The Monster Nuclear Battlecruiser 2X the Size of American Competitors

[@marycorrell2557]

The only reason it made the U.S. "tremble" is because if and when it was hit, it would just be a Chernobyl reef wherever it sank

[@DavyRo]

Funny how a American military hardware is being decimated in Ukraine then isn't it

[@mill2712]

Considering water is an amazing insulator against nuclear material, they might just bite the bullet and hope the water isn't shallow.

[@dougkennedy4906]

I've been around since the 60's. I can honestly say this ship did NOT make me tremble.

[@TheGuessCollector]

Damn, I did not know you were the whole US.

[@dancarter254]

Glad it didn't make you tremble. It caused quite a political stir however. Good to know you were the entire US Govt back then.

[@dougkennedy4906]

@dancarter254 well we.are.still here so.......

[@tedhardulak7698]

Not even a small chill?

[@robertf3479]

I hear ya Doug. I was on active duty USN from the early 1970s until 1993. Shortly after Kirov entered service she began having "issues" that resulted in restrictions in operations. She APPEARED impressive but in reality really didn't require the reactivation of the four Iowa class ships to counter these oversize missile batteries. The Kirov class' real value was the intimidation and prestige factors, something that also made the Iowa class valuable as they reentered service. We recognized that the Iowa would NOT be able to counter the Kirov in a one-on-one matchup, the Granit SSMs carried by Kirov provided numbers in missiles that the Tomahawks in Iowa could match (32 Tomahawk vs 20 P-700) and, on paper at least the Kirov had a much more capable anti-air and anti-missile defense. Kirov's surface to surface missiles far outranged the 16" guns of the battleship although a single 1900 lb 16" high capacity (HE) round could be enough to cripple the lightly armored cruiser. A 2700 lb armor piercing round would have no problem with even the most heavily protected parts of the ship, her reactor compartments and even the reactor itself.

[@Mgunner7623]

The only people this ship class made tremble were the on-board engineers.

[@VRChat_Degen]

Haha so true, this was kinda shitty episode.

[@edkrach8891]

And everyone else laughed.

[@nilo70]

A very large target

[@Le9alkiller]

Legit LOLd

[@namvet_13e]

As heavily armed as this is becoming it will probably be the highest priority marine target in any sea conflict, but sailing without the protection afforded a US aircraft carrier. This might be a very dangerous vessel to serve on.

[@Melikegames3100]

That thing can take out fleets of ships alone. Imagine attack a fleet with attack submarine as reinforcement. That hell of a combination.

[@jacksonquinn8744]

​@athens8802 but that fleet can more than likely detect this battle cruiser before she can fire off a Salvo. Having one platform to do everything sounds cool, looks cool, but numerical superiority is it's own advantage.

[@Melikegames3100]

@@jacksonquinn8744 well even aircraft carrier has a defence mechanism, yet it still need escort and many of them, so that it can project it's power at its fullest. So l don't think that battlecrusier is coming out Charing without any escort.

[@DurhamXo]

Good point and also carrier fleets are probebly twice as vunrable after this Ukraine war than before the evoloushion of sea drones is epic pace seems to be heading towards making a fleet a big target easy to find for unmanned Units to swarm attack crazy world

[@jacksonquinn8744]

@athens8802 well they did with the moskva

[@rabidspatula1013]

Given how Russian ships seem to have weapons bolted down to every possible surface, I have serious questions on the survivability of the Kirov. Seeing how the Slava class Moskva went up like a fire cracker, plus the internal systems issues that led to it being unable to detect the Neptune launches that sunk it, I have my doubts about the Kirov's effectiveness. Big payload, yes. Is it capable of firing off that payload before it gets wrecked by an attack it may not be able to detect due to system issues? Hard to say. Being a boxer who hits like a truck but is blind and deaf is kind of redundant. Given the Black Sea Fleet's performance against Ukraine, a country without a conventional navy, I am not too concerned.

[@sky-son]

If it's war, then they would be the first to be destroyed. Even now they're being tracked. If the situation was serious enough, a stealth cruise missile could take one out with a nuclear payload. It's just a show, bro. We understand that they've got to toot their horn. No one in the West is looking to have a war with Russia. We're basically Europeans or Caucasians with a common history and ethnicity. We're brothers. We don't need to be killing each other. We can all live together in peace if we want peace. Peace is better.

[@haroldcarfrey4206]

There is only one Kirov left and it's kept floating without proper drydock space by stripping the other two

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

Being in the US Submarine Service in the 1980’s the Kirovs weren’t a great threat. Can’t say why, but they weren’t.

