WI: USN Kirovs

[aaronupright]

Super Ticonderogo's?

Lengthened and increased in the beam?

A destroyer hull is a destroyer hull. No matter how big it becomes or whatever politically motivated renaming is made.
Realistically, only the Long Beach's hull design could be used that way. All USN surface warfare ships since Long Beach have been based on Destroyer hulls, even the "Cruisers". (Does the USN have something like the Type 055's, you know a Cruiser with an inferiority complex which can be used as the basis?)

Of these, only the battleships and Long Beach could have seriously formed the core of a SAG away from the main carrier force (Strike Fleet Atlantic would have operated in a single battlegroup with 4 carriers and 30 - 40 escorts).

Agreed.

The Navy eventually figured out that the best Tomahawk launch platform for a contested area like the Norwegian and Barents Seas was a submarine, not a surface ship, but slapping ABLs on everything was a quick way to get missiles to sea while the Flight II 688s commissioned between 1985 and 1989.

Was it though? In the 1990's the USN/RN used lots of submarine launched Tomahawk attacks, and in the 2000's learnt that opposing Navies usually had no problem detecting the 688I long before they launched , which is why so many attacks on time sensitive targets failed (example the 1998 attacks on Afghanistan and Yugoslavia).

 

[Gunnarnz]

Was it though? In the 1990's the USN/RN used lots of submarine launched Tomahawk attacks, and in the 2000's learnt that opposing Navies usually had no problem detecting the 688I long before they launched , which is why so many attacks on time sensitive targets failed (example the 1998 attacks on Afghanistan and Yugoslavia).

I would be AMAZED if the Afghan navy was regularly detecting 688I-class boats.

 

[Belisarius II]

To make that decision the USN would have to have lost faith in carrier-based aviation. It only makes sense to build large ships mounting very large anti-ship missiles if you have no carriers. The point of large anti-ship missiles is to take out large ships like carriers, or battleships. Since the Soviets had not carriers, or battleships what are the targets of these large anti-ship missiles? That's why it never made sense for the USN to build large nuclear strike cruisers. moderate size escort ships, with strong AAW/ASW capabilities made more sense.

 

[aaronupright]

I would be AMAZED if the Afghan navy was regularly detecting 688I-class boats.

Lol. Of course.
I meant the Pakistan Navy in 1998. It’s in the 9/11 commission report (and Richard Clark mentions it) and is one of the reasons why some suspect Bin Laden left unexpectedly before the strikes.

 

[aaronupright]

To make that decision the USN would have to have lost faith in carrier-based aviation. It only makes sense to build large ships mounting very large anti-ship missiles if you have no carriers. The point of large anti-ship missiles is to take out large ships like carriers, or battleships. Since the Soviets had not carriers, or battleships what are the targets of these large anti-ship missiles? That's why it never made sense for the USN to build large nuclear strike cruisers. moderate size escort ships, with strong AAW/ASW capabilities made more sense.

Would it make sense **now** versus PLAN? (Avoiding the current event label, if the Soviet’s made a PLANesque build up back in the 1960’s and 1970’s).

 

[Belisarius II]

A destroyer hull is a destroyer hull. No matter how big it becomes or whatever politically motivated renaming is made.
Realistically, only the Long Beach's hull design could be used that way. All USN surface warfare ships since Long Beach have been based on Destroyer hulls, even the "Cruisers". (Does the USN have something like the Type 055's, you know a Cruiser with an inferiority complex which can be used as the basis?)

Agreed.

Was it though? In the 1990's the USN/RN used lots of submarine launched Tomahawk attacks, and in the 2000's learnt that opposing Navies usually had no problem detecting the 688I long before they launched , which is why so many attacks on time sensitive targets failed (example the 1998 attacks on Afghanistan and Yugoslavia).

Tomahawk attacks in Afghanistan failed in 1998 because the Americans told the Pakistani's they were coming, and they warned the Taliban. In Yugoslavia the problem was after they crossed the coast, and how fresh the intel was. What evidence do you have that SSN's were located before launch, and how would they know when they were going to fire? Tomahawks are subsonic missiles that flew over hundreds of miles of enemy territory before hitting their targets, making it hard to achieve surprise. By using way points to change course how could the enemy predict what their targets were?

