Russia's Massive Nuclear-Powered Warship That Smokes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 янв 2025
- Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S.
Click the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now. See you in the game! playwt.link/No...
Why the most weaponized battlecruiser in the world is nuclear-powered, but also has a smoke stack, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT
Music:
Cut the Mustard - Tigerblood Jewel
Linda Low - Lucention
Leaps - Jay Varton
Flightmode - Chris Shards
A Gentle Pulse - Imprismed
Orcas - Marten Moses
Alpha Code - Tellsonic
Lunch Break in Milan - Trabant 33
Soil Within - Max Anson
On the Trail - Tigerblood Jewel
Thyone - Ben Elson
Shortage - Marten Moses
Ostinato - Vieveri
Just the Right Amount - Arthur Benson_2
Secret Light - Max Anson
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock
Soviet Archives
Russian Ministry of Defense
National Archives
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Join us in War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S:
Follow my link to get the game, including an exclusive welcome bonus:
playwt.link/NotWhatYouThink
Just started the video, thanks for the heads-up for the sponsorship 😅
Wait, is steam not the primary method of propulsion when using a nuclear reactor as a heat source?
@@triple7988 I think the nuclear energy get converted into electric first (so it's able to be used by on-ship equipment), and then gets converted into kinetic by the ships motors
Not sure I understand the point of retiring a ship like this during a war. Their plans might be pushed out a bit.
Not what I think. That's for sure. 4:37 I thought I've paid for the f....reaking YT Premium to get rid of the commercials. BUT NO! 🤮
A torpedo turning into a rocket and then turning back into a torpedo is the most Soviet thing I've ever heard of
Yeah, the USN has had the same capability since the 1950's except they just skipped the first stage and went straight to rocket launched, which is why it's name is ASROC (Anti-Submarine Rocket) though it could parachute a nuclear depth change as well. We've even modernized the system into the 21st century with our newest homing torpedo and have made it VLS capable.
Maybe that's why the Soviets chose a torpedo launch? Not enough real estate left for another VLS or deck launcher box, so chose hull doors and torpedos.
The Soviets and now Ruskies have always loved fringe ideas because when they're the only one doing it, they can pretend they're the smartest and running cutting edge technology no one else can match. When in reality most of their (USSR/RU) "cutting edge" tech was stuff that'd already been thought about in the West but not chosen because we found an either better, simpler/easier, cheaper way to do it; or all of the above.
Like the USSR/RU Rocket torpedo, and no not their torpedo-rocket-torpedo torpedo. They have a submarine launched supercavitating torpedo that burns Rocket fuel for propulsion and has a gas generator at the nose to create a gas bubble around it, essentially removing the water and making it a regular missile, just "under" water. If all the stats are to be believed (General rule is to assume the West is low lowballing their top specs to hide true capabilities, and Eastern-Bloc, China, and now Russia is overstating them) this allows it to travel as fast as 200-250 knots. Sounds pretty good, and is, but it's loud as hell and once launched all stealth goes out the window.
Another example is Hypersonic missiles, Russia made such a MASSIVE deal about their "Hypersonic" Air Launched Ballistic Missile, the Kh-47M2 "Kinzhal". The joke for people that know about that stuff is almost EVERY Ballistic missile is Hypersonic by default due to how and where they're used/work. Even the OG, the V-2 "Rocket" (It's actually a single stage long range guided Ballistic Missile, but that's besides the point) is Hypersonic at its operating altitude. So hyping up a ballistic missle as some new "Hypersonic super weapon" is just giggle worthy chest thumping by RU that gets regurgitated by the media for their quota of fear mongering. (P.S. The US has been able to air launch Minuteman Ib's by para-yeeting them out the back of C-5 Galaxys since the 70's and that's a legit, intact, whole-ass ICBM, not just a TBM/MRBM. We just didn't expand it beyond the successful tests due to security concerns, needing more R&D, and Russia would've had a shit fit about it if we essentially made every heavy-lift transport plane a potential nuclear bomber. However the capability exists and if needed could be fully developed and carried out. Although as we've upgraded the entire ICBM stockpile to Minuteman III's, we'd need to find or develop a replacement for the Minuteman Ib we tested it with in the 70's)
The newer (Then V-2) SCUD is "Hypersonic" as well, and yet we shot down 25% of them in the Persian Gulf War when the MIM-104 Patriot and its PAC-1 and PAC-2 missiles ability to due so was unrefined and mostly theoretical outside a few test.