[@vyacheslavmolotov9786]

There was no one on board the Moskva when the missile hit

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

Exactly how many advanced air to surface missiles does a modern carrier carry? Far more than any other ship.

[@diverdannavyvet9672]

They were vastly outnumbered by U.S. and Allied Attack Submarines and their performance was crap compared to U.S. Cruisers. They were also just giant targets for Carrier and land based aircraft launched anti-ship missiles. So no. They didn't and still don't make us tremble.

[@broda680]

Yes and thats why you craped your pants and reinstasted actual battleships lmao. And please provide sources for your claims of them performing poorly. From what i have read they were designed to counter whole aircraft carrier groups and with the new zirkon missiles they will be able to easily take out your precious aircraft carriers and lol talking about beeing too big, and even bigger ircraft carriers are not easy targets are they, you armchair general. And why the missile technology it realy doesnt matter how big or small ships are asince they will be hit anyways.

[@AmsterdamHeavy]

@@broda680 trash ships and a historically trash navy, barely blue water and thats generous

[@SvdSinner]

​@@broda680America was flexing bringing back their battleships and encouraging the USSR to continue spending more money than it had on their Navy. The USSR took the bait and overspend so much that it lead to 1991.

[@ekspatriat]

you got owned@@broda680

[@robertf3479]

@@broda680 Bringing back the Iowa and her sisters was a political move, not a military necessity. No PROFESSIONAL Navyman thought that an Iowa could engage a Kirov one-on-one and none thought she would be able to get close enough to Kirov to blow her out of the water with 16" fire except in very unusual circumstances. The two times that Iowa class ships saw combat during their last commissioning period was in shore bombardment operations off Beirut and during Operation Desert Storm where the Missouri and Wisconsin also launched cruise missiles into Iraq as well as bombarding Iraqi Army positions in Kuwait. The four Iowa class ships brought with them a prestige factor and an "in your face" intimidation factor that not even a carrier or Kirov could match.

[@philipbrooks402]

I attended a briefing in the late 1980s given by a pair of RAF Buccaneer crews. One of the Kirovs had just returned into service from refit and had ventured out into the North Norwegian Sea as part of a battlegroup. Said Buccaneers decided to welcome it back into service and got to within 35 miles undetected, being at ultra low level, and under the rules then in force, climbed to announce themselves so as not to precipitate an incident.

[@thekingsilverado3266]

Not saying it was your encounter because I heard it was a U.S. Destroyer that snuck up on that same boat and as soon as they got recognized someone on our carrier farted into the Mic really aggravating the ruskie boobs on their ship... As stupid ignorant as that might even sound to anyone, encounters like that were pretty common in the 1980s... If U can find the books GUNSLINGER 201 AND GUNSLINGER 202 written by a very retired commander off my ship.. Buy em they are both out of print and they detail some of the best cold war not totally un-violent encounters between us and the russians... Some of it is just down right hold your socks on laughter... I almost started an international incident being young and totally stupid I whacked a golf ball off our carrier deck that was said to have carried to some record 330 yards ricochet off a Greek cruiser and hit a the Russian Skipper on another ship next to the greek ship right in his left eyeball... I still have the original Navy paperwork in the original wrapper... You heard that from me. A golf ball went 300 yards off an aircraft carrier flight deck... Yes it is possible air density and the likes.... 300 yards and ruskie skipped gets hit right in the eye socket... Ya just can't make that one up.. It wasn't long after that our capin caught us using wrist rocket sling shots to remove UA birds from the radar equipment... Only we did much more damage than the birds were doing at the time...

[@vxrdrummer]

Great story that one. What a shot! You must have eyed up that shot for a while ha ha.

[@vxrdrummer]

That is awesome. Doesn't surprise me either. Sea skimming jets and weapons were a large problem back then. Kirov would have been annihilated by jets before it got half way out of the basin.

[@M-I]

The Moskva went down with 2 missiles. In case of a hot war I doubt this would survive a single engagement if it ever set sail.

[@Kalgani]

Any Warship today is desinged to >not< get hit. Any Ship today would sink after 2 Missile hits! They do not have heavy armor like Bismarck or Yamato.

[@M-I]

@@Kalgani USS Stark, USS Samuel B. Roberts and USS Cole would beg the difference. Even if critically damaged a ship has a chance of getting back home if the sailors on board are properly trained in damage control. I very much doubt the Russian navy is up to par in that category

[@zetaopress2389]

In todays age with missiles, no ship can tank most navy ships have a high chance of sinking. Doesn’t matter what country the ship is in or what type of sub class the ship is. It also depends where the ship gets hit as well.