 

[Belisarius II]

Would it make sense **now** versus PLAN? (Avoiding the current event label, if the Soviet’s made a PLANesque build up back in the 1960’s and 1970’s).

No, no Chinese ship can't be taken out with air launched missiles, or bombs. A few LRASM with 1,000 lbs. warheads is enough to take out a Chinese carrier. Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes can also do the job. Likewise, the biggest threat to American carries are Chinese torpedoes.

 

[Riain]

'Distributed Lethality' is a good thing but shouldn't be at the expense of the striking power of the carriers.

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

The real question is why not more conventional and cheaper The Slava class, Project 1164 that could do the same job cheaper especially when laid up not at sea not burning fuel?

Maybe fit them with a CODOG and make them a bit larger to get better cruise range than OTL ships?

Fun fact: The Slavas could not generate enough electricity to turn on all those big, nasty looking anti ship missiles at once..

 

[naraic]

To be honest I don't see what a Kirov gets from being in a single hull.

If USN decided that it needed more missiles in their task forces I feel that it would be cheaper, easier and more effective to add a pair of ticonderoga class or three of whatever class of destroyer than a 25,000 tonne battlecruiser.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

To be honest I don't see what a Kirov gets from being in a single hull.

If USN decided that it needed more missiles in their task forces I feel that it would be cheaper, easier and more effective to add a pair of ticonderoga class or three of whatever class of destroyer than a 25,000 tonne battlecruiser.

Economics in scale for nuclear propulsion more or less. Once the decision was made to make them nuclear, making one 25,000 ton ship is cheaper than two 12,500 ton ships, one set of big reactors is cheaper than two sets of smaller ones. Mind you a pair of conventional 12,500 ton cruiser would have likely been better, but then you have to have twice as many electronics, which is an issue that the USSR had to worry about a lot more than the USN

The USN would do that, but the USN stopped building nuclear escorts in 1980

 

[naraic]

True. I wasn't thinking about them necessarily being nuclear ships.

I was thinking more of a pair of conventional cruisers being more effective than a kirov.

Regarding electronics having more sets of electronics would be considered a good thing in US service which is one reason why I'd prefer to add missiles with a pair of cruisers rather than a bagtlecruiser.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

True. I wasn't thinking about them necessarily being nuclear ships.

I was thinking more of a pair of conventional cruisers being more effective than a kirov.

Regarding electronics having more sets of electronics would be considered a good thing in US service which is one reason why I'd prefer to add missiles with a pair of cruisers rather than a bagtlecruiser.

Possibly a pair of conventional cruisers would be more effective than a Kirov, that depends on the cruiser, a pair of Slavas might not be

Just remember electronics are expensive, an AEGIS combat system costs more than the actual hull of the warship it sits in, were talking hundreds of millions these days. Now with AEGIS that is not bad as you can build a cruiser with them and it can control the missiles of a destroyer you built without it to avoid buying another AEGIS combat system. But the USSR never had an AEGIS equivalent and Russia still does not, any ships would have to control their own missiles. Thus if you want more missiles you can make a ship bigger at a moderate cost*, and not have to buy any new electronics, or buy a second ship and have to pay for and maintain another set of expensive electronics , which given the issues the USSR had with electronics is a potential problem for them

*There's a saying in shipbuilding steel is cheap, air is free, it's cheaper to make a 12,500 ton ship 25,000 tons than to make a second 12,500 ton ship, as propulsion gets more efficient on bigger hulls and most of the difference in mass would be structural steel which is a cheap component

 

[scifilovr]

The problem with the US building battlecruisers is that they don't have a role to play in the US Navy. US Navy strike warfare or anti-surface warfare on a fleet-level scale is based around the aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier is the offensive weapons system while the surface navy defends the carrier. Anything that a battlecruiser would do could either be done by a group of DDGs or a Carrier Strike Group and either would be more effective. That being said, you could build a bigger, more capable escort, but it would never have the role as independent combatant as the Kirov-class holds in the RFN.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Thus if you want more missiles you can make a ship bigger at a moderate cost*, and not have to buy any new electronics, or buy a second ship and have to pay for and maintain another set of expensive electronics , which given the issues the USSR had with electronics is a potential problem for them

Kirovs had two Top Domes plus a point-defense missile system. Slavas only have one Top Dome.