Since then hundreds of software updates and overall system improvements to things like the FCS, Radar, etc, has exponentially refined this ability. The improved PAC-2 Variants since then (Like GEM and GEM+) are even better, and the PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE are EVEN better with the PAC-3's tracking, guidance, and maneuverability being so good they went with a Kinetic Hit-to-Kill warhead to completely smash a Ballistic/Cruise missile by literally just crashing into it at Mach Classified. They also have what they call a "Lethality Enhancer" which is a small blast charge to radially expel 24 low speed Tungsten fragments around the missile near impact to increase its cross-section, enhancing kill probability. Without the huge frag warhead this allowed them to miniaturize the missiles so you can stuff 15 PAC-3 or 12 PAC-3 MSE to a pod as opposed to only the 4 PAC-1/2's. This also gave them the ability to add an active radar to the PAC-3 missiles which lets the missile go pitbull and guide itself once it's close enough to the target.
BACK TO THE POINT: Multiple KH-47M2 "Kinzhal" missiles have already been intercepted by Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine war, using donated MIM-104 Patriot battery's armed with PAC-2 through PAC-3 MSE interceptors around Kyiv. So Russia's "New expensive super duper unstoppable missile" has already been easily intercepted multiple times by missiles the US has had for 10-20+ years. And the ability for the Patriot system to do so was once again considered "Certainly possible, but only theoretical".
So once again, the Russian systems performance was revealed to be overstated, and the Western/US systems performance turned out to be greater then what's been officially/publicly released.
@@pyro1047 The P-8 can deploy rocket propelled torpedoes as well.
Meanwhile Americans: ya'll need torpedo tubes ?
The definition of words matter! You mean rocket DELIVERED torpedoes. I don't believe the USN has rocket propelled torpedoes, though there may have been a classified development I don't know about. Haven't heard about anything like an ASROC or (cancelled) Sea-Lance for the P8 either.
The Kuznetsov normal speed might be 18 knots, but it's usual speed is governed by the power of it's tug boat.
I don't think you're kidding, but 😂🤣 *_DAMN!_* THAT'S some funny 💩 right there!
@HE-pu3nt wins the entire Internet today! 😊
Add to that the fact that nowadays it spends it's time in drydock and being on fire occasionally, you can further lower it's average speed.
@@WilliamRWarrenJr sadly for the Northern Fleet, it is not a joke.
It's TRUE!! @@WilliamRWarrenJr
The Moskva also had the same anti air, anti missile systems which did not prevent her from being promoted to the submarine service. The Ukrainian Neptune missiles used are roughly equivalent to Harpoons.
"Moscow" was exposed alone for treason.
No the moskva had the old ak630 not even ak630 2m
The kirov have the kashtan system wich is 10 times bettee in every aspect
@@ali-haider5788 But the moskova is 2 years newer than the kirov class, being 1977 for the kirov and the moskova being 1979
@@e.hellbrand9707 Don't try to reason with a vatnik.
yeah i heard F-35 is also promoted as a Submarine, such an Advance technologies
The explanation of the smoke pictures and admission that nothing, even yourself, online is trustworthy makes me respect you and I will continue watching your content!
I like your situational awareness.
The Russian surface ship reactors have problems in tropical waters where sea surface temperatures can exceed 30 degrees C (86 F). The oil fired superheaters allow the ship to create superheated dry steam for maximum power, something their reactors along cannot do. If you ever wondered why the Russians have never once sailed any of their big nuclear powered icebreakers to the Antarctic, this is the reason. Their reactors cannot operate safely on hot tropical water.
“Don’t blindly trust things you see on the internet, including what I say” I’m not gonna trust that
The smoke chimney is for the indoor smoking room, sauna, and barbecue R&R area!! The design is very human!
Whether on land or sea, the Russians focus WAY too much on raw firepower and not nearly enough on logistics, crew competency, range, accuracy, survivability/damage control, stealth, combined-arms tactics etc.
Orcs like dakka
I agree with everything else but range?
Every Major navy is actually developing such ships 13k+ displacement.
And arming them to teeth for land attack duties.
bcs they design it for nuclear war in mind, so logistic may out of question
well yeah, if you build a killdozer as an atheist nation vs a christian bunch of cultists then you need it to look the part, or they might fuck about and find out..
or is it just coincidence that the nation with 99% religion loving leaders just happens to not get along with the biggest bunch of atheists they can't control,
look what they did to Germany after Ignaz Semmelweis told the world of medicine to wash their hands, that was only 3 Bidens ago, they need their order and progress is scary.
Admiral Kuznetsov's designation as an aircraft-carrying cruiser is very important under the Montreux Convention, as it allows the ship to transit the Turkish Straits.
Well, not during wartime. Although it wouldn't matter with regard to Ukraine anyway. A few ancient Su-33s that can barely lift off the flight deck wouldn't add anything to the fight.
The reason for these giants being classed as a cruiser is that they had to pass through the Bosporus being built at a shipyard on the Black Sea coast. There is a naval agreement that forbids passage of anything larger than a cruiser through there.
Someone did write down a very detailed specification which also had the strange side effect of creating aircraft carriers with some serious surface-to-surface armament with the Kuznetsov having Granit missile lauchers mounted in the flight deck
those ramjet missiles are awesome. the only thing even cooler are the ramjet artillery shells in development... that apparently use solid fuel, which is bizarre.