[@GregoryAlanGaskill]

One hit upon the deck would explode ordnance because every square inch was covered by weaponry. Typical soviet compensation......

[@johncoffelt6645]

If I heard correctly the narrator said 250M long (820 feet), the Iowa class battleships from WWII were 860 feet long

[@centariprime9959]

Also the Iowa class battleships are 48,880 tons while the Kirov are only 24,000 tons.

[@MrOiram46]

To be fair, it’s a battlecruiser, not a battleship

[@johncoffelt6645]

@@MrOiram46 true but he compared it against the Iowa class battleships more than once.

[@Premium-Content]

Unless it’s something like an aircraft carrier that actually benefits from being huge, having a bigger ship is just I liability. Two lower cost destroyers carry missiles just as well as one giant missile cruiser. Only difference is now your opponent needs to hit two targets, not just one.

[@icefire5799]

while we are on size, destroyers nowadays are as heavy as heavy cruisers back then. Its just their purpose that changed their name. I general people still think of ww2 classifications even though they dont apply anymore.

[@DragonSt3alth]

This is only partially true. There are very few modern anti-surface ship weapons that can do significant damage to the armored citadel of a WW2 era Battleship. That being said, the Kirov class was not armored like a WW2 era battleship.

[@Bob-qk2zg]

Russia has not built a new surface vessel since 1991. The technical institutes of the old Soviet Union have not been maintained. The average age of an engineer in Russia is 61 in a country with a male life expectancy of 59.

[@franzxaverjosephconradgraf6850]

And where did you get that copium from ?..Russia just launched Admiral Gorshkov equipped with Hypersonic missiles a few months back and 2-3 submarines after the Ukraine Invasion began. And you say Russia hasn't launched any ships after 1991. I bet your source is The Ukrainian Pravda because even CNN reported on the launch of the ships by Russia.

[@Iamtherealjerkfreak]

@@franzxaverjosephconradgraf6850 i think he referred to major combat ships… patrol vessels and conventional subs they did built! That’s it

[@dellingson4833]

​@@franzxaverjosephconradgraf6850 Hey i heard a country Russia invaded with no navy turned the Black sea flagship the guided-missile cruiser Moskva into a submarine? Seen any quick "special military operations" lately? Or good old 19th century meat grinders. You think they would have tried "combined arms warfare". There shouldn't be ANY wars anymore. It's ALL ridiculous.

[@mrhassell]

You know this, because you work in the Russian Navy?

[@franzxaverjosephconradgraf6850]

@@Iamtherealjerkfreak You are really being disingenuous, aren't you? Admiral Gorshkov equipped with Hypersonic missiles isn't a major combat ship ..you can see the tonnage it's similar to US Destroyers but you won't be saying it's not a major important vessel. And the submarines were atleast 1 nuclear powered maybe 2.. conventionally powered?? Idk , a quick Google search will show you the least amount of information I have written here

[@benvandermerwe4934]

Russia sank the majority of their defence budget into the most modern and luxurious fleet of vessels the world has ever seen, the Superyacht Squadron.

[@Boric78]

They were mostly based from their warm weather ports of Malaga, Barcelona, Capua, Corfu and every Turkish port. There crews were efficent, well trained and known for their enormous fake breasts. Best navy ever. Shame for them, it destroyed the real Russian one.

[@T0ffik1]

Iowa class was returned to service because it was believed to be the only ship class of US ships that would surivve a hit from Granit missile's. It wasnt it size, but a battleship armor that made it worth the cost.

[@briandstephmoore4910]

It's like your neighbor who tries to one up you so he buys a bigger truck that's twice as useless and twice the expense but tells himself everyday how hurt and intimidated you are 🤣

[@JohnJones-k9d]

Littoral combat ships come to mind

[@MH-kc1eu]

Kirov class tonnage: 28,000 tons full load. Alaska class tonnage: 34,803 tons full load.

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

@gomilitary68 What would you do if push came to shove ? Let it keep sailing around and sink ships ad libitum to protect wildlife ?

[@pacivalmuller9333]

Difference is that Alaska class is not in service, also you could say that the Yamato had more tonnage.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

Still significantly smaller than Battle ships and even the Alaska class heavy cruisers. The Kirov Class battle cruisers were easy to sneak up on and sink.

[@thomasconley3429]

To say this presentation is over the top doesn't even come close.

