Kirov Class Nuclear Battlecruiser - Colossal Russian Warship

[@JD-dm1uj]

Easily the most iconic ship class in the cold war era, so epic in scale and overall capabilities, immensely impressive!

[@milgeschichte]

You're building a fantastic gem of a channel here. Keep up the good work!

[@EurasiaNaval]

Thanks friend !

[@kamikaze.7607]

Kirov is peak of Soviet naval engineering.

[@Admin-gm3lc]

I think Ulyanovsk was

[@kamikaze.7607]

@@Admin-gm3lc It was never completed 😑

[@gregwallace6159]

I don't know.. the Buran is pretty damn impressive...especially its auto pilot system

[@abc-id1sq]

@@gregwallace6159 didn't know buran is naval engineering 😂

[@shawn97006]

That is not saying much.

[@Robgti180]

That's one mean looking naval ship.

[@brianhammer5107]

but it is junk ...

[@shortchange26]

That’s one mean looking artificial reef.

[@marcovisconti007]

@@brianhammer5107 Cope 😉

[@denisoko8494]

Yes, but it is like its smaller relatives, Slava class cruisers, which were obsolete years ago. Kyrov is outdated and has many design problems. One of the problems is the nuclear reactor design, where the power system introduces multiple reactor design defects, including being prone to radiation leaks for all Kyrov hull design ships. Russians don't say it loudly, but three problematic Kyrov hulls(one nuclear-powered research ship based on this hull) are already decommissioned, one hull is in the 20-year-long "repair" routine, and one is left in active service.

[@ΒασίληςΒλάχος-τ3κ]

If a battlecruiser is a warship with the size and armament of a battleship but the armor of a cruiser, I would say the kirov class fits pretty well

[@DucaTech]

That is a beast of a warship. First time I've ever heard of a nuclear battlecruiser. Thanks for sharing.

[@bra_kusi]

I love this guy's presentation....I don't even know how many times I've watched this video... Big ups big man!!!

[@seanx476]

The one class of ship my father feared the most... He was on American soviet sub hunters. The Kirovs hunted them

[@Strategy_Analysis]

Thanks for this video. Always was impressed with this class. The upgrades to the Admiral Nakhimov (as you suggest) are very impressive. Are there concrete plans to do a similar upgrade to the Pyotr Velikiy? I would suggest that these ships, individually, pose more of a threat that the Admiral Kuznetsov does.

[@aleksaradojicic8114]

Yes there are (if I remeber corectly), but from what I remember there is only one shipyard in Russia capable of working on large ships like Kuznetsov and Pyote Velikiye.

[@EurasiaNaval]

I too have always been impressed by big surface warships, including the dreadnought battleships of old, no matter how efficient or practical they may be. There is just something innate about them that conveys prestige and majesty. There are similar plans to upgrade the Pyotr Velikiy after work on the Admiral Nakhimov is finished, although as with many Russian naval projects, plans often do not come to anything. The Russian Navy impresses me in many ways, but I have to say they often have an excessively optimistic view of their own resources and infrastructure when making procurement plans.

[@ycplum7062]

I suspect that the Kirov class and the Kuznetsov are maintained more for their prestige value than military effectiveness (or cost-effectiveness). In effect, are a tool of diplomacy more so than a tool of war.

[@TheLAGopher]

According to the Russian news agency TASS,the Pyotr Veliky will be decommisioned when the Admiral Nakimov returns to the fleet in 2024. The name Pyotr Veliky will be given to a new Borei class strategic nuclear missile submarine which will be the flagship of the northern fleet's submarine division while the Admiral Nakimov will be the flagship of the Russian navy. The reasoning according to TASS sources is that the Admiral Nakimov required much more extensive renovation then expected which made what was supposed to be a 2 to 3 year refitting,into a 13 to 14 year project. That is just too much time and money the Russians don't want to sink into the Pyotr Veliky when international sanctions are making the obtaining of certain parts and materials difficult, and the Russian navy would be better off directing resources at building frigates and corvettes.