Many thanks for this update ! 👍🤝🙂
Crikey- so that’s why even the Kusnetsov is classified as a cruiser? The flight deck does mess with perception - another example is that at the waterline, the USS Gerald Ford and the Queen Mary 2 have the same beam at 134 ft (mind you the Ford stretches out to 256ft at the flight deck while the QM2 is only 147ft)
@@patricia1333 Kiev-class was also classified as aircraft carrying cruiser.
Montreaux convention i believe, signed in France in the 30's, which forbids vessels above 15k tons crossing the Bosphorus straits, and no carriers what-so-ever.
I have to say, that is a good-looking ship. Its lines are aesthetically pleasing. I'm surprised that it can't reach maximum speed on both nuclear power plants.
Agreed, she does look good. But as a radar target, she'd stand out like a light house.
A Russian aircraft carrier that emits its own smoke screen.
Just what you want when trying to land an aircraft on a short moving runway.
😂😂
The Russian aircraft carrier is its version of the distraction Carnifex. The smoke is to draw enemy fire away from its actual functional ships.
don't forget about its Reliable Outboard Motors (Tugboats).
Did you watch the full video, he said it's just a joke
A small side note on why we don’t have non-carrier nuclear surface ships anymore, getting the manning for the engineering department was basically impossible when they had to contend with carriers and submarines for nuclear qualified sailors
The last couple of generations wouldn't join up anyway. They'd much rather be out there pushing DEI and protesting for the protection of terrorists. The last two or three generations (most of them) make me want to puke when I watch their antics in the real world.
Yeah this is what really does it, the crew, technology, maintenance and finances to operate large, nuclear warships is pretty intense and you're better off using the nuclear ships to carry entire airbases around the world, or powering hidden submarines for months on end rather than pushing some guns around on ships that run just fine on conventional fuel
If you've seen the 'yacht fleet' owned by Russian oligarchs, I wonder what the Russian Navy means when they say 'upgrading battleships is too expensive'?
They mean that only the few rubles leftover after embezzlement by the oligarchs are left for battleships.
If we include the tonnage of those yachts Russia would be the biggest fleet by far.
@@theworkshopwhisperer.5902why tf would you include the yachts💀
US oligarchs have fleets of yachts, jets & even rockets too. They're both capitalists.
@@scotthill1600 it's a joke about how many super yachts have been made with Russian naval money.
Understood. But the Kirov ships look AWESOME.
The oil boilers are not just a backup (though they work as that as well). The combining gear means that both the boilers and the reactors' steam can power the ship at the same time, leading to higher top speed in a burst when using both. Likewise, the second reactor is not "a backup" as the video says, both reactors usually work at the same time. But having two instead of one does double as a backup, since it's possible to move (slower) with just one.
He does mention that it's CONAS later, which makes the
original claim even more puzzling. Maybe it's because in virtually every
bit of footage out there, it looks like its cruising speed 10 knots 😄
Same goes for American carriers, at least regarding using both reactors. Not sure if they can run diesels at the same time as the reactors tho
@@LitmusPapyrus There is no combining gear on the Nimitz, and the diesel emergency generators cannot drive the main shafts in any way. They are meant for backup electrical power for the ship.
Oh look we have another American armchair general here 🤓
@@Burningarrow7 Considering what he said was correct, was there a point to your comment besides "I don't like Americans"? Besides, it would be armchair admiral, not general. We are talking about ships here, after all. 🙄
“Don’t blindly trust things you see on the internet, including what I say.” Never a truer word spoken! You have my respect for that statement alone!
Since the late stages of the Cold War in the 80s when I joined the RAN I knew about these ships, and we trained a lot to fight the Soviets in the Pacific and possibly Indian Oceans. Their ships seemed incredibly heavily armed. I knew the Kirov class had a combination of nuclear and oil-fired boilers, but assumed they were for extra speed, like modern CODAG/CODOG setups. It made sense to me considering they could both feed the existing steam turbines. I didn’t realise they were backups for a backup. That alone says a lot for Soviet/Russian engineering.
Our old 1950s British designed oil-fired boilers(River class, modified type 12 Rothesay and Leander classes)didn’t smoke at all usually. Nor did our 1960s American designed ones(Perth class, modified Charles F. Adams).🤣
I haven’t finished watching the video yet, but when I do I’ll be off to do some more research! 👍
Ok, just got to 3:39 and ai need to correct you. Nuclear power is just a means of heating boilers just like oil-fired boilers. They are just a different means of heating the water for a steam turbine.
13:27, “The Russians claim…”. 🤣
You're correct about 3:39. We didn't word it properly.
Finally, agreed about having a single, hugely expensive, visible, and doubtfully reliable nor capable vessel(one big target against a saturation attack by modern stealth weapons) compared to many more smaller and cheaper vessels which in combination are just as effective. EW triangulation is just one example against this principle. We saw their warships operating alone around SE Asia, and we always operated in a task unit of at least 2.