[@Angelsilhouette]

Nuclear powered ships ARE steam powered ships. Hot control rods go into a water tank generating steam which, in turn, powers turbines that power the ship. Additionally, the reason it doesn't actually instill fear in the US Navy is that a few big ships with a lot of armament doesn't pose a threat to a fleet of smaller ships with fewer launch tubes. It only takes one or two missiles to demilitarize a ship, so disabling just one of those ships neutralizes a huge part of the opposing force. Add to that how well known the rampant corruption in the soviet union and russian defense industries and the ease at which their missiles are neutralized mid flight and the difficulty with which they have neutralizing western armaments, the west no longer trembles at the machinations of Russia.

[@Billswiftgti]

most people don't know how powerfull steam is. The problem was the fuel, coal was heavy and not that efficient.

[@JuniousC.Thomas]

Thankyou. Nuclear is only high tech steam

[@jessiejones6633]

The main problem with big ships is the high costs involved with them. The daily cost of running an Iowa class battleship is one million dollars a day. That doesn't cover any maintenance or rearming, its just fuel and the pay amd food for the sailors. If i remember correctly when you add in all the other costs to run and maintain an Iowa class ship it jumps to an average of over 10 million dollars a day.

[@goatroper77]

Sweet! Nice large, valuable target.

[@m.gindustriesm.gindustries3919]

Nice long video, thank you 🙏

[@sangmoon2464]

As the Moskva revealed after its destruction, it is likely lack of maintenance has degraded the capability of other ships in the Russian navy.

[@phillipdillon7529]

Haven't seen you 'guys' do a video on "Honda Point"!? Really like all your channels - sub'ed to all.

[@MrFallingfromgrace]

Thanks for this … great channel

[@rwarren58]

Tremble no. Laugh hysterically. Yes.

[@Soundofwindonsand]

To make this story a little scarier, remember that jimmy carter was leader of the " free" world back then...

[@dancarter254]

He did a sight better than Reagan did.

[@Soundofwindonsand]

@@dancarter254 I guess you don't remember the 1976 olympics, or 55 mph on the Interstate, or the Iranian Hostages who came home the same day that Regan took office, but I do

[@dancarter254]

@@Soundofwindonsand lol, Canada had more to do with the Iranian hostage crisis than Reagan ever did. 🤣

[@dancarter254]

@user-xy3xz8mi4e let's not forget, also. Reaganomics also was the start of this current huge wealth gap we are currently experiencing. Up until then, there was such a thing as 'middle class'. Now it's just super rich, rich, kinda poor, and homeless.

[@stevenkarnisky411]

So do I. Reagan committed treason by negotiating with the enemies of the United States, leaving Americans imprisoned by an enemy state for several more months, and using the hostage's suffering to get elected. There's a hero for ya! How many inches of territory did the United States lose by honorably boycotting the '76 Olympics? That's right: zero inches! The fifty-five MPH speed limit maybe gave us a bit of extra time to delay climate change. It certainly helped mitigate the highway carnage that killed hundreds every holiday on our highways. Yeah, I remember, too!

[@kenp7814]

The tug boats that pull it are more formidable

[@arwo1143]

The only reason the western world trembles from these things is that everyone knows they are a floating nuclear disaster waiting to happen if someone sneezes too hard

[@greebj]

The question asked before launching an attack would not be "can we sink it" but "where should we sink it"

[@lasvegastransparencycopwat6705]

Actually the American Ticonderoga class cruisers have 122 cells.Not the arleigh Burke class destroyers. The arleigh Burkes have 96 cells

[@cypherdk85]

"Russian naval might" is quite a statement, sure their ships can seem nice on the surface level, but they have never actually achieved any significant wins with their navy.

[@larrybrantley8835]

They've built some interesting ships, including these, but many are one-offs.

[@lucianosschlieper]

when I was a kid we used to have a big party with music and lots of different animals, like elephants, giraffes, bulls... all made of fabric and wire and we could get inside and walk around with they was very fun

[@lunabranwen]

Lets talk about the Moscava sitting at the bottom of the black sea

[@lt.petemaverickmitchell7113]

Get the Iowa’s ready....because we’re going to need them coming up. Bring back the Iowa’s!

[@Wyomingchief]

😂😂😂😂 Why the hell would we need an eye of a class battleship? Currently are modern early bird class destroyers carry more Firepower and better

[@gojo76]

You kept comparing it to the Arleigh Burke class, but what about the Ticonderoga class? That's a cruiser class ship, unlike the Destroyer class ship that the Burke is.

[@jamesjross]

You're implying he thinks about these videos. It all about quantity here.

