missiles
Torpedoes: 10 × 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes.
Electronic Systems
Radar:
Voskhod MR-800 (Top Pair) 3D search radar on foremast
Fregat MR-710 (Top Steer) 3D search radar on main mast
2 × Palm Frond navigation radar on foremast
2 × Top Dome for SA-N-6 fire control
4 × Bass Tilt for AK-360 CIWS System fire control
2 × Eye Bowl for SA-N-4 fire control
Sonar:
Horse Tail VDS (Variable Deep Sonar)
Aircraft: 3 × Kamov Ka-27 "Helix" stored in a below-deck hangar at the stern
Crew:
Ship's complement: 727
Aircrew: 18
Flag staff: 15

This class has been decomissioned if memory serves. Too much money for the Russians to keep in action. I'd have given it more of an umph in the gun catagory but a nice design though.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:14 pm**

The Russkies had - and I believe still have - nuclear powered battlecruisers, the Kirov class. No armour, but a big dreadnought size asskicker loaded down with missiles.

The Kirov class ships even had an OLYMPIC SIZED SWIMMING POOL on board, so much room was in those ships [&o][&o][&o][&o]

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:22 pm**

The Russkies had - and I believe still have - nuclear powered battlecruisers, the Kirov class. No armour, but a big dreadnought size asskicker loaded down with missiles.

Just did a search.

What they have right now: maybe the Petr Velikiy. Everything else but Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) is gone.

As of early 2004 the Admiral Nakhimov was undergoing repairs at Sevmash. Its overhaul is due to be completed in 2007. However, the Russians have had a really hard time of getting stuff out of the yards, and i'm guessing its at least even money she'll never go to sea again.

Petr Velikiy was said to be in bad shape. "Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said the massive cruiser had been badly maintained and could "explode any moment", adding that "it's especially dangerous because it has a nuclear reactor". Just three hours later, however, Kuroyedov retracted his ominous statement, saying he had been misunderstood by the media. "There is no threat whatsoever to the ship's nuclear safety," he said in a statement. "

The rest of the post was somewhat confusing, saying she had gone in for repairs in April 2004. The post was unclear (to me) whether the ship should have been or actually was repaired by August 2004.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:26 pm**

Yet another article (this one's on the DD(X)): http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs. ... /504190698

Not discounting the usefulness of such a ship, but reactivating 2 Iowas might still be cheaper than the 5 DD(X)s now on order.

And just playing devil's advocate - A Korean conflict could be fought in mountainous terrain, where air strikes would be more difficult. Plus, N. Korea has lots of artillery and the bulk of its forces are stationed close to the DMZ, if memory serves, thus leaving "us" with little warning in advance of an attack. Wouldn't even 1 BB in theatre amount to a significant deterrent?

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:32 pm**

I thought the British navy did some tests 10-15 years ago where their sea dart missiles were fired against incoming shells. The intercepts worked but it was kinda expensive. Missiles cost a heck of a lot more than shells.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:43 pm**

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

I've got a 16" gun, see this guy testfire it !!

Who will give me my ammo?

go to http://franshalstuig.nl/ and click on put1.mpg

Looks more like a 12" model.[:D]

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:50 pm**

For a long time, from 1910 to the 1990s a BB could put more heavy ordinance on target more accurately than anything else.

Technology finally caught up with them when Cruise Missles, GPS and Laser Guided bombs all became commonly available. Now you can actually put something bigger than a 16" shell on a very small target, you can do it around the world and you can do it pretty much as many times as you like, if your American.

In the 80s I was a big fan of reviveing them because though expensive they really did do something that no other weapon system can do. But now they just don't make much sense, because they do what the laser guided bombs and GPS guided cruise missels do, but they don't do it as well and they cost much more.

If you want to bring back something beautiful that can kill people under the right circumstances put the sails back on the Constitution, its much prettier, and round shot would be a real suprise in todays battlefield environment.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:41 pm**

The countermeasure is not shooting down the bomb, but jamming the GPS signal. Since the bomb is receiving data from GPS satellites that are broadcasting signals 24/7, it should be no problem to jam or otherwise affect the signals locally. Unless the military has the option of turning the signal on and off at will and at a different frequencies, something I'm not aware of, it shouldn't be a problem.

gps, interesting and probably classified.. short of killing the satilites it would seems much easier to evade these type of counter measures imo

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:05 pm**

ORIGINAL: freeboy

The countermeasure is not shooting down the bomb, but jamming the GPS signal. Since the bomb is receiving data from GPS satellites that are broadcasting signals 24/7, it should be no problem to jam or otherwise affect the signals locally. Unless the military has the option of turning the signal on and off at will and at a different frequencies, something I'm not aware of, it shouldn't be a problem.

gps, interesting and probably classified.. short of killing the satilites it would seems much easier to evade these type of counter measures imo

GPS really isn't even classified. There used to be a "war reserve mode" that encrypted the signal, but the trouble has become the extreme civilian use of the signals; encrypting them would be a really bad hit to the civilian economy now. There is some effort by non-US orgs to find ways to jam the signal and some really classified US work to keep our own mil systems from being jammed.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:11 pm**

For those interested and technically oriented, which isn't me, here is a document from the internet that interesting:

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR614/MR614.sec3.pdf#search='gps%20and%20jamming'

Scary what you can find online. Didn't see a date on it, though it looks to be pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom. Being dated, I'm sure technology has progressed on both sides.