Simply a carryover of the Cold War, and Russia still trying to flex. Badly.
@@NotWhatYouThinkAmerican propaganda working overtime now that the money is drying up and Russia is winning. Russia's been using the worst equipment and losing the war for the past two years on social media, yet there they still are fucking Nazi Ukrainians, the US and all of NATO😂...I know I'd be pretty pissed too😘🖕
@@NoName-ds5uqthis Kirov class design is a typical product of the soviet era : "is it big? Make the next one f* big!". All of these designs have been developed with the "one final blow" on mind, and not designed for sustained wars. But even for this partizan style of war, the Sovietunion did not have enough money - and russia today has much less than the Soviets had. Russia is 1.5% of the world economy (before 2022) - it is a negligible, annoying cohabitant who needs to be shown his place.
There are 195 recognized countries on this planet, most of them are probably pretty damn poor in comparison to the USA or Europe. To contribute just 1.5% to the world economy is amazingly bad. @@spxram4793
Some of the Kirov class vessels (All but Pytor Velikiy) also have 2x SA-N-4 OSA launchers with a total of 40 missiles, and all the ships have two RBU-1000 Antisubmarine depth charge projectors and 1 Udav-1 depth charge projector.
i think its had if they are not active
yep, OSA launchers were replaced by Kinzhal on Piotr Velikiy.
Give up tug boat Tommy is no match for the Royal Navy
The reason why Russia labeled their biggest ships as cruisers stems mostly from their need to pass from the black sea to the Mediterranean through the Dardanelles. Because the treaty of Montreux makes it possible for turkey to deny aircraft carriers free passage through the strait.
A similar case can be seen in Japan where the (helicopter) carriers of the japanese navy are officially classified as helicopter destroyers because the japanese constitution forbids the use of offensive weapons such as aircraft carriers.
Thanks great info 👍
Love the fact that you adress misinformation, very important topic.
So the RPK-6 Vodopad is a horizontally-launched missile which starts above water, goes straight into the water, then goes airborne for 30 miles, then goes back underwater...
It's not manly enough to do things the easy way.
they just took a sub launched anti sub missile and put it on the ship, along with the launch tube.
@@xsu-is7vq I'm just surprised that it works, being designed to start off underwater.
I wonder how many of the installed weapons actually worked.
My guess would be that the maintainance is non-existant.
That's one possible reason for having so many of them. Even of some fail, by chance some will work, and so it's not completely useless.
@zolikoff Or every time a weapon system broke, instead of repairing it they just added a new one.
Most likely that the systems did work when they were installed, but the constant lack of maintenance means that they don't operate properly anymore.
@@doggo_woo Honestly, even the idea of them working properly when they were first installed is probably being overly generous.
I remember that while serving on a Nimitz class carrier in the 1980's that the Kirov class was the only surface ship we actually feared.
As if it was allowed to get close to an American CVN. (300miles "close")
Now you see that the fear was wasted; if they launched something at you the missile would have blown up in it's own launch tube and taken out the ship - parts of the system would have been sold for cases of vodka.
@@Kr0N05🤦🏼♂️
@@YYukova While a facepalm is a warranted response to that claim during the heyday of the USSR, we're talking about the Russian Federation here. All I'll say is 'remember the Moskva...'
@@Kr0N05 dope propaganda you're spreading 😂get your sources straight
It is so ridiculous that such big ships are cost too much but can be destroyed with a single rocket or drone.
I really have no confidence in their defense capabilities, because they simply aren;t tested enough. The US navy is constantly testing with one ship or another. And as we have seen, the Russian sailors are never trained well enough to maintain their ships.
not sure about single rocket, but 2 rockets + 1 drone could be enough I think
Shush~! (They'll hear you ...)@@vapoet
But you still have to deliver that rocket or drone ... not always easy.
And the big ships can take a helluva thumping before going down.
Now try actually hitting it. Without hypersonics.
Goofy thing about those Kinzhal launchers, it only has 64. The bow launchers were some special design that never got completed. That's something that got me awhile ago when I looked at this ship.
The other thing was the expenses to restore the other Kirov classes is likely because they all sustained some sort of damage overtime. One has it;s engine room complete catch on fire and the other had an incident with one of it's nuclear reactors and had to permanently shut that unit down leaving it with one.
The maintenance budgets were tanked by the economic downturn of the '90s, and by the time Russia began to recover, Putin and his cronies were stealing so much from the people that military materiel was left to rot even though it could have been restored or further developed. It's actually sad what he's done to his own people, and they refuse to hold him accountable.
👍👍😂😂Your are right Sir ! The corvette is "Yuri's fishing boat" and the cruiser Igor's week end yacht !😂😂👍👍
One depth charge, many dead fish float to surface!