[@ijnfleetadmiral]

@@TheLAGopher I thought once Admiral Nakhimov returned to service, the Pyotr Veliky would be put in reserve to be given the same modernization treatment as her sister.

[@JuergenGDB]

Its a VERY beautiful ship, the bow reminds me of the Gneisenau or Scharnhorst. Heavily armed, and protected, very cool ship.

[@ycplum7062]

I guess they realized that it would be more effective to use smaller vessels for anti-sub missions while the Kirov class provide air defense and anti-surface for the other vessels.

[@kalui96]

I like listening to you while I work. Interesting stuff. Thanks for the free education and entertainment

[@EurasiaNaval]

Truly appreciate your support!

[@lamchunting856]

Still waiting for kirov airship

[@chipbower361]

That would make an awesome addition to their expanding submarine fleet.

[@jamesagnew-hh2qy]

Awesome and Powerful, take note of this classic style of naval systems intergalactic to. delever a knockout punch 👊

[@hanniballecter388]

..very impressive war ships ! Were the other two ships no longer salvageable, or would reactivation have been too expensive ?

[@kqckeforyou4433]

More or less both

[@EurasiaNaval]

Basically they would have been too expensive to operate. Originally, the Russian Navy intended to patch up and reactivate the Admiral Lazarev, but it was deemed in 2021 not to be worthwhile.

[@gyasiansa3358]

The beast of all battle cruisers 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

[@gardener68]

Once the Nahkimov is completed, she will become something similar to the old Arsenal Ship project conceived by the U.S. Navy in the late '80s.

[@nostradamus2642]

Russia and even the US realize more but smaller frigate sized ships are more cost effective and more survivable in modern naval warfare given the potency of supersonic ASCMs.

[@catrojana3694]

The real trick is to build the frigate like destroyers and still call them frigate. This is why they called 0-55 a cruiser but zumwalt a destroyer.

[@Idcanymore510]

Even though the US doesn't currently field any supersonic ASCMs.

[@EurasiaNaval]

I agree from a cost efficiency and pragmatism point of view, the Gorshkov frigates are a much better choice. But there is something majestic and powerful that can only be found in a big surface warship :)

[@nostradamus2642]

@@EurasiaNaval The Kirov is beautiful with that long bow even though it's not a stealthy modern design. That's because so much of the weapons and sensors are visible. There is now talk inside 🇷🇺 of having Chinese shipyards build their ships because Russian ship yard productivity and efficiently is woeful. Taking 3 times the time to build a frigate than what China takes to build 054A.

[@joshuaraewa-ay9684]

@@nostradamus2642 Well, China have many shipyards. I think they won't mind as long as they help each other. If not, they can at least ask the Chinese to build more shipyards for them.

[@tomascernak6112]

