Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov] #2

Now I am back to looking forward to see the scaffolds removed this is one star crossed ship.

Everyone has heard of the successful British expedition to climb Mt Everest, but fewer people have heard about the Irish expedition. It failed because they ran out of scaffolding...

Since it serves no purpose recycling most likely

130mm guns were designed as a landing operation supportive weapon, the same way as Ovod system etc.
Russkie are not going to make any landings soon, so the thing became a relict.

Where did the AK130 go?

The gun is at the stern of the ship.

Where did the AK130 go?

The gun is on the back of the Kirovs... the first one had two 100mm gun turrets and the rest had the twin barrel 130mm gun turret like the two fitted to the Sovremmeny class destroyers.

Hopefully they removed it. Its shells are to dangerous in case of a successful missile hit.

Actually with improved accuracy aiming systems and stabilisers in addition to modern radar a decent large calibre gun could carry quite substantial air burst shells that could be fired in the path of incoming missiles and shells and drones and form a barrage of fragments that could take down quite a lot of threats.

I would love to see they replaced the old 130mm guns with new 152mm guns they were working on with the Russian Army.

70km range guided shells are as useful at sea as on land.

Or are you saying artillery is useless in modern war?

Two 57mm should be better for drone warfare and assymetrical threats.

They will likely have 57mm gun turrets too.

130mm guns were designed as a landing operation supportive weapon, the same way as Ovod system etc.
Russkie are not going to make any landings soon, so the thing became a relict.

They were intended for landing operations but were not really considered successful so they brought a Sverdlov destroyer out of retirement with its 152mm guns... which was not very successful.

If they don't intend to perform landings then why are they building two 40K ton helicopter landing ships?

The current 130mm gun is a much smaller and more compact mount with a single barrel which I suspect would not be great for sustained fire support.

A 152mm Coalition based gun would make a lot more sense in terms of range and accuracy... and in terms of getting HE on target for air and sea surface and land based target it is tough to beat a good Russian artillery piece.

We still don't know if the gun is fitted or not, but if I had a choice I would drop the gun for more air defense missiles.

Guns make more sense than an extra AD missile mount, there are already plenty of AD missiles on board... a 152mm gun with a range of 70km with current ammo and future low drag shells with ranges of 180km plus which they are planning would be even more valuable.

Having a 152mm gun firing guided shells at western destroyers at a rate of 60-70 shells per minute from 120km range would be a very potent way of defeating an enemy ship... in fact it solves the biggest western problem of how to build up a swarm quickly... a fast firing gun would be ideal.

A 203mm gun for future destroyers could extend that range even further and with that sized round you could add some useful rounds including EMP for stopping drone swarms 100km plus away from your ships.

I would say a weapon of this range, fire rate and ammo size would be ideal against UAV and USV. I am not aware about the existence of guided ammo for it, but it would make a lot of sense in the AA role.

The new 130mm gun mount is smaller and lighter by a wide margin compared with the old gun, but it is also only a single barrel weapon and I would not expect it to cope well with long term sustained fire roles.

A 152mm Coalition based gun would make more sense... something like this...

People that want to get rid of the gun should remember that you are not always at war.
You can´t give a shot across the bow with a missile system.
You are not always fighting other naval powers at long range, stopping some pirate boat with a Zirkon missile is f...ing expensive.

Hole wrote:....
People that want to get rid of the gun should remember that you are not always at war.
You can´t give a shot across the bow with a missile system.
You are not always fighting other naval powers at long range, stopping some pirate boat with a Zirkon missile is f...ing expensive....

You mean like that time when British destroyer entered Crimean waters and Russians tried the whole gun warning shot thing instead of jamming missile up their ass?

Yeah, British and everyone else couldn't stop laughing their asses off for weeks after that

Also if you are using ship this big for anti pirate ops you are retarded

People that want to get rid of the gun should remember that you are not always at war.
You can´t give a shot across the bow with a missile system.
You are not always fighting other naval powers at long range, stopping some pirate boat with a Zirkon missile is f...ing expensive.

Plus you could have a dozen different types of shells for the gun... including a jammer shell you could fire away from the ship to distract home on jam anti ship missiles.

You could even develop a round that acts like a depth charge to distract or destroy incoming torpedos and sea surface drones.

Smoke and chaff dipole rounds could also be used as well as IR shells with thermobaric payloads to blind IR guided missiles.

You mean like that time when British destroyer entered Crimean waters and Russians tried the whole gun warning shot thing instead of jamming missile up their ass?

Yeah, British and everyone else couldn't stop laughing their asses off for weeks after that

Actually I saw a video of that, and those sailors looked rather nervious when the 30mm shells exploded a few kms away from them.

Having a gun means the option to not start a war.

Also if you are using ship this big for anti pirate ops you are retarded

Who knows what situations it might find itself in. With a 130mm gun this ship could be 25km away from the target it is shooting at.

With 152mm guns it could be 70km away.