@@CorePathwayeasy food on table lol
Yet they need the NATO to bring Russia down while hiding behind Ukrainians. How embarrassing.😂
I will make a separate comment to answer those citing the Moskva. First of all, the Moskva was known to be haunted by issues with equipment not being replaced or repaired due to the Black Sea fleet command laundering money. Secondly, its crew and captain did not act properly as they should in a warzone, its watertight doors not sealed and air defence using only one of the systems. Now here is the difference without taking into account the specific issues:
-The S-300 targeting and detection radar has a weakness: it can only work on one narrow direction. The Kirov class has two of them for reduntancy and all round defense. On the photos of the damaged moskva the S-300 VLS can be seen with slight burn marks and open lids, likely from firing missiles. If that is the case, due to short range AAD not having been engaged, it is likely that the target was of a completely different kind, for example a decoy drone. That way moskva's only radar was occupied with said target, and it could not even switch to another one fast enough. Thing is, unlike on the Kirov, the S-300 VLS on the Slava class are not true VLS, but drum magazines with 8 missiles ready at a time. Fire 8 of them at a target, and spend a while rotating and reloading them.
-The Slava class lacks short-range AA missiles. It does have the Osa in fact, but those are not proper weapons against low flying/skimming weapons. It is likely the russians did not even/could not set them online anyway. The Kirovs have the SA-N-9 Gauntlet SAM, which was specifically designed to intercept sea skimming missiles akin to the RGM-84.
-CIWS
The Slava class have the typical AK-630 CIWS, while the Kirovs were upgraded with 6 Kashtans, which are believed to be more accurate due to different targeting systems, and as OP said, have 8 short-range SAMs as well. Note: according to information on maintenance and repairs, the Moskva's CIWS were not even online because the CIWS had been broken for a while and were not repaired, due to the corruption surrounding the ship.
-Survivability
The Slava class was built as a cheap alternative to the Kirov, with more emphasis on the arsenal ship concept and less on point defence and compartmen separation and protection. As a result of that and the Moskva's crew lack of training, the fire from one of the 5 missiles spread easily, as did the water when it started sinking.
Aye thats all, eat up this wall of text, it doesnt bite
That's alot of claimed firepower for one ship and we know that Russian contractors never lie about the systems they build.
It's torpedoooo, it's a missileee, ffff it's a torpedo
A.b "destroyers" are the equivalent of light cruisers from ww2
Naval tech evolves. We once had "light carriers," which gave way to "amphibious assault ships" that carried helicopters, which are now evolving BACK into "light carriers." The Japanese Izumo class was technically designated a "destroyer," but was magically fitted with a flight deck able to carry F-35Bs, lol. Meanwhile U.S. Navy amphibs are essentially leading battle groups similar to the supercarriers, only a bit smaller. It's interesting stuff.
This is like their version of a Yamamoto. All their eggs in one basket.
As far as 'Cruisers' go re: Admiral Kuznetzov... the 'CV' designation for American aircraft carriers means 'Cruiser, Aviation', so I suppose the U.S. kinda/sorta does the same thing! (It's a relic from the original Langley, I believe)
The "V" specifically means heavier than air. The Zeppelins had some other designation. Airplane squadrons also use the V, as as VA, VF, and of course VM... The blimp squadrons used some other designation.
But considering my track record in other comments on this video (0-2) I may be wrong.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005
I didn't know that V meant heavier than air for aircraft (thanks!)... hadn't even thought of that. (Also, VP, with P for patrol. My gramps flew in VP17, in P2V Neptunes (There's that V again!)
But, I think (assume that) designations for aircraft and ships are unrelated, or maybe it's like the army's 'M' designation; The Abrams tank is the M1, and the Garand rifle was the M1. There is an M1 helmet, too. So many Ms...
CV, intuitively, seems like it should mean 'Carrier, aViation', or just 'Aircraft Carrier', rather than the 'Cruiser' which it is (or orginally was) The 'V' in CV is down too 'CA' having already been in use as 'Cruiser, Armored', and the USN perhaps didn't want two different ship types with the same class abbreviation/designation.
Cheers!
@@bholdr----0 I had assumed the Navy chose "V" because there were two claims to "A" for aviation -- heavier than air and lighter than air. But that was a long time ago and lighter than air may have seemed like it had a real future which today seems obviously wrong.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005
Yup, that's how I understand the 'V'... and: Lighter than air- you are right on about that too; It is, now, an obviously poor idea.
BUT, there are some misanthropic (Quixotic?) startups trying to bring rigid airships back... While the only use case that I can see (other than advertising, a la the Goodyear blimp) is as an ultra-expensive cruise ship in the air. (Which, tbh, seems like it would be pretty cool.)
Cheers.