25 meters flight height of granit at speed 700-850 meters per second is not low enough for ya? Yes, Exocet can fly as low as 8 meters, but at significantly lower speed, so for example, 15 meters tall radar can spot Granit at distance of 36 km meanwhile Exocet only at distance of 27 km, but Exocet needs 90 seconds to overcome distance between its detection and target hit, meanwhile Granit needs less than 50 seconds for same. In other words, defending ship will get almost twice as much time to defend incoming missile! Btw. I am not talking about Harpoon, because that missile is total shit, even compared to just Exocet. EDIT: Granit can be controlled after launch! It has satlink, so it can get instructions, target position, target priority, flight pattern selection etc via this link. Btw. this ability get america first with AGM-158C LRASM, so 30 years after Granit. EDIT2: No, RPK-7 does not have heavyweight torpedo in its tip. Such torpedo is in RPK-7 Veter, which itself is 650 mm rocket with 533mm torpedo in its tip. RPK-7 is 533mm rocket with 400mm UGMT-1 lightweight torpedo (warhead is just 60kg). Kirov has 10 533mm torpedotubes so it is using RPK-6, not RPK-7. EDIT3: Ability to carry 5 Ka-27 is pure theory. Hangar itself can accommodate 3 helis (one of them will be on lift itself) and you can have another 2 helis on flight deck (one above lift, another on helipad). But it will be logistical nightmare. So normal maximum is just three Ka-27 heli. EDIT4: RPK-8 (RBU-1000 were replaced in late 80s on all ships of this class) and UDAV-1 are primarily anti-torpedo defense. But they have also purpose against submarines. RPK-6 Vodopad (mentioned above) has minimum range 6 km (closest range, where UGMT-1 can be dropped) and seeker on UGMT-1 has range only 1,5 km, so in distance 0-4,5 km from ship, RPK-6 has blindspot. And that is exact place, where RPK-8 and UDAV-1 came into play to attack submarines. I also recommend to not to listen to american claims that they can attack with Mk48 ships at distance of 50+ km. Such scenario is highly improbable. First, because it is not so simple to detect and identify target via hydrophones at such distance and second reason is dynamics. I will elaborate. Lets say, we are in US submarine and we detected and successfully identified Kirov. At what distance you will launch torpedoes? You know, that moment you launch Mk48, Kirov sonalysts would detect this launch.Immediate reaction of Kirov skipper would be flank speed and course from torpedo(es). So your torpedoes now chasing Kirov, which is steaming 35 knots (yes, Kirov can achieve much higher speeds, than claimed by wiki). Your Mk48 is catching its target at speed 55 knots, so difference is roughly 20 knots. Mk48 can maintain its 55 knots speed for roughly 22 minutes, but you need atleast 2 minutes reserve, so let say 20 minutes. So what is your maximum distance to launch Mk48 to assure, that MK48 will get chance to hit Kirov? Yep, it is just under 6,66 nm or 12,3 km!!! Submarines needs to get dangerously close to surface ships to attack them with torpedo. So If you try to attack Kirov and he will defend your torpedo, your only chance is supersilent run, dive deep as possible and hope, that he will not catch you. Kirov on the other hand will need to be very close to submarine in such silent and deep run, to be able to detect it even with active sonar (modern Subs has protective coating, which greatly decrease range of active sonar, Seawolf has even active antisonar system, even greatly diminishing it range). So we are talking about several km range. And this is where those guided depth charges from modern hedgehogs came into play. EDIT5: Kirov, meaning Nakhimov is after refit massive leap forward in Kirovs abilities. Not only it was upgreaded by most advanced AAW and ASW sensors, but its punch capability was greatly increased. It get 10 UKSK launchers, capable to accomodate up to 80 Kalibers/Oniks/Zircons and over 450 AA missiles.

[@SenorBastardo1348]

Fellow Kiwi here, nice job on everything bro.

[@EurasiaNaval]

Thanks bro!

[@zetareticulan321]

All I hear in my head now is, "Kirov reporting".

[@Dick-h4g]

CNC?

[@gregwilliams386]

28,300 ton Kirov vs 57,540 ton Iowa class. They'd have to be compared at the time of the first Gulf War.

[@salvatorepitea5862]

Beautiful looking ship ..

[@commie5211]

Ship looks like megatron, Russian ship always has that "bad" guy look for some reason.

[@VTUGYT]

bro they made best looking ships look at ticondgo class cruiser ugly

[@commie5211]

@@VTUGYT I am not saying it is ugly looking......

[@EurasiaNaval]

Badass look, my dudes! *Also got to agree the Tico is just plain ugly

[@commie5211]

The p700s are insane, sadly we never had a chance to see how it works in real life. The s300s are very capable, but they better upgrade that mechanically scaned radar. The amount of fire power packed on this ship is outrageous. No wonder nato was shitting their pants when kirov was introduced.🙃

[@TheLAGopher]

I wouldn't say NATO was shitting their pants because of the Kirovs. The US Navy simply countered it by reactivating the Iowa class Battleships and putting them back onto active duty for a decade from about 1982 until putting them in reserve around 1992 after the USSR folded.

