On the USS Fife in '89 we shadowed the Frunze off Africa and made them soil themselves. The Soviets didn't even have a highway from coast to coast. All their stuff was bubblegum and bailing wire. They looked great on paper, but would have fallen apart in a real fight. We sailed with the RN and the Australians. The Aussies were a blast to hang out with in port. However, we pulled into Hong Kong and were relaxing at the Hong Kong Fleet Club and an RN ship pulled into port. They were so rowdy and got in so many fights their liberty was cancelled and they were back at sea before the sun went down.
@@colerape "fallen apart in a real fight" The soviet navy sent ballistic missile submarines to the US in 1988. NATO detected them leaving their ports but lost them in the ocean. The soviet submarines came close enough to take photographs of the US coast undetected. The soviets always had the americans by the neck. Did you forget that the USSR single handedly won the european theater of ww2 ? 80% of all german soldiers died in front of a soviet soldier. More german soldiers died in battle of stalingrad than during the 6 years of fighting on the western front. And before you mention your "great" lend lease, I must remind you that it made up only 7% of the total soviet production and didn't arrive in useful quantities till 1943, when the german army was already in retreat. The soviet military of the late 1970s and early 1980s would have been truly invincible in a European war. The US military in the 1990s admitted that they would have had a hard time destroying the armour of the T 72 and could not penetrate the armour of the T 80. More than 5000 T 80 tanks were in service with the soviet army by the mid 1980s . The soviets took 27 million casualties in ww2. The yank empire will collapse in a few days if they lost 500,000 men in a war. I dont hate americans but you all brag a lot when you lost to farmers in vietnam and cave dwellers in afghanistan. And you all compare yourselves with the soviets who won the greatest land battles in history. I dont like the soviet government and their inhumane policies but denying the might of the soviet armed forces and the sheer will and determination of the soviet people is a bit stupid.
Light house four ,Carrier one. Three planes crashed into light house in dark, one Carrier grounded. In water way to shallow to cruse in, trying to land last plane after destroying light house with planes. Several crew overboard lost, several planes smashed in crash,captain evacuated with severe burns to crotch from soup spilled in lap. Should have sent planes ,not aircraft carrier. Summary, we had a really bad day. ----? ???? What ???Reactor leak!!! What?!!! Fire ?!!! What?!!! Holy s---- !!! This day ain't over yet.!----
Kirov vs Burke? Seriously? Kirov displacement is 25000+t, Burke - around 7000t. You should compare Kirov-class to Ticonderoga-class at least, or, more honestly, Slava-class and Ticonderoga-class. Burke should be compared to Sovremenny-Class destroyer.
Kirov class is a very old ship with very old equipment. She is running off the cannibalised gear from her sisters and Russia has a much smaller defence budget than the old Soviet union and a lot of commitments to pay for.
Even worse... burke is not really made to engage larger ships... still it would put up a decent fight. Partly proves that the battleships concept is totally out of time...and that the us navy is so reduculasly over powered. Us navy got more than twice the number of carriers than the rest of the world together.... and they are over twice the size. Really just two of the largest carrier have more capacity than all other nations carrier combined. Also us navy alone got more fighter and attack aircraft than the full Russian airforce combined.
Retired US Navy CPO here. I’ve toured Russian ships. I was amazed of how they disregarded the most basic maintenance. Painted over gasket watertight seals. Cheaply made fire fighting equipment. Wide spaced structural framing. Their weapon systems are redundant cause of the high rate of breakdowns. They are a tough people with poor leadership.
back then they were lack of fund + poor , now day it diffirent , look at they new war ship way better then 2000s period , same with the Chinese , both of those country are not the same country when you are in service and they are America main enemy it just matter of time befor America and china have a sea battle to determent who the new world super power
Russian capital ship, a 25,000 ton battlecruiser, of which 3 were ever made, against a US destroyer that is less than 1/3 the tonnage, of which over 60 have been made, in a 1 on 1 fight. Next up: Spetsnaz Special Forces vs. Iowa National Guard, to determine if the US or Russia has a better land army.
