10,000 miles range with nuclear power? Uhhh, the range is a lot more than 10,000 NM

@christianleyden9582

5 ай бұрын

Glad I'm not the only one that questioned that statement 😂

@gameface6091

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, it's more like however far it can go in 25 years if it's anything like its U.S. counterparts.

@frankfedison5203

5 ай бұрын

It's complicated...her reactors alone can't get her to "fleet speed", so she also has diesel engines. Her range is technically unlimited, but slow as hell; she can go about 10, 000 miles at 30 knots before the diesel runs out. 😂

@gameface6091

5 ай бұрын

@@frankfedison5203 Thank you for that info!

@PugilistCactus

5 ай бұрын

Perhaps maybe if it was being run at Soviet navy standards. These ships have definitely started to show their ages and don't go too far from a dock because of it.

Fun fact, the commissioning of the Kirov class is what lead the US to reactivate and refit the Iowa class battleships originally built during WW2

@heuhen

4 ай бұрын

Iowa class was recommissioned to meet the 600 ship Navy, that Reagan wanted. Not due to the Kirov. US Navy wasn't that worried about Kirov class, they only needed their submarines to carry more torpedoes for that ship. The story about Iowa was recommissioned due to Kirov, was just some writing done by some "fan", so it could be cool. But the reason was just as simple as the Navy needed to hit the Reagan 600 ship navy demand.

@wallflower15875

4 ай бұрын

@@heuhen Well the Kirov was still definitely a factor in recommissioning

@victorduny9842

4 ай бұрын

Ummm…can you produce any proof of that?

@mcsleuthburgur1034

4 ай бұрын

While there's no evidemce for it since it was a shower thought, I like the idea that the US navy heard about this ship and thought "Iowa's got nothing going on now, we can pull her out of retirement, slap a couple extra .50cals on for good measure and call it a day. Should be more than enough"

@heuhen

4 ай бұрын

@@wallflower15875 No it wasn't at all. Spy-1 radar and massive missile load on Ticonderoga was the direct respns to Kirov. US Navy would never send an Iowa after Kirov, they would use a Submarine.

I still find the idea of a carrier more terrifying

@PugilistCactus

5 ай бұрын

This was built to operate in places a carrier is not able to venture into.

@maltehaus

5 ай бұрын

@@PugilistCactusso you mean the coast fjords and the black sea?

@PugilistCactus

5 ай бұрын

@@maltehaus Arctic. This ship is meant for a blue water fleet. You will not see this behemoth operating in green water unless someone really screwed up. Which is why the only place you will see them is St Petersburg where they are docked.

@deepinthought2329

5 ай бұрын

​@PugilistCactus Unless someone really screws up, so we should expect to see it there in a few months if Russian navy history is anything to go by.

@SergyMilitaryRankings

5 ай бұрын

This would wreck a carrier. It's more than double the size and armaments of the US navy biggest ships the Zumwalt and Ticonderoga Cruisers

While not very practical to have a huge warships nowadays (hello unmanned kamikaze boats), this is still a spectacular ship. The only battlecruiser in the world, as far as i know. And looks majestic!

@nathanielweber7843

4 ай бұрын

It’s not a battle cruiser. It’s just a cruiser/guided missile cruiser depending if you want to emphasize the missile armament. There has not been a battle cruiser built since the 1920s, arguably not since the 1910s if you call HMS Hood a fast battleship. And if you don’t understand the difference, a battle cruiser exists to supplement the line of battle between capital ships circa Jutland or other such capital ship fights. Given that the line of battle hasn’t existed since 1945 when battleship fleets were retired in favor of carriers, any cruiser built after 1945 by a navy that doesn’t activate or retain battleship capital units is just a cruiser by definition. Regardless of size.

