1. You will not be destroying the port, you will capture the ports to use them. Only a moron would cause heavy damage to the ports. The only time destroying a naval point is acceptable is if you are retreating from it or if the enemy is dug in and refuses to leave but if you try and use those guns for that, then you don't know what your doing at all. So bringing up "let's bombard the ports" shows a clear lack of understanding of procedure on your end. Keep reading them internet articles.
He said Ports were on the coastline... he never said landings would be performed at ports... which ports did that land in in D day?
Ports are generally too heavily defended to attack directly with a landing force, but certainly ports can be attacked to disrupt the activities of the enemy... shelling a military navy port can do all sorts of damage beyond just sinking ships... if you sink one enemy refuelling tanker then you effect their ability to operate away from home port but if you shell their refuelling infrastructure in their port then the effects are vastly more damaging...
Why would Russia not want to cause heavy damage to HATO ports during WWIII... it is not like they will want to use them later... and restricting the ability of the HATO navies to operate from home ports is good for Russia in such a situation...
2. Bridges? that greatly depends on what country you are talking about and most small bridges can easily be bypassed lol. I find it funny when people try and bring up oddly specific points that really may or may not have any meaning depending on geographic location to argue. Unless it is a massive bridge it won't matter, this isn't WW2 lol.
It of course depends on the location, but in some places bridges are critical for mobility and transport... destroying them restricts the enemy mobility, but you brought your own engineers to put up temporary bridges so your mobility wont be effected as much. Preventing the enemy from being mobile during a landing is critical to the success of any landing.
They said many things 20 years ago they said they will have 20 Stereguschy class but still they do not have them.
Did they give a timetable?
Are you suggesting they collaborated with the Army to develop a new long range 152mm gun but are going to stick with 130mm guns instead... because they are much shorter ranged and fire a much lighter projectile...
Testing of Zirkon is not secret I do not see why it would be secret testing of new naval gun.
Everything is secret, but they do periodically announce certain things... mostly for political reasons... the US will be scared of Zircon entering service because of its performance, so there is value in announcing that... 152mm guns not so much.
I saw lot of drawings, but what matter is real project, which passed stage of drawings and enter production.
Do you think they intend to put drawings into service?
So you think that they modernize biggest warship in world armed with most advance missile systems, in order to close him to well defend enemy shores and to provide arty support????
The plans are for a 170km range with guided shells... why would they not want that on ships? That would outrange early model SS-N-22 Sunburn anti ship missiles... even a modest rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute would be pretty overwhelming for most small and medium sized ships...
That was newer role of Kirov class even in days of huge Soviet navy.
Rubbish... any landing force would require air cover so the Kuznetsov would be there to provide that and the Kirovs would be operating with the Kuznetsov...
So what is point of stating well known and undisputed facts? My point was that development of new 57 mm gun is known project that last for years and that they still do not use it. And you claim that they will use NOW gun whose development is not known or at least not for public.
They don't have any Mistral type ships in service so any landing force will be tiny at the moment so having 152mm guns is not needed right now... but they are laid down so in 5-8 years time they will need heavier naval gun support and an obvious way to get that would be to fit it to their current cruisers in the form of a gun upgrade from 130mm to 152mm. The gun itself is already developed... which is the hardest part... they always had plans to introduce it... that is why they developed it...
I am stating facts you seem to be ignoring.
New 32 ton HATO IFVs are not likely to be penetrated by 30mm cannon shells of any type at normal combat distances, which means the 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 and BMP-3 has been rendered redundant, they have developed the replacement in the form of two different 57mm guns... one being a former AA gun round and the other a clever use of a 57mm grenade launcher... I suspect the former will be a new AA type used on land and at sea effectively as a CIWS with guided and air burst shells, and the latter will likely be used as a standard BMP calibre gun with APFSDS rounds and large HE rounds... the fact that they are not in service right now is irrelevant... they also have 152mm tank guns which are also not being used because the 125mm seems to be effective enough right now.
The difference for the Navy is that the helicopter carrier landing ships have been laid down so it makes sense to get a 152mm gun on a ship and operational.
As the ammo develops it will only become more and more useful.
Try to be consistent it is not very hard......
Weight that you posted is weight of dual gun. Single gun is ofcourse always much lighter.
Just as example:
Single mount:B-13: 11.8 tons (12.0 mt)
duble mount: B-2LM: 48.23 tons (49 mt)
You were the one saying the new gun was just an old gun with a different shaped turret... did you even notice it had one less barrel when you said that?
A192M is not actually new as, afaik, under the surface that is same old AK130, they made new turret for stealth ships. But maybe that will be the case now that they just give reshaped turret for old ak130 but from my point of view having in mind that Kirov is not stealth that is nonsense.
