What exactly was the point of these ships? Just to carry extra-large

>>34360977
They were made to kill carrier battle groups from long distance with the help of land-based, long range naval aviation assets like the Tu-22. It was a strange, asymmetric way to counter American sea power, No idea if it would have ever worked.

File: 0_67971_b6aa8e2a_XXXL.jpg (386KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1280x853px

>>34361163
In 80s, that could work with high chance of success. Nowdays, and without the refit of "Orlan" - most likely it won`t.

>>34360977
the point is to show all you fucking tiny dicked AmeriBurgers that Russian dick is the biggest.

>>34361163
>>34361163

So the idea is that it can coordinate with friendly air assets better than a submarine can? I guess I'm just trying to figure out why you'd want this versus building an SSGN instead. Also, if the idea is to have a possible counter against CSG then you'd think they want at least 11 of them.

>>34360977
Funny that you'd mention that. I'm just reading through the whole Kirov saga, with a ship of that class transported to WWII and shenanigans ensuing.
The amount of missiles and weapon systems on that thing is absolutely retarded.

>>34361412
>I guess I'm just trying to figure out why you'd want this versus building an SSGN instead

To support the Soviet and Polish thrust across Northern Europe. Easier to maintain than submarines, longer service, greater capacity and capable of taking helicopters and Naval Infantry.

>>34361308
You mean Russian compensating for something is is somehow worse than American Compensating for something.

>>34360977
To fuck destroyers and frigates by being bigger than them and blowing them up with bigger missiles. Their job is to be the biggest, baddest surface combatant afloat... you know, a battle cruiser.

>>34361444
Have any links with detailed information ? Would very much like to learn a whole lot more about the class.
>>34361412
Not all CSG would be deployed at the same spot. Yet, they still had too few.
>>34361236
I heard Orlan was being delayed because of unsatisfactory performance and with very little hope of a decent fix in the near future.

>>34361544
Long story short, it has enough weapons to theoretically deal with a carrier group with all its air assets all by itself, two times over at least.
That's in theory though, but enough to make it a bit of a headache.

File: frunze-soviet-battlecruiser.jpg (104KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x550px

>>34360977
not a navy stratey expert but i think the idea was to block areas
a battle group with one of this bad boys would have been a serous problem even for an american carrier group
also they are just astheatic

The purpose of a capital ship is to fight other ships. I think the Kirov class was intended to block chokepoints like the Bosphorus, or the Danish straits.

>>34361236
>>34361604
What were the countermeasures of a carriere group against something like a 500kt nuclear anti-ship missile in the 80s?

>>34361701
Sinking it first with the air wing, not being in missile range and hoping to fuck that the ruskis wouldnt feel like employing "special ammunition" to try to even the balance at sea.

File: 949a with 3m45 p-700 granit.jpg (303KB, 814x570px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 814x570px

>>34360977
>What exactly was the point of these ships?
Killing CBGs.
>Just to carry extra-large missiles
No, to carry a lot of different missiles.
>that wouldn't fit inside submarines?
Ahem.

>>34361412
Subs lack the radar and FCS to shoot missiles at ships from long range. SSGNs (which weren't even a thing back then) launch cruise missiles at pre-determined targets. To kill other surface combatants, you need powerful sensor systems for guidance. A dedicated surface-to-surface missile sub is impractical at best.

>>34360977
It's ork thinking.
Put ALL the dakka on one ship, and then add some more.

>>34361736
what would they do if the russians hed already fired it? nowdays they have advanced anti missile missiles but one hit with nuclear warhead would most likely sink most of a carrier group

>>34361757
is that why subs throughout the 70's and 80's carried tube launched tasm's and harpoons?

>>34360977
the kirov's always seemed retarded to me. they would have been prime targets for nato attack subs and would have needed large battlegroups of their own to counter the sub threat

>>34361807
>what would they do if the russians hed already fired it?
Kiss their ass goodbye, because the russians like making sure with several warheads.

>>34361701
A little. Those missiles are armored, jamming-resistant, maneuverable, build with some stealth features and are flying at >M2. [spoiler]and cost like jet fighter[/spoiler]
>>34360977
They build them in a period of time, when people responsible for that lost their minds. From medical point of view, they had marasmus.

>>34360977
Future artificial coral reefs.

>>34360977
Actually it's area defense against aircraft. They're designated patrol ships of Soviet bastions. The P700 and 48N6 missiles can be used if they encounter lone ships but against CBGs, the strike forces include land based bombers. The Kirov carries 2 separate S300 units (Pyotr carries 1 S300F and 1 S300FM and Nakhimov will carry 2 S300FMs). The radar sensors are why its big and since it also carries Tor missile systems and Kashtan CIWS that are designed to defend the S300. It is almost a complete S300 brigade, it is only missing BuK anti air missile system. The next inline ship, Slava, only carries 1 S300 system.

arent they vulnerable to just being sunk when they're in dock for their multi-year retrofit/repair sessions that they will likely never finish?

Its like the people here that want to have Iowas outfitted with gliders or something.

They were an interesting counter to US cbgs, but the russians/soviets are not a great surface naval power.

>>34360977

As far as I understand it, whereas US Navy doctrine is all about air power - the carrier is the attack force, and everything else just exists to protect the carrier - Soviet/Russian Navy doctrine was all about long-range missiles.

>>34361836
How is that different from aircraft carriers?

>>34360977
In simulation games, I just buff their P700 missiles. So in those games, their point would be the 20 P700 missiles they carry that have high hit rates and are very hard to shoot down by defensive systems.

I don't what what their point is IRL.

They are aesthetic though.

A battlegroup around a Kirov is a counter to any supercarrier battlegroup. AA missiles for days, currently only 20 AShM but the Nakhimov will have 80 after its refit. And the Petr Velikiy is planned to get a 80 missile VLS filled with a mix of AShMs and cruise missiles in a few years.

A super sized missile boat is probably also easier and cheaper to run. (and afaik the Americans also studied the viability but decided not to build some because they already had supercarriers)

>>34366545
>Soviet/Russian Navy doctrine was all about long-range missiles.
It's all about subs.

>>34361412
>Also, if the idea is to have a possible counter against CSG then you'd think they want at least 11 of them.

The Soviets tried to build a big navy, but they did this thing called "collapsing", which pretty much ended their naval ambitions.

>>34360977
>What exactly was the point of these ships?

To slowly rust

>>34366930
>A super sized missile boat is probably also easier and cheaper to run.

It ends up not being the case. Plus you lose an absurd amount of actual aerial defense with a single vessel. Two ships can cover much more area (or better yet one acts as a SAM trap) and are substantially more flexible and survivable.