@shawn9635

4 ай бұрын

This is nice... what a warship should be instead of the modern day "warship"..which is simply a yacht with a deck gun..not too intimidating at all

@nathanielweber7843

4 ай бұрын

@@shawn9635 just a yacht with a deck gun. Don’t mind the rotational minigun turrets, CWIS systems, god knows how many missiles, and whatever else it may be armed with. If you think a modern destroyer does not look intimidating, sail up to one without permission. Any vessel you want barring warships, don’t care if it’s the worlds smallest motorboat or the worlds biggest cargo ship

@shawn9635

4 ай бұрын

@@nathanielweber7843 this may be but still..look at old videos of a task force battlegroup sailing in formation..not to mention opening up and you saw pure naval power..and sorry but it's just not there with these modern boats, nor does the overplayed single missle launch pound much fear in my heart...I'll take the old navy anyday

@nathanielweber7843

4 ай бұрын

@@shawn9635 I find missiles scarier than guns. More accurate, longer range, more destructive. Old aesthetics may look cooler or more intimidating, but I am more scared of an effective armed force then a propaganda force. Which is why I’m glad I get support from the US Navy and not the Russian or Chinese navies.

Just waiting for it's conversion to the submarine fleet !

@missk1697

4 ай бұрын

That was Slava, not Kirov 🙄

The 10,000 NM range, is when she is only running on gas turbines, some are there to giver here fleet speed. If she is running on Nuclear reactors, it is almost unlimited (years). Her reactors can only giver her a top speed of 20 knots!

They also make great submarines, well at least once 🤣😂🤣😂

@Tsargoldbear

5 ай бұрын

Bro is mad

@SergyMilitaryRankings

5 ай бұрын

None of these have been sunk

@generalflowerhead2047

5 ай бұрын

​@@Ruka.321_YTBro is mad

@nicholas7383

4 ай бұрын

@@Ruka.321_YTahhhh u mad 😂

@missk1697

4 ай бұрын

Just like us equipment makes for great tourist attraction for the Taliban.

"most terrifyingly designed warship ever made" Iowa class Battleship has entered the chat.

@SergyMilitaryRankings

5 ай бұрын

This would destroy an Iowa Class Battleship from miles away Besides Bismarck and Yamamoto were the bad boys of the battleships

@davidfence6939

5 ай бұрын

Iowa class was even equipped with nucs at one point. In 1v1 I'll take the Iowa

@SergyMilitaryRankings

5 ай бұрын

@@davidfence6939 Iowa is an outdated design, Chinas Type 55 Stealth Missle Cruiser or European Unions La Fayette class Stealth Multi Role Frigate would snipe it at distance with anti ship missles whilst the Iowa's ancient radar or flak guns could do nothing lol Regardless the Kirov is scary because it carries 248 missles lol, that's nearly 3 times the amount of an Arleigh Burke and enough to sink every single US war ship lol 😂 Jokes aside That's why its "scary" although big ships are no longer effective as Frigates and Destroyers are now the cornerstone of navies, with the US Arleigh Burke, Russia Admiral Gorshkov, EU FREMM and China Type 52C being the gold standards of destroyers

@metaknight115

4 ай бұрын

Iowa wasn’t even the scariest battleship in the world during WW2 (in a surface engagement at least), Yamato takes that title, and Yamato still got trashed by aircraft carriers. There’s a good reason why only six battleships saw combat following WW2, and only for secondary roles like shore bombardment. With enough luck, a single Arleigh Burke class destroyer would sink all four Iowa class battleships in a 1v4.

@metaknight115

4 ай бұрын

@@davidfence6939Except an Iowa’s guns were limited to 23.6 miles, and due to shell dispersion could only realistically hit enemy warships at about half that range. Basically any modern warship would sit hundreds of miles away and fill Iowa with guided missiles.

Beautiful ship but probably as effective as the moskova

@deepinthought2329

5 ай бұрын

Before or after the war started?

@Russinh0

5 ай бұрын

Moskva is from Slava class not kirov

@jackwhitetron

5 ай бұрын

@@Russinh0 yup, just trying to make a joke😅

@jackwhitetron

5 ай бұрын

@@deepinthought2329 😅

@ferretzim8694

5 ай бұрын

The ship or the capital?

AKA the Kirov Class underwater reef and fish amusement park if it actually goes into battle if it’s anything like the Moskva.