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:28 pm**

ASW is something that the US Navy excels at. No other navy, with the exception of the Brits (Aussies included), comes close. During the 1980's, estimates were that 75% of all Soviet nuclear submarines at sea would be on the bottom within 24 hours. Between our P-3s and SSNs, the enemy nucs hardly has a chance. Diesel subs are a different story. They can be very difficult to find, much harder than a nuc when submerged. For diesels, I'ld have to give a nod to the German air ASW forces. They are very good in the Baltic.

It used to be that Soviet nucs were once easy to find easier to track due to their noisiness. I will say that the Russians have made some pretty good advances in their sub quieting techniques (Thank you, Mr. John Walker). The Akula II is one formidible sub but it is still not at the level of ours.

I used to hate flying against our Ohios on training missions. I swear those subs are a black hole in the sea. It seems the best way to find them is to look where there isn't any noise because they are absorbing it all!

Chez

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:35 pm**

GPS really isn't even classified. There used to be a "war reserve mode" that encrypted the signal, but the trouble has become the extreme civilian use of the signals; encrypting them would be a really bad hit to the civilian economy now. There is some effort by non-US orgs to find ways to jam the signal and some really classified US work to keep our own mil systems from being jammed

I just do not believe that there is not a new "secret" signal.. remember .. I can always change freq on these guys.. and if it was a WW# sit.. then good luck keeping up is all I am trying to say!

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:42 am**

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ASW is something that the US Navy excels at. No other navy, with the exception of the Brits (Aussies included), comes close. During the 1980's, estimates were that 75% of all Soviet nuclear submarines at sea would be on the bottom within 24 hours. Between our P-3s and SSNs, the enemy nucs hardly has a chance. Diesel subs are a different story. They can be very difficult to find, much harder than a nuc when submerged. For diesels, I'ld have to give a nod to the German air ASW forces. They are very good in the Baltic.

It used to be that Soviet nucs were once easy to find easier to track due to their noisiness. I will say that the Russians have made some pretty good advances in their sub quieting techniques (Thank you, Mr. John Walker). The Akula II is one formidible sub but it is still not at the level of ours.

I used to hate flying against our Ohios on training missions. I swear those subs are a black hole in the sea. It seems the best way to find them is to look where there isn't any noise because they are absorbing it all!

Chez

For some reason, I seem to be focusing today on a conflict with China. I do believe that, if we had sufficient warning to gather the herd, the SSNs could keep the Formosa Strait clear of subs that would threaten my dear BBs. As for the P3s and S3s, I wouldn't want to be working the Formosa Straits when the balloon went up. Likely to be a little too hot for my taste.

PS: How does the Viking stack up against the Orion in its raw ability to find and destroy subs? My dad was in one of the first P3 squadrons formed in '62 or '63!

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:51 am**

I have been briefed/heard that the satelites can be jammed pretty easily. The satelites do not put out that much power and they have been around for awhile which makes there capabilities well known.

Cutman

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:01 pm**

ORIGINAL: Cutman

I have been briefed/heard that the satelites can be jammed pretty easily. The satelites do not put out that much power and they have been around for awhile which makes there capabilities well known.

Cutman

Imho would be better to build several 6" or 8" gun type cruisers with maybe 2 or three double or triple fast firing auto loading type guns, plus the usual air diffence systems and maybe cruise missiles as well. Cheaper to build, crew and maintain.

How much damage would several modern wire guilded torps do to and iowa.....

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:00 pm**

I used to hate flying against our Ohios on training missions. I swear those subs are a black hole in the sea. It seems the best way to find them is to look where there isn't any noise because they are absorbing it all!

The Ohios are quite literally quieter than the ocean they are operating in - i.e. - measure amount of noise coming from equivalent volume of ocean, the Ohios produce less noise.

However, that does not mean they can not be picked up by passive measures. You have come close to describing the new technology: new advances allow analysis of "noise shadowing". You can sort of experience this if you are walking through a darkened house, and get close to something large (and quiet). Suddenly you know something is there because the background noises go away in the direction of the silent object. Computer analysis can use ambient ocean noise to act as an omnipresent "sonar".

So maybe the Ohios are TOO quiet.[:)]

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:22 pm**

heh...old enough that i did a Term Paper on the subject when i was in high school back in the 80's (old fart me)

excuse me but being in high school in the '80s does not make you old.

What they have right now: maybe the Petr Velikiy. Everything else but Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) is gone.

i remember having an iowa class surface action group taking on a soviet kirov class surface action group playing HARPOON when it first came out.

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:26 pm**

ORIGINAL: waynec
excuse me but being in high school in the '80s does not make you old.

Tell that to my girlfriend. All i hear these days are old fart jokes......

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:33 pm**

Tell that to my girlfriend. All i hear these days are old fart jokes

Obviously time to trade her in for a younger model. [:D]

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:37 pm**

there's a scary thought, since she was probably combing the hair of My Little Pony dolls at around the time I wrote my term paper

[:'(]

Matrix Games Forums

OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

Intercepting gunfire with missiles

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?