The problem with the US building battlecruisers is that they don't have a role to play in the US Navy. US Navy strike warfare or anti-surface warfare on a fleet-level scale is based around the aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier is the offensive weapons system while the surface navy defends the carrier. Anything that a battlecruiser would do could either be done by a group of DDGs or a Carrier Strike Group and either would be more effective. That being said, you could build a bigger, more capable escort, but it would never have the role as independent combatant as the Kirov-class holds in the RFN.

The Strike Cruisers were intended to be independent surface warfare ships (primary land attack and secondary anti-surface roles) forming the core of a Surface Action Group. It's the same role that the battleships were given when they reactivated.

 

[scifilovr]

The Strike Cruisers were intended to be independent surface warfare ships (primary land attack and secondary anti-surface roles) forming the core of a Surface Action Group. It's the same role that the battleships were given when they reactivated.

And they weren't built because they kept becoming too expensive and too difficult. Even if they had been built, I don't believe they'd fall into the independent role. What is the strategic or tactical need for an independent surface warfare ship? If I need an independent warship, I can detach a single DDG or cruiser. If the problem is too big for one of them, I'm probably just gonna send a carrier.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

And they weren't built because they kept becoming too expensive and too difficult. Even if they had been built, I don't believe they'd fall into the independent role. What is the strategic or tactical need for an independent surface warfare ship? If I need an independent warship, I can detach a single DDG or cruiser. If the problem is too big for one of them, I'm probably just gonna send a carrier.

The purpose was to launch Tomahawks at Soviet shore bases, usually from unexpected directions or at unexpected times. The carriers in the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea would have operated in a single group for mutual protection, and that group would have to move in and out of attack range to resupply. Strike Cruisers with Tomahawks would maintain the pressure between attack sorties by the carrier group, or disperse Soviet defenses by creating threats along multiple axes.

 

[Belisarius II]

Possibly a pair of conventional cruisers would be more effective than a Kirov, that depends on the cruiser, a pair of Slavas might not be

Just remember electronics are expensive, an AEGIS combat system costs more than the actual hull of the warship it sits in, were talking hundreds of millions these days. Now with AEGIS that is not bad as you can build a cruiser with them and it can control the missiles of a destroyer you built without it to avoid buying another AEGIS combat system. But the USSR never had an AEGIS equivalent and Russia still does not, any ships would have to control their own missiles. Thus if you want more missiles you can make a ship bigger at a moderate cost*, and not have to buy any new electronics, or buy a second ship and have to pay for and maintain another set of expensive electronics , which given the issues the USSR had with electronics is a potential problem for them

*There's a saying in shipbuilding steel is cheap, air is free, it's cheaper to make a 12,500 ton ship 25,000 tons than to make a second 12,500 ton ship, as propulsion gets more efficient on bigger hulls and most of the difference in mass would be structural steel which is a cheap component

You're also hitting on the fact that the more Aegis ships in a battle group the better they can gather data and share it with the rest of the group. The USN hit on the idea of data sharing at least as far back as the 1960's with the naval tactical data system, NTDS. The whole group can see what each ship sees, and act accordingly. Remember 2 heads are better than 1, and you can always use an extra set of eyes.

 

[Belisarius II]

The purpose was to launch Tomahawks at Soviet shore bases, usually from unexpected directions or at unexpected times. The carriers in the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea would have operated in a single group for mutual protection, and that group would have to move in and out of attack range to resupply. Strike Cruisers with Tomahawks would maintain the pressure between attack sorties by the carrier group, or disperse Soviet defenses by creating threats along multiple axes.

Yes, but when the carriers withdrew to resupply what aircraft would cover the strike cruisers?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Yes, but when the carriers withdrew to resupply what aircraft would cover the strike cruisers?

Aegis and 128 SM-2s, plus whatever else the SAG would have. The point of the heavy air defenses was that they could operate independently, and the Soviets probably weren't going to throw a huge strike at such a relatively small target compared to the carriers, if they could even find the cruiser.