@kentriat2426

5 ай бұрын

Unlike the Black Sea cruiser this vessel has its close in support guns operational and ready to deal with everything the west can throw at it. The large multi band radars will be tracking every stealth aircraft the west can throw at it from 3,200 km range. This allows this ship and its escorts to lay down a field of anti aircraft missiles to take now aircraft and the missile they may fire. Unlike ships of WW2 that lacked long range defence systems this ship is supplied data from satellites allowing pre planning against any carrier group its going to attack

@DUSTKILLL

5 ай бұрын

Right because the Ukraine would knowingly contaminate the whole red sea by sinking a ship that's using nuclear power 😂

@victorduny9842

5 ай бұрын

@@DUSTKILLL your comment is incorrect - 1) ship/submarine nuke reactors are extremely well shielded and even Russian ones have fail safes. 2) the amount of nuclear fuel carried is relatively small so it will be localized if any does escape containment. 3) Ukraine is no where near the Red Sea. This along with your “😂” proves you’re just an idiot and any future comments from you will be ignored.

@vic5015

5 ай бұрын

​@@DUSTKILLLfair point.

@rickbase833

5 ай бұрын

​@DUSTKILLL If you think that an opposing force cares whether a target ship is nuclear powered....they do not. The Moskva was a Slava class conventionally powered ship....now subsurface husk. The Kirovs will never go into the Black Sea.....there is only one on active duty and Russia will not risk that ship. To alay your concerns.....there are many ships and boats that are nuclear powered in use today. The reactors will scram under emergency conditions. Also....the USN lost two nuke attack subs over the past 50 years....one even has nuke torpedoes on it. Life goes on.

All those missiles to hopefully sink a carrier before being utterly dominated. It’s the naval equivalent of throwing your shoe, and running away.

@craftpaint1644

5 ай бұрын

It wouldn't use anything smaller than nukes against a US Carrier Battle Group or two of them. This is what Putin meant when he said a war with NATO would be fought at a whole different level than that fought in Ukraine.

@chriswhite7220

5 ай бұрын

These ships do carry nukes

@tannissar5624

5 ай бұрын

​​@@craftpaint1644which is why the usn desided to see if a carrier can survive a nuke... it can. So, now you have a ship full of pissed of men that know death is certain and painful with a couple hundred jets, their own nukes, and more conventional armaments at their fingertips than all but about 5 entire countries have total... how exactly you think that is going to end?

@pappagone6066

5 ай бұрын

​@@tannissar5624hypersonic misdiled

@Notbigbird

5 ай бұрын

@@tannissar5624if a carrier is hit by an entire damn nuke, it will be completely out of action. It could very easily have the reactors destroyed if it hit, making it completely immobile and without power. Flight operations would be completely impossible as the flight deck will be completely unusable, assuming any planes survive. And this scenario is using a small tactical nuke of a few kilotons. the missiles the Kirov can carry can have a 200kt nuclear warhead, it doesn’t matter if it’s a carrier or not, that thing is getting destroyed and sinking to the bottom as an incredibly radioactive chunk of vaporized and twisted metal. Now this is assuming it gets through the missile defenses.

In theory it is scary because of the amount of weapons onboard. However, seriously out dated equip(compared to the West) lets it down.

@brianwesley28

5 ай бұрын

There are refits occurring.

@brianwesley28

5 ай бұрын

Imagine this with S-400 air defense and hypersonic missiles.

@michaelwong4303

5 ай бұрын

@@brianwesley28 yes the 🇺🇸ans are refitting their Areligh Burke and Ticonderoga too. ....And so are the 🇯🇵ese and 🇰🇷ans with their Ageis-compatable destroyers.....😉 And I very much doubt if the 🇷🇺an radar can even "approach" the latest 🇺🇸an Ageis....

@michaelwong4303

5 ай бұрын

@@brianwesley28 yes Very interesting but can the 🇷🇺an air-defenCe system even "approaches" the 🇺🇸an's capability?

@IsfetSolaris

5 ай бұрын

@@brianwesley28 Oh no, not hypersonic missiles!!! It's not like the US shoots them down almost daily over Ukraine!!!

It's probably terrifying for the crew who sails on her if she's anything like the other Soviet warships.