[@AmsterdamHeavy]

@@jamesjross absolutely

[@danvorstenbosch7335]

You'll just jealous if you have nothing good to say don't say anything. Great video @dark seas

[@K-Effect]

11:29 That’s going to be a pain to reload all of those missiles during battle

[@Hellraiser32976]

1st, I love your videos.. 2nd, how do u get all the videos? I understand u can get Info that is written down.. but the videos from ww2 n war, how? Was it normal to have cameras recording all the time?

[@paulsimmons5726]

The bigger the ships, the easier they are to track, find, and target!

[@rpowell751]

Everything I’ve found about them says that there’s only one remaining in service and that the rest are being scrapped…

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

Then you haven't been looking very hard. The Russians have had the Admiral Nakhimov in drydock since 2006 and modernisation has been going on since 2014. Now, I have my doubts they will ever really finish it or how good it would be, put Putin loves his big, stupid prestige objects, so if they have to take the Peter the Great out of Service for good, you can bet your bottom dollar, the Nakhimov will take over - ready or not.

[@jberry1982]

I bet a Mark 48 torpedo would make short work of that beast

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

Naaaaah. 1 might disable its props / steering gear if you're really, really lucky. If you're not, it might not even slow down.

[@JonathanCasey-y4p]

It made a damn good coral reef too.

[@grahamo22]

They should have called them Musashi for all the good they would do. White Elephant is an apt description.

[@john4896]

They are no more significant than the Bismarck class battleships.

[@davedixon2068]

Less if anything, at the time the Bismark class were extremely capable, heavily armoured with excellent armament. Contemporaries of the Kirov dont really exist but it is certainly vulnerable to AS missiles and submarine attack

[@john4896]

The Bismarck class and the other heavy units were a waste of resources and didn't contribute as much to overall war effort. The resources could have been used for better aircraft, tanks and submarines.

[@davedixon2068]

@@john4896 Ah but if the war had started a couple of years later when the Kriegs Marine had built the ships it had planned......

[@khayramsyar554]

Btw to those in the chats dissing the Russian navy, for what its worth, they do have issues with maintaining their soviet era ships but their updated Nakhimov is essentially a completely new ship ⚓ , their focus towards more modern and heavily armed frigates too have shown advanced progress. The gorshkov class frigates are among the best in the world and is coming along with new vessels being built. There is a huge scandalous rumour with some basis from telegram groups among russian circles that the moskva was let sunk as a way to get rid of the ship. The Varyag class cruisers were built as a discount version of the larger kirov's and as most Soviet projects, were rushed into production as quick as possible. This left many MANY design flaws that affect both maintenance and sea keeping. Plus with the usual soviet(not modern Russia) tradition of corruption and lackluster maintenance, these three ships in the russian navy were money pits just like the kuznetsov. All told it is cheaper to get rid of those three ships and spend it on five gorshkov frigates. Makes more sense considering the Russian navy wants to get rid of the remaining two varyag class cruisers .

[@davedixon2068]

Have you been watching the Black Sea Fleet recently? It has lost a bunch of ships to a country that doesn't even HAVE a navy. I suspect that it will be very difficult for any surface ship these days

[@greebj]

Soviet Union been dead for 32 years, how long does Russia have left to use it for propaganda and scapegoating? Modern Russian defence force is incredibly corrupt. Over 6000 officials a year on average charged with corruption throughout the 2010s. E.g. T14 armor plate plant, documented embezzlement. IL-114, vapourware.

[@allgood6760]

Awesome ship👍

[@superwout]

It still floats? Amazing

[@whiskeysierra972]

Peter the Great will become Peter the Reef😅.

[@MPADAD1]

LOL. No we did not. Reagan wanted a 600 ship navy. It had nothing to do with this singular threat. I know you would like to think it was. It NEVER was a threat. Big ships must have support.

[@dogger37JC]

Glad you posted this

[@davedixon2068]

reason for the big Navy is the two seas policy ie being able to fight in two oceans at once

[@Shxlbyyy]

I always thought the battleships got reactivated for dessert storm, Korea, that type of thing?

[@ALEXANDER_XI]

Everything is not US aircraft carrier

[@SeanHogan_frijole]

Did i hear the words…..the countries naval prowess? LOL. Russia in any form has never had any naval prowess.

[@GB4889]

I was an Electronics Warfare Operator in the Baltic in 1975. They prepped me pretty well at Dam Neck and I worried more about anti-ship missiles than some Russian Ark.

[@stevesoltysiak1161]

To This day, Russia Still can’t even field an aircraft carrier:)

[@ctclassic1]

It just makes for a bigger target!

[@-CLUMSYDIYer-]

OK, Russia, keep talking shit. It's the only way to make yourselves feel strong.