@@bholdr----0 I just looked up "us navy blimps" and the Wikipedia article says they were used by "ZP-14" -- there's the answer! Must be for Zeppelin? But the blimps were K-1 etc of the K class. The rigid airships were ZR-1 etc. I wonder if there ever were plans for a CZ lighter than air carrier.
2:37 I appreciate a RUclipsr who keeps us on our toes
Good detective work on the smoke images. I blindly believed them.
Commander: You see that pirate boat
No Sir!
Commander: good
Basically this thing can identify as a "Battle group"
No, just as a larger target.
@@vapoet And an easy target for western subs at that. 😂🤣😅🤣😂
@@Never2late4UA Virginia-class could probably remove this thing from service within days of a war breaking out. Mk. 48 torpedoes are nothing to laugh at.
@@Never2late4UUSA is a weak don't compare that with Russia
@@Never2late4U Yet the west built the same sitting ducks that had to be escorted by 5 ships
Honestly just calling it battleship and is good example for what the 21st-century battleship would look like
I do wonder though how a Kirov would compare to a modern Burke III.
While it has 4x the missiles on paper, the quality of the missiles should also be taken into consideration.
The video already states that modern Aegis may have the ability to intercept even all P-700 missiles. P-700s are old weapons using obsolete technology, and I fully believe that Aegis could intercept all of them. As far as I'm aware Kirov doesn't have any more anti-ship weaponry, effectively leaving it disarmed.
As for the US ship, I think it cannot be overstated just how powerful the universal size for Mk41 missiles is. The cells can be filled with anything they want really, unlike the S-300s on the Kirov which can do air defense and air defense _only._ With the new LRASM missiles coming up, I'm not confident that the outdated radars of Kirov will be able to target and attempt an intercept against them. And even if they could, VLS has incredible potential of saturation attack. S-300 is not active radar homed (please correct me if I'm wrong?) so the amount of incoming LRASMs (again, provided Kirov could even see them) that Kirov could intercept at a time would be limited by the Kirov's radars themselves. No matter what they will hardly be stopping 20 - 30 LRASMs coming at them.
Also it gives the question how the Kirov would compare to modern aegis vessels other than the Burke, say the Chinese 055?
With 112 VLS cells, active-radar guided HHQ-9Bs and YJ-21 anti-ship ballistic missiles, I'm almost certain that the 055 would wipe the floor with Kirov, but again I might be overlooking something here.
Come on, Admiral Nakhimov is soon leaving docks with state of the art weapons including hypersonic. Then Peter the Great will be docked for the same upgrade.
@@TheRVSN Leaving the dock under its own power, or do they need a tugboat to move it?
@@brucetucker4847 Ask the shipyard.
@@TheRVSNconsidering they've delayed her return to service 3 times now I question if those upgrades for the Veliky will be worth it. What's the point in upgrading your old ship with modern weapons if by the time it returns to service those weapons are easy to stop?
@@TheRVSNOh yeah and they've announced Pyotr Veliky is going to be retired from service. Looks like it'll just be Nakhimov.
Video: Speaks for six seconds.
Me: "KIROV REPORTING!"
Russian navy: I want to get better!
Russian economy: that’s the neat part, you don’t.
I respect your humble honesty! "DON'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR/READ ON THE INTERNET! "
True about being careful what you see on the internet. However, from first hand experience, you can see a Russian warship burning heavy oil fuel 30 miles away from the bridge of a warship. They have very limited endurance at sea before breaking down.
I've seen this channel but have yet to stop by until today. And surprisingly, it's not what I thought! Quit COoL and informative. And yes! You got me with that "smoking gun"... Photoshopped. Who would have thunk? Thank for the video. I am in the loop now. So I'll be waiting to be impressed (that's what she said). Cheers from So.Ca.USA 3rd house on the left (please call before stopping by)
Not as armed as my ships in stormworks
Every time I hear about the fall of the Soviet Union I just get this mental image of a soldier. Standing in the middle of Bunker. ' umm.. hello? Anyone here.. is this a holiday.. '
Hopefully this one doesn’t mysteriously sink on them!!!
😉😏
Yes, it could be an environment disaster!!
Hands down the most beautiful warship ever.
The reason i stay on this channel is because it mention things as they are no propaganda
2:53 is why i enjoy this channel so much
In America it’s considered a high honor to serve aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier, in ruzzia it’s considered a death sentence.
Russia doesn’t have a nuclear aircraft carrier
Russia does not have any nuclear-power carriers but they do have similar powered submarines. Remember Kursk with all crews lost, russian warships r dangerous to the enemies as well to their own crews. 😂😅😊
Russia* speak english properly
@@sebastian-FX357Z1Yet they captured tons of NATO weapons and tanks successfully.😂 It's all over the news.
@@DsFk80s Yeah land based combat results in losses. What a shocking revelation. 😂
Russia: makes super stealthy nuclear powered battlecruiser, forces it to follow the dirtiest running ship on the ocean
The Kirov class has a smokestack is because it has a conventionally-fueled superheater on the secondary steam cycle of the nuclear power plant.