It really is one majestic ship if you think about it. Too bad we outgun it in the 90s

The issue with the Kirov class (and every ship designed specifically to counter aircraft carriers) is that CVs are never alone. It's a cool ship, but not the right ship for the job. Could it sink one carrier? Yes. Could it do that without being sunk by all the aircraft it carries? Maybe. Could it get through an entire carrier strike group? Absolutely not.

@ilikelampshades6

5 ай бұрын

Submarines can do all of those things with ease but surface ships cannot

@_Void_Archive_

5 ай бұрын

Launching all the missiles will definitely sink the aircraft carrier, it is impossible to intercept all the missiles. And Kirov will not be alone either

@mercwiththemouthsnewphone6798

5 ай бұрын

​@@_Void_Archive_given the fact it's a russian ship, i don't think anyone should be worried. That shit isn't gonna work right

@_Void_Archive_

5 ай бұрын

@@mercwiththemouthsnewphone6798 But usually NATO equipment does not work. Patriot, Half of the launches of which are unsuccessful, F22, which cannot even fly away from the airfield due to malfunctions. Russian weapons are still the best in the world. And you can continue to believe the propaganda. It's funny that you still think that more often than not, a gun is better, even though it hasn't been in combat against anyone serious. And even so, 15 Apaches were lost in Iraq to enemies without MANPADS, while the Ka52 lost 30 pieces against the second strongest army in Europe after the Russian Federation at the moment. You Americans are so funny... So with all your military equipment - expensive garbage

@nathanielweber7843

4 ай бұрын

@@_Void_Archive_sure. Most definitely. Whatever you say, that number of missiles is totally enough to overwhelm the carrier battle groups entire defense system. Wikipedia says so.

I was going to add that under nuclear propulsion that its only capable of 13 knots and needs its smoke spewing engins to get up to 33 knots which ironically the rest of the battle group is only capable of 23 knots. Thats some deep thinking from those military Einsteins.

@gameface6091

5 ай бұрын

That's pathetic.

@Masterafro999

5 ай бұрын

20 on nuclear, 32 combined. Google would have helped.

@mjcapo1

5 ай бұрын

They should've asked you when they designed these 40 years ago.

@heuhen

4 ай бұрын

Well she was designed to escort an nuclear carrier, that never got build, because a country called Soviet Union collapsed!

@meteorknight999

3 ай бұрын

Another expert of armchair ukrn supporter that will be crying for ukrn soon all life

Kirov reporting

I hope their air defense work better at sea than they do on land otherwise this is just a big floating target. If the Moskva was any indication I’m betting 60% of these systems are inoperable

Such a massive cruiser yet not a single soul visible on deck!

The Admiral Nakhimov refit will make this ship into a monster. She should be sailing 2024.

@brianwesley28

5 ай бұрын

It sure should.

Sea eagle….. A seagull

those are submarines, not battlecruisers*

@aaronchavez5546

5 ай бұрын

the Kirov class is not a submarine.

@ObeyWannTK6960

5 ай бұрын

​@aaronchavez5546 it will be if it ever goes into combat. Only it's dive to surface ratio will not be 1:1.

IF YOU CONVERT THE 800 FEET TO METERS , THEN ITS NOT THAT LONG. THE WHOLE WORLD MEASURES IN METERS.

MONSTER IN DOCK? GETTING IT'S OWN TUG?

@PugilistCactus

5 ай бұрын

They don't need a tug yet, but they definitely can't go as far as they used to.

@heuhen

4 ай бұрын

Kirov have never had problem, their carrier how ever....

a relic of the cold war. Attempts to build a new ship into an old hull are rarely successful, and one or two superships are not enough to rule the seas.

These big boats are obsolete, same as carriers. WW3 navies would be fought with drones. They'd be even drone carriers which itself is a drone.

@TankswillRule

5 ай бұрын

They said the same thing about the trench. Like still one of the best invention of humanity is digging a hole to hide in.

@jvb1232

4 ай бұрын

Carriers are most definetly not obsolete. Not as long as airpower is obsolete witch will be never. Also you contradict yourself by saying carriers are obsolete, but that their will be drone carriers…

“Sea eagle” is dangerously close to “seagull”, though

The kirov class was originally designed in the 1930s as a heavy cruiser powered by combustion they were redesigned when they started putting reactors on ships but that wasn't the first time the Soviets had a class named kirov

@smeghead765

4 ай бұрын

Completely different ship.

