Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Soooo
Are you saying theis class doesn't have any problems, contrary to reported news?
Are you saying they do, but so do the Americans, even though we're not talking about US ships ?
Are you saying they had problems, didn't finish the 5th ship, and two are mothballed ( leaving 2 out of what was supposed to be 5 ), because the Soviet Union broke up 30 years ago ?
And why are you using their break-up as an excuse ?
Why did the Soviet Union break up ?
Oh yeah !
They broke up because the 'arms race' required them to spend too much on weapons like the Kirov class, instead of feeding the people.

Jesus, it's almost like you weren't alive when the Soviet Union collapsed !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

GPS is a 'local' receiver of time/location information from the orbiting satellites. You might be able to 'swamp' the local receiver so that it can't detect the satellite signals, but a military sys

The Kirov ? Really ? If the Russians had gotten that right, it would have been the only one, as they failed miserably with their carriers, and had to sell them for liquid funds to India and China

Wars without human casualties tend to go on as long as money/resources last. My opinion on the matter was formed by an episode of Star Trek:TOS, 'A Taste of Armageddon'. Read the plot here     

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Are you saying theis class doesn't have any problems, contrary to reported news

What reported news? Propaganda? English speaking news?

Russia is pushing the envelope on a lot of things the US isn't. I'd imagine the Kirov class does this as well.

The US lost an entire Landing Ship sitting in Port.

What was that all about? 

Problems exist. They aren't existential.

The two mothballed were earlier hulls completed decades ago. The current Kirovs were never completed and therefore are newer so hence not mothballed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

In the United States, they decided to abandon the project of a super-powerful gun capable of firing at 2000 kilometers.

According to the Expert, the rejection of the development of the Strategic Long Range Canon (CLC) gun in its new material was reported by The Drive. The published draft of the US defense budget for the 2022 fiscal year does not contain data on the financing of the program.

As stated in the explanation, " this direction will be completed in the 2021 fiscal year." The funds will be reallocated to other projects related, in particular, to the development of long-range ammunition, navigation systems and vehicles

The gun was designed to fire high-precision rockets at a range of more than 1,000 nautical miles (1,852 kilometers). They wanted to transport the platform with the gun using a heavy wheeled tractor Oshkosh M1070 HET (8=8), which has a three-axle semi-trailer.

Research and development work on the program began in 2018. In fiscal year 2020, $ 61.8 million was allocated to the SLRC program, and $ 62.7 million in 2021.

The other day it became known about the completion of another ambitious American project-a railgun, created in the interests of the US Navy. At one time, they wanted to install it on the destroyer Zumwalt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

In the United States, they decided to abandon the project of a super-powerful gun capable of firing at 2000 kilometers.

According to the Expert, the rejection of the development of the Strategic Long Range Canon (CLC) gun in its new material was reported by The Drive. The published draft of the US defense budget for the 2022 fiscal year does not contain data on the financing of the program.

As stated in the explanation, " this direction will be completed in the 2021 fiscal year." The funds will be reallocated to other projects related, in particular, to the development of long-range ammunition, navigation systems and vehicles

The gun was designed to fire high-precision rockets at a range of more than 1,000 nautical miles (1,852 kilometers). They wanted to transport the platform with the gun using a heavy wheeled tractor Oshkosh M1070 HET (8=8), which has a three-axle semi-trailer.

Research and development work on the program began in 2018. In fiscal year 2020, $ 61.8 million was allocated to the SLRC program, and $ 62.7 million in 2021.

The other day it became known about the completion of another ambitious American project-a railgun, created in the interests of the US Navy. At one time, they wanted to install it on the destroyer Zumwalt.

It would be useful to link to your sources of information

Strategic Long Range Cannon is an army project, not navy. Nothing to do with battleships

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/03/09/strategic-long-range-cannon-effort-in-holding-pattern-ahead-of-tech-feasibility-report/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Strategic Long Range Cannon is an army project, not navy. Nothing to do with battleships

The author of this topic at the very beginning expressed the idea that the appearance of super-powerful long-range artillery systems will lead to the revival of battleships. This news also suggests that work on such artillery systems is being curtailed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

The author of this topic at the very beginning expressed the idea that the appearance of super-powerful long-range artillery systems will lead to the revival of battleships. This news also suggests that work on such artillery systems is being curtailed.

It's very tempting, to imagine big is better; when big often wins.

Battleships are just bigger target's... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

The author of this topic at the very beginning expressed the idea that the appearance of super-powerful long-range artillery systems will lead to the revival of battleships.

But it’s a different kind of system (they mention propellant) so it’s not applicable to the navy’s effort, which was a railgun

The requirements for shipboard systems are usually very different than for land-based systems

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

This news also suggests that work on such artillery systems is being curtailed.

Then report on the relevant system. And provide a link

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40875/the-navys-railgun-looks-like-its-finally-facing-the-axe-in-new-budget-request

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Russia has Kirov class battlecruiser which has a displacement of 20,000 t, roughly the same as earliest dreadnaughts. 

 

Remember that during ww2 the Yamato required aircraft from 5 carriers and 11 torpedoes to be sunk. And it was all alone without air cover or any other kind of ship around

 

What do you think of something like this?

Alexander Kolchak class battleship

Displacement: 50,000 t 

armament

- 4x 380 mm L/55 smoothbore gun, autoloader, guided shells with radar, laser or TV guidance

- 6x 127 mm L/55 smoothbore gun

- 8x CIWS

- 144x guided missile cells

- nuclear propulsion

- active and passive sonar

- AESA?PESA radar 500+ km range

- 1x helicopter, 4x recon/ASW/EW drones

 

Edited by Hans de Vries
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.