[@marcosburgos8415]

​@@TheLAGopherReactivating & modernizing ww2 battleships sounds pretty pants shitty to me

[@Ryuu1010YT]

I mean look at p700 in modern warships naval battle it's too powerful enough.

[@farazkazmi725]

What a unique design

[@slkiller07]

A very valuable video.Further, bring details about Russian technology.good luck

[@EurasiaNaval]

Glad you think so :)

[@foyz725]

Can you please make a video on the Bangladesh Navy, it seems to be a rising regional power with a lot of potential. Would really appreciate you just giving us an 'overview' of it

[@TP-ie3hj]

Awesome ship and awesome video. I would love to upgrade the PV my self. Pick how it would be modded. Its a monster and modernized would be such a beast. Nakimov will be a beast. Hopefully they can upgrade the PV much faster as its not in a poor state of repair. I would also love to see an upgrade to the RBU.... It should be firing new ammo types, decoys, and they should create large shot shells to fire into on coming anti ship missiles... like a shotgun. Would also do well to destroy drones etc and torps more so than subs....

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

The Admiral Nakhimov will become the first arsenal ship! Wether it proves the concept or not, only time will tell! It's a very expensive investment in a single Hull, that could be destroyed with a relatively cheap missile!

[@ijnfleetadmiral]

Admiral Lazarev has already gone to the scrapyard. Pics of her being dismantled have been posted on social media. A sad end to a beautiful ship.

[@barriewright2857]

Have the Russian completed the second battle cruiser . And Will they Russian's complet the other two or should I say will they build the other two .

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

0:53 So it's not a battle cruiser, it's a heavy cruiser.

[@EurasiaNaval]

Depends on who you ask. Russia calls it a nuclear heavy cruiser, but the USN calls it a battlecruiser for some reason. I would tend to agree with the Russian classification, just because the battlecruiser role is an outdated designation for modern naval missions.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@EurasiaNaval 👍

[@NeMayful]

Thank you. Although kind of out dated, it is one of its kind. An well equivalent of vintage V12 in car collection world.

[@andersonarmstrong2650]

Hypersonics and drones have transformed the fortunes of this monster. The 'Bismarck' type lone surface raider is reborn.

[@williammoody3644]

It maybe a formable threat to other ships but can it defend itself against alas attack???

[@denisoko8494]

De facto, Russia has only one active Kirov class battlecruiser, "Pyotr Veliky." The second Russian "in service" battlecruiser, Admiral Nakimov, has been stuck in endless upgrades and repairs since 2006; the year's "recommission" date has been changed multiple times, and now it is planned no earlier than 2026, it will probably never be reactivated.

[@alanmoors7811]

Serious question though. If it was sunk, what would the situation be regards it's reactor ?

[@abyyy490]

Fcukoff ukrainian bot

[@Sh4d891]

Either it goes boom or just is shut down

[@alanmoors7811]

Would make a nice big radar target 🤔😊. I wonder what depth it can dive to ?

[@fdjw88]

probably as low as Joe Biden's approval rating.

[@gregwallace6159]

Maybe you should ask the ghost of kiev to sink it?

[@Sh4d891]

Not as low as Ukrainian moral rn

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

The Japanese WWII battleship Yamato had a full load almost 3 times the tonnage of the Kirovs and the American Iowas about 2 times. Now, technically Dreadnaughts where still used in WWII but your statement at 0:46 seems either muddled, wrong, or ... "a bit elegantly phrased" 😄

[@EurasiaNaval]

I don't really know where to begin with responding to you. The vast majority of battleships used in WW2 were dreadnoughts, in the sense that they are designed with dreadnought characteristics, including all large calibre long-range guns and centreline turrets (in the case of superdreadnoughts), and this includes the Yamatos and Iowas. There were a few pre-dreadnoughts still serving with the Kriegmarine and the IJN, but in a very peripheral role. There was just no need to differentiate between dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts anymore, because so few of the latter were still serving. There were still dreadnoughts displacing less than 28,000 tons in service in WW2 - e.g. Kongo class, Conte De Cavours, Courbet class, etc. I hope that answers your query

[@ktm8848]

Japaneses are Also planning to build a their own version of the kirov

[@azbgames6827]

Very good for it's time. Superior to the Virginia class CGN and USS Long Beach. The VLS are so much better than the MK-26 and MK-10 arm launchers. Maybe the Iowa class or the unbuilt Aegis equipped 17000 ton strike cruiser would've given it a run for it's money.