The fact that it is 98 tons vs 30 tons AND a twin barrel gun vs a single barrel gun backs up my case that they are not the same gun with a different outer cover...
Ok, i wasnt precise enought i had dual mount in mind.
The land based dual mount gun adds too much weight and physical space to the design so they could no longer be carried in standard aircraft/train cars.
The second gun had its own fully automatic dual ammo feed system, which for two guns means four feed channels... which just takes up too much space and adds too much weight.
The naval version will almost certainly retain twin barrels because it does not need to fit in a plane or through a train tunnel.
And rate of fire would be useful.
The other advantage is that with guided long range rounds you need 1 or 2 rounds per target. So you can allow yourself to carry less rounds and it's then better to carry bigger rounds to destroy more easily the targets with a bigger warhead.
Imagine the situation from the perspective of the enemy... emissions are detected from over 100km away but you can't be sure what it is... it might be an airborne Ka-31... then a few minutes later tiny ballistic projectiles start arriving... they are only about 150 or 160mm in diameter and are ramjet or possibly scramjet powered... they have a 30kg HEI warhead and have an optical seeker that uses IIR sensors to target specific parts of your ship.... and they are arriving two at a time at a rate of 50 shells a minute... you can't ignore them because while each is not anything like what would be needed to sink your ship each projectile can serious damage the system it hits and it seems to be targeting your guns and missile mounts and your radar antenna and your bridge....
Being scramjet powered they might be coming in rather fast too...
And in last 50 years just one ship was designed having in mind such advantage... and that didn't went well
The Americans and the French also tried to make tank gun fired anti tank missiles... the American Shillaylah (Spelling) in 152mm calibre and the French system I think was 142mm calibre. To their credit the French didn't actually make their weapon or deploy it but the Americans deployed their system in large numbers on the Sheridan and a model of the M60 tank and they were awful... widely deployed in several conflicts and not a single example of a successful use despite all the money wasted the system was totally inferior to the much cheaper TOW mounted on an M113... which was used successfully.
But there is no way the backward Soviets or Russians could succeed where the west had failed right?
I would like to see 203mm gun on new big Russian ships with range 60km or more and smart munition. But now I just do not have any reason to believe that they have 152 or 203 gun in acceptance stage.
Their 152mm gun already reaches 70km and they are expecting ranges of 170km to be achieved with "boosted rounds".
Now long range guided rounds offer much more capabilities against new threats and the 152mm guns are already in mind of conceptors.
New higher pressure barrels and new propellents and terminal guidance to make the extra range useful as well as new projectiles with built in propulsion should allow enormous increases in range and performance....
So what? No-one knew the Russians were actively developing an air-launched anti-ship version of Iskander until it was announced. No-one knew they were actively developing an a nuclear-powered CM until it was announced. No-one knew they were developing a tactical laser platform for point defense of ICBM bases until it was announced.
And ironically the west knew for a very long time about Klub and its various different models, yet was still shocked at the long range cruise missile attack capability the Russians showed in Syria... it seems they are reactive rather than proactive... perhaps in 5 years time they will start to develop 155mm naval guns...
When the Nahkimov finally departs the fitting-out quay for state trials, I reckon its even money that she will be sporting a navalised 2S35 Koalition 152mm arty, notwithstanding the lack of any public admission of such a program or manufacturer promos.
I agree, and it will likely be a twin barrel version as originally designed... the ground based model probably does not have a good enough rate of fire though so it might be a more navalised turret and ammo handling system they use to benefit from the advantages of space and recoil absorption that ships offer...
Because a new arty can be tested in the manufacturers testing ground without prying eyes and with minimal ground preparations (and thereby covertly), while Zirkon needs a cast of hundreds and extensive ground launch prep at a known launch site that is routinely monitored by the enemy, needs a clear airspace to test, and can be detected by radars and spy stats.
You can string a net above a 152mm gun turret to hide it from satellite view as well as Open skies monitoring aircraft, but with Zircon, you need an area a thousand kms long...
Ok, there is no point for further discussion, you believe that they will put 152 mm gun I think that will not be case. We will see... Any way when modernization should be completed?
I think it will be more than just a case of a land based turret being put on a ship, but there is no reason to believe they have not been working on a naval turret for some time now... they don't export cruisers so there is no value in advertising it for export like they do with their smaller calibre guns... they don't advertise Yasen or Borei class Subs either...
The facts are they have said the 152mm Coalition gun will be used by the navy... they have just laid down two helicopter landing ships and they are upgrading their cruisers... if the new 152mm gun turret is ready they will likely want to test it by putting it on an upgraded Kirov... it would be the ideal low risk opportunity to iron out any bugs and take new rounds to sea for testing and use.
They should certainly use the land based Coalition turret to replace the Bereg 130mm coastal gun system simply because it has a heavier shell and much much longer range.