@spxdel8520

4 ай бұрын

@@smeghead765 wasn't the first time the Soviets had a class named kirov is what I said

I would be very surprised to see a U.S. warship as a frontline unit that was built way back when the Soviet Union existed. Also pretty sure it hasn’t been sailing off Ukraine. Probably time to retire it as a museum ship, before it joins the others at the bottom.

Seems like a ship covered with explosives would have a glass jaw. One hit from a harpoon missile could probably start cooking off all kinds of ordinance on that ship.

Kirov class was built in the same shipyard that Moskva was. In Mikolayiv, UKRAINE. Probably being tracked by a sub and/or satellites, wherever she goes. Looking forward to a second life as a submarine.

@SergyMilitaryRankings

5 ай бұрын

Cope

Dosent matter if they have 0 training in how to handle or maintain that equipment, that's how they lost their flagship on the black sea to two Neptune anti ship missiles that it should have been easily able to deal with but total incompetence due to lack of training in how to operate their ships systems ment it was sunk by two missiles when it was estimated to take atleast 16 to stand a chance of taking one down.

Well according to latest reports.....she underwent a couple of refit periods in the 90s and mid 2010s....to extend her service life into the 2040s. She was carrying some heavy duty SSM missiles as well as the latest S-300 naval variant. I'm just trying to figure out what the breakdown was with Moskva.....it appearsto be a combination of equipment reliability, training, poor Intel from Russian naval command on the availability of Ukraine anti-ship missiles.....and what ever else. We have recent reports of USN destroyers shooting down missiles and drones that Houthi factions were using against commercial ships. It means the USN ships are alert and ready for action.

It might be scary, if it was more modern and ran by a mildly competent Navy.

Ukraine’s Sea Baby: I don’t think so.

@boqndimitrov8693

2 ай бұрын

ukraine? better to worry about how he's going to pay off american "aid" after the war is over.

Kirov reporting!

How come the ship has 2 nuclear reactors but can only travel 10,000 miles? Did they mean 2 microwave ovens instead? Russia should send it to the Black Sea. I want to see if the Ukrainian can sink it.

I definitely know the range would have to be limitless till the nuclear fuel is depleted and needs to be replenished. Ten Thousand nautical miles would be pathetic for a nuclear powered vessel. It would probably be 10-20 million miles before it needed to be refueled. I am just guessing.

@PugilistCactus

5 ай бұрын

Age is the factor here.

@marselangjo2201

5 ай бұрын

The reactors are used for cruising at 20-22 knots but it uses gas turbines to go to 30knots. Those limit the range to 10000km at 30knots. Otherwise its unlimited when at cruise speed. Its a quarter of the displacement of a nimitz class carrier so its no surprise the reactor on board the Kirov is not on par with the American counterpart in terms of power.

Dont forget their missiles were built to defeat a 90‘ carrier group. Pretty sure a post cold war assessment found these left a 20 second window for interception for any given carrier group, with a very slim chance of successful interception.

And what a shame that it will never again leave the Black Sea.

They show really well on American long range radar.

Any other country could kill it with a single torpedo, and it has no defense against those either.

How much is Russia paying you to hype their stuff? You are obviously under contract as a p.r. guy.

@ItsZeDestroyah

4 ай бұрын

Man..he's not only explain8ng russian stuff bro...ypu just the only one that cannot admit someone talk good for russia because of the russo ukraine war(nato actually)

And now it's ageing 1970's tech

now if they would only spend the money for maintenance

Very Very impressive warship

All i see is a potential world class dive site....

Remember when the term "battlecruiser" was used for cruisers almost the size, firepower, and armor of battleships? This looks tiny compared to those ☠️

@metaknight115

4 ай бұрын

Wrong definition. Battlecruiser we’re battleships but with weak armor in order to gain a faster top speed. Still, by WW2, most countries had the text to allow their battleships to reach battlecruiser grade speeds without sacrificing much, if any armor.