[@alexandergraber3308]

Actually you got it wrong. The Kuznetsov was meant to escort and support the Kirov. And please stop calling a cruiser with a flight wing as a aircraft carrier. Its main armament were not the aircrafts. And the reactive multiple launchers for the depth charges are not meant to defend against submarines but to defend against incoming torpedoes.

[@tomaspavka2014]

In 80's USA reactived Iowa-class because of Kirov... The last battleship 😢.

[@vladworldzmason8244]

RBUs are not anti-subs, but anti-torpedoes.

[@787Martin]

I heared these ooees and aaahs atm germany launched the bismark as well as in japan after the yamamoto. Both are sunk, big ships are big targets. And they are always outnumbered, so it could be the baddest warship on the planet, but as long as there more enemy ships than rockets on the ships the big ship will go down.

[@seraphx26]

Yet America's big ships didn't sink, in the case of the Japanese it was not appreciating the importance of the aircraft carrier that lead to sinking the Yamato, they believed that battleships were the center piece of a fleet but air power was actually more important at the time, it was a doctrinal error not the fact that they had big ships, that's not even mentioning that by the time it was sunk Japan was facing a crisis of supply shortages and it's last mission was essentially a suicide mission.

[@787Martin]

@@seraphx26 NIce docu i saw about the sinking of yamato. But ty that u confirm my statement: If u dont have enough rockets, or in ur pacific scene: enough firepower to shoot all the aircraft out of the sky the mass number will overcome the giant. A bit of waisted energy this comment of u....

[@seraphx26]

@@787Martin I didn't say that you can't sink big ships I'm saying that if they had invested more into air power and carrier technology the Yamato may have not been destroyed.

[@787Martin]

@@seraphx26 Yamato, Musashi, Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were all doomed as soon they entered the oceans. All got hunted down by countries with way more material then the axis powers had bullets. Specially the british hunted the big nazi ships. And Japan had invested in aircraft carriers, they had 1 large and 3 light carriers. But at leyte gulf the japanese took heavy losses vs the australian and US combined navy. They brought 8 large and 8 small carriers and way more cruisers, battleships and destroyers than the japanese every had. Money, recourses, craftsmen and building time isnt for free, Japan build up a impressive navy in a reasonably short time but it could never win a head on battle with the combined austalian /us fleet. Ur comment doesnt make any sense and isnt really topic related. If u want to dream up a senario where both parties have the same amount of everything and both start from 0, u can debate about how to best build up. But that isnt the case in the pacific scene and also not in this topic. Have a nice day

[@seraphx26]

@@787Martin I can keep explaining it to you, but unfortunately I cannot understand it for you. That's to say nothing of that sloppy ass strawman that tells me you missed the point.

[@Emphasis213]

There is always a comparison between tonnage and capability of a ship. However, do they ever consider that technological advancements in material science, weapons and radar may cause a ship to be lighter but comparable to similar ships made of conventional materials? Ie. A military ship that uses significantly more composites such as carbon fiber and glass fiber could make it just as powerful than a comparable ship made of conventional steel.

[@EurasiaNaval]

I could be wrong, but you may have mixed up displacement and weight - they are two different things. Displacement is the weight of the amount of water the ship... well... displaces when it is in water. A submarine of the same size as a ship will always displace more, for obvious reasons

[@Emphasis213]

Weight and displacement should be proportional. In any case, what I mean is that many analysts look at the tonnage of a ship to rate it's lethality. Does technological advancements in materials science and AI slightly negate this? AI and automation can lead to less need for people and their resources. Material science can lead to lighter weight weapons systems and components that can still pack a punch.