[@jamesthompson116]

Outstanding as usual DARK.. I love to listen to your shows. Never miss any of the Darks..thank you for your work. Hell of a RESERCHER......

[@Desertrat87]

Out of curiosity, do you have a class of ship in mind that the US might recommission as a potential counter to the modernized Kirov coming back into service? I can't imagine they would recommission an Iowa, and I can't think of any previous classes still in existence that could be reactivated and modernized to counter this ship.

[@DMS-pq8]

The US Ticonderoga class cruiser would be more than a match for a Kirov, But those are slowly being retired in favor of smaller but just as lethal destroyers

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

If the day comes, were one of these needs to get taken down, it would probably be from the air or from submarines. However, since it's a clash of the Titans you're asking for: The USS Zumwalt entered drydock in August 2023 to have its guns replaced with VLS-modules for the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW). Now, From what I understand LRHW isn't exactly an anti-ship missile, but I'd bet good money the Navy has a way to guide those missiles into a Kirov-class sized target on the move or wont rest until it does.

[@andyf4292]

i doubt an Iowa could take the hit off those ASMs.. the belt armour, - maybe, but the upperworks. nope it would be like being hit by a V2

[@jedimasterdraco6950]

@@A_Haunted_Pancake Hypersonics aren't exactly good at hitting mobile targets. There's a reason that America's missile doctrine has favored low detectability over speed. We've had the capability to build hypersonic weapons, but their high-speed is actually somewhat detrimental because they can't make micro-adjustments as well as lower speed weapons. Like when you're driving at high speeds on the highway and it's virtually impossible to make a 90 degree turn like you would driving on the back roads. It's only now with the progression of technology that is changing and even then I suspect that part of it is more giving in to public pressure because the masses aren't as aware of these nuances and thus think more speed automatically makes a missile better.

[@davedixon2068]

@@andyf4292 You have to fire them first, these things generally have atleast 1 submarine near them all the time they are at sea

[@dennisbryan1752]

A bigger ship? So what? Proven competence? A hype that bigger gives more pleasure.

[@haroldcarfrey4206]

We countered them by simply reactivating four Iowa class Battleship which had nine 16 guns and of course ARMOR

[@Boric78]

I would have loved to have seen an Iowa vs Kirov engagement. It would have been like Tyson vs a light weight. Loads of movement, action, noise - all shrugged off on the gloves and shoulders. Followed by one fast combination / volley. To the canvas/ Davey Jones Locker's you go.

[@edkrach8891]

@@Boric78 The Kirovs would sink faster than the stock market in a panic.

[@Boric78]

LOL@@edkrach8891

[@haroldcarfrey4206]

@@Boric78 Soviet designed warships mount their missiles in one shot launchers on deck to allow the rapid launch of their war load before a sea skimming harpoon missile or three causes a sinking. Since the Iowa was refitted to 9 16s 12 5s, 32 tomahawks, 16 Harpoons, and 4 CIWS plus massive amounts of armor, my money is on the old ladies

[@Boric78]

No shit bro- I suspect they could reload at sea, unlike the vodka monkeys.@@haroldcarfrey4206

[@idlehands1864]

Hey thats the ship that also keeps catching fire for no reason, has to be towed all the time and presents a massive target on the battlefield.

[@SyedFaizalAlYahya]

i believe theres still more info thats not been stated in this video...please do more research on kirov

[@haroldhahn7044]

After what we have seen in the black sea, it is hard to believe that Russia, under Putin, is ever going to spend enough to train the Kirov's crew, or spend enough on the ship's maintenance, so that it could ever become anything but a reef on the sea floor.

[@George-vf7ss]

Big, crude, and vulnerable.

[@snydedon9636]

Spending like a sailor isn’t always the best way.

[@tomdarco2223]

Right On Go Army!

[@johninnh4880]

That's a lot of eggs in one basket.

[@tedbaxter5234]

Russias biggest threat to these ships is Sailors smoking in restricted areas.

[@bremeartic8650]

prefer this compared to any other Western ships.

[@Jo777]

The notion of this ship alone will trigger some response from west with current russian situation is questionable. Apart from the large size and ability to carry large amount of Anti ship missiles, rest of the ship will be out dated when it enters active duty. S 400 and S 350 both are already destroyed more than one time by ukraine using old western weapons in the ongoing conflict. which raises serious questions about its ability to effectively counter any modern western attacks. Many unique design and technology created in the soviet times, now lost to mismanagement or lack of funding. This ship may end up in the history books of lost potential like many other soviet development like Yak - 141, Soviet space program, Metallurgical abilities etc.