1,000 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 30 knots (56 km/h) (combined propulsion), unlimited at 20 knots (37 km/h) on nuclear power (google)

10K miles, I'm thinking my ships at UAD has more range that that. And they're not nuclear.

they make great reefs for fish after being sunk by a couple missles

There's like 1 and its been going through refit for years... Nice target!

also known as FLOATING BANKRUPCY

i think kirov class are getting upgrades too in order to be able carry the Zircon and BrahMos II hypersonic anti ship cruise missiles and the S-400 defense system

Oh shit nuclear powered? We all doomed. It will sink like their subs, and irradiate the ocean.

It would take NATO about 5 minutes to sink this relic😆😆

@Nirivan

5 ай бұрын

You should prey that this scenario would never happen.

@kw8757

5 ай бұрын

@@Nirivan I'm not Russian so i'm not worried.

@Nirivan

5 ай бұрын

@@kw8757 you are an ignorant fool. War against Russia means the game over to the rest of the world. It does not matter who u are - russian, american or african farmer, this will affect everybody

244 meters length ... impressive. 🤔

Looks like a target 2 me. Submerges quickly, getting it to surface again is state secret.

I didn't think any Kirovs were active due to cost?

That thing is the size of Bismarck and half the weight. Bismarck needs to go loose some thiccness.

Since the first time i see this ship image, i have falling in love with the ship's looking and design ❤❤❤ Russian knows how to make an amazing and deadly naval ship

@joedimaggio3687

5 ай бұрын

This ship looks somewhat similar to an Iowa class battleship.

@kw8757

5 ай бұрын

😂😂😂 They really don’t, how’s that Russian aircraft carrier going with its own tug?😂😂

@theswampangel3635

5 ай бұрын

And which class of Russian surface ships would that be?

A maintenance nifhtmare with most weapons and guidance systems inoperable. Im impressed.

2 nuclear reactors that only give you 10 thousand miles that doesn't make sense

@PugilistCactus

5 ай бұрын

Age is the factor.

Why didn't you include the fact that it has 2 nuclear engines and 1 oil based engine?

There are sum ships that weight over 700.000 Tons.

OK but why is the deck red

Maybe 50 years ago, not so much today

Battleships don’t work effectively now in a post modern war because drones are more faster and missiles are so fitted with AI auto correct technology so even it gets countered, it will be faster and reach the target 10 or 100 times faster

@Ryuu1010YT

Ай бұрын

will be take down a big shell from battleship?

Bigger Russian ship....bigger Russian target.

@illiashinai8577

4 ай бұрын

@@Ruka.321_YTMore ruzzian ships - more “submarines”

What would happen if it sinks with 2 nuclear reactors

But I think there's only 1 left

LOL exactly how do two reactors give a 10,000 mile range? Can someone explain

Maybe there should have been a caveat added: most terrifying Non aircraft carrier...😅

They are beautiful.

why they made a cruiser nuclear powered, and not their carrier?

Need 2 swap out those slow missiles. Perhaps the engine suite as well... Not as vulnerable as Moskva, as the ammo is tucked below deck.

@SergyMilitaryRankings

5 ай бұрын

Those missles are not slow and the engines are fine, the Moskva wasn't vulnerable, it was hit by multiple anti ship missles.

Anything russian made is no longer terrifying

*looks at the moskava* is it functioning though

600 in variety Soviet's heavy cruisers.

Its practical as a submarine

Its like a cruiser

sunk by cheap drones and missles.

One cheap drone into the missile bay... buh bye!

Didn’t one of them become a submarine?

if this class of ship was made by a more competent navy it would be a menace, but since it’s russian it ain’t that good

Nuclear powered ships have an unlimited range, much more than 10000 mile.

@TankswillRule

5 ай бұрын

They will need replacement of the control rods, fuel, the fuel channels themselves, piping, controls, wiring etc.

A very big target

هل سمعتم ما قاله، صواريخ مضادة للغواصات، هناك صواريخ مضادة للغواصات تطلقها السفن و المروحيات على الغواصات ثم تنقض على الغواصة من سطح الماء لتصل اليها ان لم تكن على عمق كبير ، لم أرى هذا التمرين على ضرب الغوصات بالصواريخ، اخبروا قيادتكم لعلهم يجهلون هذا فما أكثر مايجهلون

Uhhmmm i thought they are airships

Calling it a battlecruiser is simply incorrect. Battlecruisers had specific design philosophies and were designed for a completely different fight.