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

the Kirov needs to be upgraded with modern day 84-cell VLS & 46-cell VLS . . . new CMMR PWR2 propulsion instead of the existing aging marine reactor powering the Kirov since 1984 . . .

[@ycplum7062]

The effectiveness of passive sonar may be severely limited in high sea states with multiple thermal layer, especially if in an area with heavy marine traffic. I can see the hedgehogs being useful in such an environment.

[@EurasiaNaval]

But the Kirov does have a VDS that should be able to provide the range for active sonar detection through the thermocline. I guess a more important consideration would be how a sub got so close without being detected by purpose built ASW screening vessels

[@ycplum7062]

@@EurasiaNaval True, but they can only listen at one depth at a time. Meanwhile, a good sub captain may move between layers. Also, I believe there is a speed restriction when using towed VDS, although I could be wrong. 25 kts underwater is a lot of stress. As I said, if the water environment is noisy (heavy surface traffic, high winds creating large waves, marine life, lots of ice floes, etc.), it may be difficult to hear a sub moving along at 5 kts. The screens could be using active sonar, but of course, that also gives away their position. A lot will depend on teh training, not just with the equipment, but also the coordination of the screening vessels. As we have seen, the Russian training seems to be worse than believed. lol No way two subsonic cruise missiles should have sunk an alert Slava class vessel.

[@zorankalina4399]

For some reasons......feal a kinde of "Deja vue"... Mushasi....Yamato.... Only...those Japanies bettleships left a footprint in WW2 Kirov should be preserved..... as a kinde of museum.

[@johndyson4109]

I'd like to see a Modernized Iowa class Battlleship go up against this thing...

[@sr51463]

not needed . the era of the battleships are gone and the Ukrainians have showed how drones can kill them.

[@invictus2578]

I wonder if they could cram a ICBMs in that thing

[@hotlanta35]

It has more firepower than most navy

[@maroofkahn3089]

Can't be that powerful being pulled by a tiny boat

[@williammoody3644]

Can the ship defend itself from a laser attack on it from outer space?????

[@garynew9637]

Probably

[@josephdaigle3704]

Yes in can😅

[@hafangneige322]

Yeah, yeah... very capable, after sinking "Moskva" cruiser sea version of s-300 is compromised so far that this warship could be seen only as p-700 carrier or zircon(effectiveness of which is questionable as they are still in the test stage) seems more like a big floating target which is representing the principle "do not put all eggs in one bag"

[@rajaydon1893]

Huh?

[@garynew9637]

American aircraft carrier perhaps?

[@luisnunobrito3132]

You are a very good tarjeta thinking the NATO'S way🤡

[@DMS-pq8]

No doubt a beautiful ship but based on what we have seen from the Russian military over the last year and half its doubtful the Pyotr Velikiy would last long in combat

[@williamnot8934]

Colossal artificial reef for Fish when it’s sunk.

[@luisnunobrito3132]

Vai comer na peida.

[@bambang303378]

The whole NATO are praying so Russia will keep trying to revive this ship. The amount of resources wasted on this ship is huge. The same resource can be use to build maybe 20-30 Buyan class Ships.

[@Joshua_N-A]

KIROV REPORTING!

[@neonANIMS]

are you russian-australian? you have an interesting accent lol

[@EurasiaNaval]

Nope

[@Maximus2210]

Looks like a big expensive target. Could say the same for aircraft carriers, but at least they have a specific role.

[@davidhunt3808]

Built like a Battleship ! Hitler had his two battleships the Bismark and the Tirpitz they both had a bad end . Russia has its two great battleships/battlecruisers they look amazing but could they meet the same fate one day ? No ship is unsinkable .