I like the lesson just before 3:00 good job!
Russians call Kirov a missile cruiser, while Kuznetsov is an aircraft carrying cruiser
Talk about amenities. The captain has a wood burning fireplace in his quarters, hence the smoke stack. What a pampered rascal.
I respect your alert for not taking the internet at face value. Seems to be very important these days
So the KIROV CGN is what we call a CONAS propulsion system or COmbination Nuclear And Steam. They use the conventional oil fired steam plant for inshore and near inshore propulsion and the Nuclear power plant for when they are heading further out to sea. We also know that her top speed is 32 to 35 kts based on she was one of the first ships to make it to the MIKE SSN disaster and she made well over 30kts in 20 to 30 foot seas.
Curious for max speed if they need to run a Nuclear reactor and the boilers or if they could just run both reactors. Or are you saying both reactors and both the boilers would all need to be running for max speed?
honestly in my opinion, russia should make many destroyers and arm those instead of piling everything into one.
that way, in an event a destroyer is destroyed it’s easily made again or replaced than a battlecruiser.
russia is also a continental base form which they have long range missiles as another advantage. whereas america projects its power through navy cause they are very far away.
the newest Russian submarine ive heard is OP. They call it the Moskva.
😂😂😂😂
Many years ago, on patrol in the Med, the Kirov was on the horizon. As I watched, smoke billowed from her stacks, indicating that the steam from the steam generators was being superheated. Damn - that thing was fast.
Small mistake - the normal speed of any Russian naval vessel is "dry docked" with a maximum speed of "the tugboat dragging it back to port"
A very slick and good looking ship.
Such a badass Machine, If only it was maintained properly, then you could say "it can sink anything"
but now they can say: it can sink anytime.
You are correct when you state the Kirov class cannot achieve top speed without bringing an oil-fired boiler online. During the 1970s I was stationed in USS Francis Hammond (FF-1067), we were conducting SOAP or Soviet Out-Of-Area Operations. Simply put, we were following a Kirov class ship and another ship. The Soviets would very rarely venture outside their home waters. My ship was tasked to follow them around the Pacific.
It will probably be lost due to a "negligent russian sailor smoking a cigarette"
I didn't blink at "smoke can be seen from space, because I've seen my own house's roof and yard in a satelite photo, in real time view like a sophisticated military surveilance satelite has, of course it can be seen! The ship itself is many times smaller than a diesel cloud, but tens of times larger than my house.
Everyone thinks our weapons technology is what makes the US military so great, it is but a small part. Our logistics, like it ability to feed and arm our soldiers in the other side of the planet is what makes us so powerful. Any insurgency can fight a defensive war on their own turf, but only America can sustain a war anywhere in the world.
you do know they are really low on large cargo ships do you? If war would break out in Taiwan usa could do nothing.
don't forget our N C O's
And all while failing their last 6 audits, failing to account for 60% of their assets, failing to account for almost half a trillion $ each year, of graft and fraud, stealing from the American people, for fake wars, expending our troops for graft and profiteering. USA! USA!
Just like how you sustained in Vietnam and Afghanistan
@@bigbadcivic2 The U.S. can still out produce any other country and we still know how to build cargo ships. Look at liberty and victory ships.
The standard was that nuke boats didn't even come with stacks. We observed the Soviet battle cruiser "Peter the Great" off Mariel, Cuba in 1979. The deck was so densely concentrated with weapon systems and electronic gear it was impossible to distinguish what being what. But it appeared to be an all missile warship.
The vokopad system is actually cool I’m all in for western surface warships to have torpedoes as weapons too
What a great ship. USSR was a different country than Russia today
I’ve never had any doubt that the U.S. Navy is still the top dawg on the globe, by a nautical mile!
Yeah, it's not even close.
Though it's funny, I was looking at a webpage GlobalFirePower, and they list the top navies by "strength" as follows:
1. China
2. Russia
3. North Korea
4. U.S.A.
5. Sweden
Isn't that cute? Bless their little regarded (sub g for t) hearts.
Now, let's look at displacement in tonnage.
1. United States - 3,509,640
2. Russia - 1,033,480
3. China - 1,032,225
4. Japan - 470,900
5. United Kingdom - 353,020
Add up 2-5 = 2,889,625 and it's still well short of the U.S.
Don't know how current those numbers are, if they account for the destroyed Russian ships, or how many of China's fishing boat navy is above water, or their nuclear sub caught by their own sub-trap.
If you just count the tonnage of nuclear submarines for the U.S. alone, it's not far off the other's total navy displacement. And, I don't think we even need to mention nuclear aircraft carriers, that can actually launch fully loaded fighters, that also don't need ski-jumps and tugboats.