[@robertmadea9229]

Over 100 years after Battle of Jutland, which brought questions about battlecruisers, but they are still to be brought back. While battleships extinct.

[@DodAederen]

How big was the Iowa class? Enough said.

[@FreeThePorgs]

Its a dedicated heavy missile battleship in lue of main guns/shells. In the cold war the US built aircraft carriers the soviets built carrier killers. However there are questions about its full functionality. They are by no means new or state of the art. That doesn’t mean they aren’t a major threat. A US carrier is toast if a missile or 2 gets through, a carrier battle group is well defended and protected but by no means 100% invincible and 1 lucky missile will sink or major damage a carrier.

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

Major damage - yes, Sink - probably not. If the WWII Aircraft Carriers have tought us anything, it's that it takes a lot of ammo to actually sink a big ship with good damage control.

[@mrhassell]

Russian Navy has 10 destroyers, 11 frigates, 82 corvettes, 20 landing ship tanks, 40 landing craft, 18 special-purpose ships, 4 patrol ships, 118 patrol boats, 46 mine countermeasures vessels, 12 ballistic missile submarines, 10 cruise missile submarines, 14 nuclear attack submarines, 22 diesel attack submarines, and 8 special-purpose submarines.

[@jimmiller5600]

And it can't operate in the Black Sea.

[@Boric78]

On paper - The Russian Navy has always been a paper force, except for 65-75. Most of that list will barely float today. SSBN's excluded because thats where the money (that isn't stolen) goes as its ring fenced (for not stealing) by the slaphead.

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

@@Boric78 I doubt there's anything that's truly ring fenced for not stealing. It's probably just that the submarine force takes secrecy more serious + it's a lot easier to hide things under water ... Unless the boat doesn't come back.

[@OrjanGrahn]

...and a ocean going thugboat that wait for it's big friend to come out of repair dock. 😢

[@Boric78]

Think things have changed hence all the people falling out of windows. Might be too late. It certainly is for the Black Sea Fleet - reinforce that slaphead. Past the US Navy Carrier groups in the Med and then Turkey isn't letting a Russian warhship through. A Ukrainian Lake to the North, a Turkish one to the south. Well done slap head - gave that up like a bitch.@@A_Haunted_Pancake

[@YouTube_user3333]

352 missile cells isn’t impressive. If they all actually fire, now that would be impressive.

[@RayhaanKhan-mu4qu]

both the kirov classes should be active! instead of making more karakut class corvettes!

[@global.citizens]

Was it as good as Moskva cruiser?

[@vxrdrummer]

As far as I was aware, they reactivated the battleships as they had no comparable shore bombardment capability at the time, without building more Destroyers/Frigates/Cruisers. Ship to ship engagements were not a thing anymore. The Kirov would engage with the Granites along way away and Iowas with the Harpoon at long range also. If they got close enough to engage with main guns, then it would surely have only been by mistake. I'm not actually sure how much damage overall the granite would do to a battleship. Interesting to think about though as I am not sure of the warhead yield etc. And where they would look to hit the ship.

[@josephsmith6777]

This mus be why they have so many super carrier with their strike groups

[@robertmcnearny9222]

Is this for real?

[@damnit6349]

In Soviet Russia, ship sails YOU.

[@nautifella]

The USN has subs following every RUSNav task force that leaves russian waters. They won't last long. In the 80s, the soviets used to plan on trading ships in a naval battle with the USN. They believed that they could endure 3-5 lost ships for every one of ours. However, after the first engagement they would be nearly defenseless. (They can't reload) And their math was way off. Our projections had them losing 8-10 to our 1. (if we were generous) They couldn't track our submarines and our Aviation units were far superior in training and equipment. That was 45 years ago. We've gotten better and they fell back. Any engagement today would be a repeat of the Russo-Japanese war where they lost their entire fleet in the first battle. Saddam's forces used Soviet kit and training and we walked right over them. And today they can't even match a mostly militia army using borrowed gear in Ukraine. China is no better and probably worse. I worry about west asia. That could be a problem.

[@valianttmt8044]

Yeah the Kirov class battlecruisers were potent over 2 decades ago. But the technology on these ships are old, not to mention the ships themselves. Just to keep them updated and maintained would cost a fortune, if they aren’t already.

[@John-k6l3d]

Most of the crew's in nuclear power vessel are newbies do to the crews to be removed from service do to radiation exposure.

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

LOLZ, That was true in the first generation of Russian subs, but not even China has to do that anymore.