[@brianhammer5107]

it's locked up where it can't be used because they don't want it destroyed by Ukraine

[@hamlordthe2nd224]

More more (weapons)

[@sergiodesouzajunior3962]

Compro a fragata toda por 400 trilhões manda para a base do rio de janeiro Niterói brasil marinha

[@emacstac]

Russia has a history of hyping up their military tech, while supremely under-performing. While she is a beautiful ship, i doubt it will truly ever compare to western tech.

[@seraphx26]

Russia isn't under performing in Ukraine right now, and isn't it interesting comparing to America, what have you achieved in the middle east? one disaster after another with all of your alleged superior capabilities, you could have taken a lesson from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan instead of repeating it.

[@emacstac]

@@seraphx26 yes, an Atypical deflection from someone speaking via ignorance. As far as the Middle East is concerned, it was an utter embarrassment at the behest of the Pedophile that is in charge right now.

[@ElijahLandstrom]

it is kinda cute

[@F1990T]

Very powerful but outdated, I hope they learn from the lesson of the moskva cruiser, the two ukro anti-ship missiles by itself could not, did not sink the cruiser, what sank it was the fire caused by the double hit, adding the lack of modern damage control system, indeed, they used a smart dirty chicanery to divert the active defenses, with these drones, with a better damage control the ship could survive to retire to port, and fight another day, yet it wasn't a really big material lose for Russia, rip for the brave fallen crew, but was more a propagandistic "victory" for the nato regime junta in kiev to feed western corporate mass media and fuel the narrative and the triumphalist propaganda, hope that in the modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov, the shipyards could double or triple the active defenses, install a strong damage control system, and provide greater physical protection for the sensitive zones, some kind internal protection, either some degree of traditional steel armor or a composite plating, preferably a double spaced wall config, the VLS tubes, ammo, fuel, and the reactor itself must be protected yes or yes.

[@cideltacommand7169]

Its a glass cannon design, I agree Armour would be useful but missiles don't seem to care all that much, as for the larger ones you need a massive amount of arnour to stop the kinetic energy from messing up your system if in the best case it does not penetrate, but it comes with trading tonnage for other equipment.

[@jbqu3142]

2024, tourism renewal in Ukraine ad: divers, come to snake island, bring your scuba diving gear to explore a magnificent ship graveyard that includes the Admiral Nakimov alongside the Moskva. Beautiful sight at a beautiful site.

[@FoxtrotUSA1]

We heard a lot about the Moskva also. Bartender, may I have two Neptune missiles please? 😎😎

[@theislerider9513]

What.. is.. it.. good.. for..?? Just 1 Rocket...🚀. Bye, byr.. 🔥🔥🔥

[@Sh4d891]

The ship built Robust but yes depends where you shoot

[@luisnunobrito3132]

A Rocket in your head.

[@Chris-vf5et]

A few things. 1. Nakhimov is likely going to miss it's projected launch date due to sanctions on needed components for her systems. 2. Russia's "hypersonic" missiles are hardly even reliable. 3. Their firepower for a surface combatant is high, but the big problem is the competency of their crews. Firepower doesn't mean squat without trained sailors behind it.

[@izana6179]

绿色的仪表，红色的甲板🤣

[@吕维润]

俄罗斯必须研发6G雷达网络

[@sarpanjono6627]

RUSIA WAJIB MEMILIKI KAPAL KAPAL TEMPUR DENGAN PANJANG 150 M ...... SEBANYAK 50 KAPAL ..... PANJANG 200 M SEBANYAK 50 KAPAL ......... PANJANG 250 M SEBANYAK 10 KAPAL PANJANG 300 M SEBANYAK 5 KAPAL PANJANG 400 M SEBANYAK 5 KAPAL .... DAN KAPAL 75 M SEBANYAK 100 KAPAL SEMUANYA LENGKAP.DENGAN ALUSISTA SENAPAN MESIN ANTI PESAWAT DAN ANTI RANJAU SERTA ANTI RUDAL ......