Then when you account for technology, maintenance, and crew competency, it only gets much much worse for the others. Then to go further, the U.S. actually has true allies who like each other (not despicable evil frenemies), who make up the majority of the top 20 navies, and they extensively train together in large scale exercises and can integrate their systems well.
It doesn't stop at the navy comparisons, either.
F around and find out!
What, you have a problem with my anti mosquito cannon?
A absolutely love the way say to not even trust what you say. Kudos to you to spread awareness about critical thinking! Something that is almost extinct it looks like these day...
NWYT rarely sponsored Modern Warships game that can be related this Kirov class on the game
I thought the boilers were used to add superheat to the reactor steam at high speed because reactors don't make superheated steam but saturated steam which is bad for turbine blades and causes erosion of the blading . I am a former boiler operater and our high pressure boilers have superheaters built in them
Pressurised water reactors make superheated steam as their primary circuit is at extreme pressures allowing the steam created in the turbine circuit to be significantly above 100C
I dont know if the russians use pwr or boiling water reactors which run at lower pressure, but apparently make enough heat for a power plant
Let's remember that Russia can't even build an exportable car.
If there is anything the russians have REALLY not figured out its having a capable marine, if you want to know how not to set up your marine department just look at the russian fleet
To be fair, with the exception of operations in the Black Sea, a competent navy has always been a luxury for Russian imperialism, not a necessity for survival.
@ yes, thats completely true. But the best way to influence military power over the world is with a competent navy
Respect the journalistic integrity, NWYT!
Wow it is invincible like the Moskva 😊
I never thought I’d hear a kirov be described as stealthy
In comparison to many Russian ships which are normally on fire I suppose it could be considered stealthy
Most People might not realized this. Nuclear Power is basically a fancy name for Morden Steam Engines. The Nuclear Fusion is just a fuel to fire up the boilers. Then they use heated boiler to propels the propellers and electrical dynamo for operate. Basically the ships stills pretty much the same after WWI it just that you just have a firebox as Nuclear Powerhouse. It still has boilers and stuff. Hence Steam can be reuse. Ships still don’t need to refueling much like WWIi because steam can circulate into water which can be reuse. Most Steam Engines are usually refilling Oil or Coal but not much on Water. Steam Locomotives refill more water due to it release steam out. Plus, Turbine Steam engine works better on ships than Trains. And Steam Turbine is better on circulating steam into water. Which reduce the water usage.
So they once again mistook fishing boats for enemy ships? Guess they didn't learn anything from Dogger Bank
Regardless of politics nd everything that's going on, I honestly wish I could see a Kirov class Battlecruiser irl (some time in my lifetime)
7:00 - Imagine being on the bridge of that ship back then!!! What a ride!
The shipwreck would likely keep flying due to the momentum. However it won't reach the target unless it was shot down by like CIWS. The distance is too great if it was intercepted by missiles. However its warhead probably won't detonate due to the samage and its not guided so it might still miss even with the momentum.
The shipwreck might be able to sustain a hit from older SAM which use blast-fragmentation warhead. The later SM-2 and SM-6 have enlarged warhead, while the SM-3 uses a direct-hit kinetic warhead. Those would easily destroy the shipwreck in air.
I'm building one in 1/700 at the moment. Thanks for all the nice footage
Imagine being captaining that 😮
I would felt like Davy Jones
When you're talking about the Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov you were 100% right about the smoke stack.. The one thing you forgot to add was that this is such a piece of shit ship that it has been in and out of dry dock for the past 10 years and has been plagued with one problem or another since it's launching in 85
CYKA BLYAAAAAAT
I once said, "every door to the weather decks, you will run into some weapon system"
The Moskva was supposed to be awesome as well; we know how well that ship was maintained
No "no smoking" signs near the compartments where the ordnance is stored😉
How does this dude already know what everyone’s individual thoughts are when he assumes ‘it’s not what you think?’
The US Navy decommissioned all of their nuclear powered cruisers not due to high operating costs but because their combat systems were obsolete, arm launchers and rotating antennas, and there was no easy way, in some classes no way whatsoever to reconfigure their hulls to accommodate Mk-41 VLS and their superstructures would have had to have been removed and replaced with a completely different superstructure to house the SPY-1 radars and other combat management equipment used by the Aegis system. It was cheaper to retire them and replace them with new Ticonderoga class CGs.
Interesting video, thanks for sharing! 👍
He probably knows this, but Kuznetsov is classified as a cruiser because carriers aren't allowed to transit the Bosporus and the Dardanelles.
The Kuznetsov isn't making much smoke nowadays. Unless you refer to the times it was on fire.
Fun fact: in Russian language a ship is "he", not "she".
I think that Russian ships are powered by cigars and vodka. That smoke is just from the captains stogie. 😂
At 721" the Long Beach was not half the size of the 827' Kirov class. Half the displacement, yes. Half the size, no. Size and displacement are two different things. This is especially relevant considering that in addition to steel, Long Beach was built using 450 tons of structural aluminum.