[@diGritz1]

They will make fine artificial reefs. "0_o"

[@kitpong1777]

It would have been a Big , juicy target.

[@535Medic]

They also make nice artificial reefs ..

[@leandroargente8274]

Very Good News

[@takingbacktheplanet]

imagine being one of the biggest exporters of oil/gas, but being completely unable to power your own ships with your wealth of the resources... 😂oof.

[@thesilentjediknight]

Hahahahhahah so true

[@billballbuster7186]

Turned out to be a paper tiger as most of the systems are more hype than lethality. They used to say Russian ships had defence in depth with multiple systems, because none could be relied upon to work properly. The Russian Navy has lost many more men to accidents, fires, radiation leaks and faulty weapons than they have killed in combat since 1945.

[@JohnJones-k9d]

YOU’VE JUST DESCRIBED ALL THE US GAME-CHANGING WEAPONS IN UKRAINE THAT DONT WORK. US Held back on sending M1s because you didn’t want to see them burning on the battlefield AGAIN.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@JohnJones-k9d Funny Guy, the Ukraine has been getting old NATO weapons which are still potent against Russian crap. The US took all sensitive stuff out of those Abrams before handing them over. The Abrams crews usually survive if the tank is hit. Not so the crew of Russian tanks - they burn with the tank.

[@greebj]

lol, vatniks. NATO is giving its obsolete crap to Ukraine so they can make way for more modern equipment. Russia meanwhile is bringing BMP-1 out of mothball storage because they're running out of their modern slightly less obsolete garbage. Just like the Japanese carrier air force in WW2, the most valuable part of a tank is its crew

[@donblaise]

FYI all nuclear power ships only differ from older oil heated steam engines by the fuel used to heat the water.

[@johnnash5118]

Its weight to length ratio indicates it’s very lightly armored.

[@TheLiamis]

Cruisers usually were compared to battle ships. An iowa is only 40 feet longer but weighs 2x more. Much of which is armour.

[@vic5015]

Sure, if Russia can afford to continue to operate and maintain it. And that's a *big* if. The US Navy also used to have nuclear-powered cruisers, the California class (2) and the Virginia-class (4). But they proved too expensive to operate abd maintain.

[@Wyomingchief]

Yeah it's hilarious he acts like the US didn't have nuclear powered Cruisers. We had them in service way before the Soviets even thought about it. And ours didn't irradiate the whole crew

[@vic5015]

​@@Wyomingchiefalso USS Long Beach.

[@Hockey-Baseball.]

Any one of the Iowa Class can kick its ass. 😂😅😊

[@geiers6013]

The thing is how many smaller, more versatile and far cheaper smaller ships can you build for the cost of one Kirov class ship.

[@DMS-pq8]

Beautiful ship no doubt but based on the performance of the Russian navy against Ukraine I would guess the Pyotr Velikiy is probably more of a threat to its own sailors than to an opposing navy

[@davebarksdale]

The Burke class only have 96 VLS cells. Ticos have 128. Just for future reference.

[@dodgedaytona7435]

Battleships weee big because they needed big armor to take a hit hence needing more displacement. If you are not designed to take a hit it wiser to have 2 smaller boat to do the same task.

[@MH-kc1eu]

You are very misleading when you say double the size of any American competitor, The Soviet union never built a real battleship, the Kirov could never compete with American battleships, also American battleships are known to be reliable.

[@NFS_Challenger54]

If I had to choose between Iowa and Kirov, I'd choose Iowa. Yes, she's outdated, but she was meant to take a licking and keep on ticking. Kirov is basically as big, if not slightly bigger than USS Alaska from WW2, but with less armor. I mean, yeah Kirov has an impressive missile armament, but knowing the Russians with their military arsenal and their lack of advancements in pretty much anything, I'm not all too concerned with just one Kirov with modern technology. Questionable modern tech at that.

[@jefferykeeper9034]

And in WWll they came to the USA for help.

[@JohnJones-k9d]

You might want to learn about history. Russia won WW2. They killed 75% of all the Germans and killed more Japanese than the other Allies. GERMANY put its best Units on the eastern front as that was a where its hardest fighting was, then against UK ETC, it then out its weakest units against Yank units as the Germans viewed the US soldiers as least combat effective. Thats why Germany attacked US units in battle of the bulge, even though the US units had done the least fighting. Might want to check some facts matey in future. Remember you buffed for Brit help in Vietnam as US army was so crap. US army etc is only capable for fighting those who can’t fight back.

[@darkspire6666]

Gaigin when?

[@Buckshot99]

That thing would blow up like a Japanese carrier at mid way.