[@joshanderson7358]

This Russian warship also use vodka as fuel during the cold winter to keep the engines warmed up to operating temperatures.

[@jerry4251]

Russia has very old ships 🚢 damm same

[@matroshpico3632]

it wont be completed. ever.

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

It shall soon suffer the same fate as the Kursk, perhaps we shall get lucky and its docked in China,

[@jonpopelka]

Looks like it'd make a wonderful coral reef. Ukraine will promote it to submarine class! Slava 🇺🇦

[@alsetalokin88]

go home amurikkka

[@sergiodesouzajunior3962]

Compro 1.000.000 navios dessa classe para a marinha do Brasil rio de janeiro

[@luisnunobrito3132]

Talvez 2000 pixotas?

[@sergiodesouzajunior3962]

Compro 500 navios dessa classe para a marinha do Brasil rio de janeiro

[@luisnunobrito3132]

500 caralhos, não?

[@kostyafedorov8597]

Нужно отремонтировать все крейсера данного типа, и плюс авианосец и крейсер Москва. Надо поднять и отремонтировать....

[@fdjw88]

unfortunately, the Kirov class hasn't seen any real combat, wonder why the Russian navy didn't deploy the ship during the current Russia Ukraine conflict.

[@Fauzanarief-n7i]

i think it's too risky, huge ship like kirov aren't very manueverable and easily attack by enemy missile. Even moskva destroyer are destroyed during ukraine war.

[@EurasiaNaval]

I think it is too valuable of a capital ship to be risked in active combat. The Black Sea theatre is also littoral, and does not really make use of the Kirov's advantages. Also, while I am almost certain it is legal for Russia to bring the Kirov through the Turkish Strait under the Montreaux Convention, whether Turkey will actually abide by that rule is uncertain. Turkey could have came under pressure by NATO leading up to the war not to allow the Pyotr Velikiy through, and Russia's internal waterways are not big enough to bring the Kirov in from the north.

[@joshuaraewa-ay9684]

@@EurasiaNaval So they're most used for Arctic and Pacific then.

[@tintin999]

@@EurasiaNaval Same shit happened to Yamato, the excuse of being too valuable a capital ship hinders the usefulness of a ship

[@Sh4d891]

Its part of the Northern fleet not the Blacksea fleet

[@craig4867]

U.S. Navy ships look like toys compared to this Battlecruiser!

[@DrPeterLorenzo]

Sail it in the Black Sea and see it sink. Simple.

[@monopalle5768]

Russian navy? hahahahahaha, Sure pal......

[@ashcarrier6606]

I don't think it is economically viable for Russia to try and maintain a world class navy. Their economy is comparable to Spain's and their defense budget is less than India's. This would be like Texas, on its own, having a military of strategic bombers, fighter planes, diesel and nuclear submarines, three surface fleets, and a land army of 400,000 soldiers with modern weapons. It is, frankly, ridiculous. I guess you can "try" to do that, so long as you don't mind your population having a quality of life much the same as it was 50 or 60 years ago.

[@zenki4666]

Seems a white elephant 🐘 to me! A big useless target 🎯 The Russians should produce more of those super corvettes.. not this expensive super nuclear carrier killer heavy battle Cruiser!

[@Sh4d891]

the Soviets built it not Russians

[@dufus7396]

You wont see it hanging around Ukraine 😅🤣😂😂

[@ElijahLandstrom]

its far away so yeah you won't see it

[@luisnunobrito3132]

Oh yeah! "Ukraine is winning"🤡🤡

[@PaPaHome]

It's simply a floating coffin.

[@luisnunobrito3132]

Idiot.

[@alialtun1508]

🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺💯💯💯💯💯✌️✌️✌️✌️✌️

[@NASWOG]

Burke destroyers have better tech, same amount of vls cells, are faster, and cost a fraction 😂 Also, many of the sensors / systems on these russian ships interfere with each other resulting in neither working. This is assuming the maintenance has even been performed in the past decade

[@jerry4251]

Russia has very old ships 🚢 damm same