@SergyMilitaryRankings

4 ай бұрын

Those definitions no longer apply. A battle cruiser is just a large warship around 10,000-29,000 tons with over 180-190 weapons systems For example the Kirov is around ~28,000 tons with ~240 weapons systems

@alexalbrecht5768

4 ай бұрын

@@SergyMilitaryRankings they definitely still do. Battlecruisers and battleships are purpose built warships that are designed around an obsolete doctrine. The Kirovs are merely guided missile cruisers. They are big cruisers but they are cruisers all the same. They certainly represent an interesting choice by the Soviets and the Russians by keeping them in service. The Russian surface force won’t last a week against NATO so it’s a surprise they are keeping the large surface targets in service. Submarines are the only real way the Russians can fight a naval war.

@SergyMilitaryRankings

4 ай бұрын

@@alexalbrecht5768 you have no idea what you're talking about, love how you bring NATO into which largely has the European Union (the most powerful military) and the USA (3rd most powerful) they are too big to be cruisers, a cruiser is generally only 10,000-19,000 tons with around 70-190 weapons systems usually VLS Cells, canons, guns, Autocannons, missle pods, ASWs and CIWS. China's navy would wreck the US navy, just like the USSR navy would have The old classification system doesn't exist anymore, like the failed Zumwalt ships are classified as destroyers yet they are cruiser, weighing more than the Ticonderoga missle cruiser

@rizon72

4 ай бұрын

They've been unofficially called battlecruisers now for 40 years because of their size.

@alexalbrecht5768

4 ай бұрын

@@rizon72 I know why people do it I’m just stating that it’s incorrect.

If a western nation brought and upgraded the Kirov battle-Cruiser class warship with gatling guns, highly advanced anti-missile systems, electrical jamming equipment, and all other weaponary and defence systems western warships have the Kirov class warships would be a formidable asset worthy of taking on carrier battle groups but best send about 7 in a battle group if they going up against Carrier Battle Groups. It'll be a tough battle but might be what's needed to kill and hunt aircraft carriers while it's subordinates take out the other warships and submarines while factoring in costs to implement the weapons, defence systems and anti-submarine warfare as well as areas of no-fly zones arouns the warship would be tremendously high (which means higher taxes inland to supplement the warship) funding these monstrosities would be either bank or kill a nations finance assets.

Is it any better than our ships, if so why aren't we building a comparable ship?

You all can learn something from them ships but what i can not say

Terrifying ships!!!!! That never leave the Black Sea, and are lucky if they leave their own ports

If built in the 1970’s, how long will they last? 🤔

@SergyMilitaryRankings

5 ай бұрын

You realise the Ticonderogas and Nimitz were built in the 70s

@dennisammann9104

5 ай бұрын

@@SergyMilitaryRankings Good point, I should have thought this comment out better. 🤔 I remember when they finally decommissioned USS Enterprise (CVN-65). They kept her in commission well past her ‘expiration date’ because they didn’t know what to do with a nuclear ship that large? I often wonder what became of her? How they disposed of her ‘hot’ areas? 🤔⚡️💫

@SergyMilitaryRankings

5 ай бұрын

@@dennisammann9104 radioactive fish lol and ships can be retrofitted they did this to Ticonderogas and Nimitz a few years ago, Kirov and Kuznetsov and many others are being refitted for service

@metaknight115

4 ай бұрын

In to at least the 2040s with various refits, I think.

So anyway America has a floating air force which is the second largest in the world after our actual Air Force....

Lol most terrifying.. that ship is one bad day away from becoming a new man reef.

Things old burgs eill make excellent reefs.

most terrifying ship!! *defeated by rubber dingy and some splosives*

@SergyMilitaryRankings

4 ай бұрын

This ship has never been lost

And are able to be quickly converted to a submarine by a radio controlled jet ski the entire Russian military seems to be woefully inadequate and overrated not able to perform most tasks they are advertised to