@@brianlanglois2776 With the refit, Iowa would stomp it, without breaking a sweat. Kirov doesn't have any weapons that can penetrate Iowa's citadel, and the refit Iowa had a bunch of its secondary five inch guns replaced with missile launchers, carrying harpoon, tomahawk, and other various modern missiles, (which the Kirov can probably defend against), it also still has its superfiring guns (which the Kirov can't do anything about). Most importantly, the refit Iowas were fitted with FOUR Phalanx CIWS systems each, compared to the single one an Arleigh Burke has, which is already almost an impenetrable defense, so nothing the Kirov could shoot at it would get through. Even if none of the 16 harpoon missiles the Iowa carries got through, at 33 knots its faster than Kirov, so it could move in close range even if Kirov was running, and use its superfiring guns. Almost any hit with a 2,000 pound shell would be a 1 shot kill. Being designed to handle hits from weapons like that, any hits against the Iowa would be fairly ineffective, if the Kirov even managed to land any which is dubious with the 4 phalanx systems (The Iowa's armor belt, at the waterline where missiles are designed to hit, is over a foot thick. The Kirov's thickest armor is 3 inches.) The Iowa class was retired because it was obnoxiously expensive to maintain and ship on ship warfare was seen as an outdated specialization, but it's still the best ship-on-ship vessel ever made with its refit. It's big weakness would be high flying aircraft which the Kirov doesn't have. What the navy found with the Iowas is that since we aren't fighting against blue-water navies, their effectiveness on ground targets was in the same neighborhood as a destroyer, while costing like 10x as much to run, and that a carrier was a far better investment if you're going to spend that kind of money because it gives you something a lot more rounded than an ultra-powerful, ultra-specialized anti-ship vessel
@@siegfriedarmory6271 despite me preferring the US, I have to say it's more likely the Kirov will win. Yes the Iowa has 4 CIWS and would win if it got in range of it's guns, however the missiles carried by modern ships, especially Russian ones would decimate on hit and cripple it in a couple. The Iowa may stop about a dozen at most but it's defenses would get overwhelmed. CIWS is a last resort defence, modern US DDs rely on missiles to stop missiles, not CIWS
@@siegfriedarmory6271 This is a battle between an elephant and a whale) Incomparable concepts. No ship has a chance to survive against RCC Granite. Iowa is just a big goal that you should not come close to. Subsonic light RCCs like Harpoon are ineffective against flotillas with strong air defense. Although they can be launched a lot and they are much cheaper than the P-700, which costs like a small fighter. P-700 is a monster, out of categories. It doesn't matter how the target is protected. "The missile is equipped with various types of warheads. It can be either a semi-armor-piercing (HE-penetrating) warhead weighing 584-750 kg, or a tactical nuclear TNT equivalent of up to 500 kilotons. The missile is guided using an active radar guidance head. On-board autonomous selective system RCC control system is built on the basis of a three-processor on-board computer (BCM) using several information channels, which allows you to successfully understand a difficult jamming situation During the group launch of missiles (salvo), missiles, having detected an enemy with their homing heads, exchange information, identify and distribute targets according to their size, relative position and other parameters. The digital computer contains electronic data on modern classes ships; tactical information, for example, on the type of ship warrants, which allows the missile to determine what is in front of it is a convoy, aircraft carrier or landing group, and attack the main targets in its composition; data on counteracting enemy electronic warfare, capable of staging missiles to lead missiles away from targets; tactics of evading fire from air defense systems. " They are launched only by a pack for a group target. When a leading rocket can assess the situation and distribute goals for the rest. In addition, the warhead is armored and accelerates to the maximum speed at the finish path to the target, the guns simply are not able to stop the two-ton “bolide”, which also carries a 500 kiloton warhead.
@@elusive6119 The Granit is a pretty powerful anti-ship missile but it wasn't designed to contend with the huge amount of armor Iowa has. Iowa's armor belt is over a foot thick, most ships have 2 or 3 inches at most (Peter the Great's 3 inch armor is considered very thick). The Iowa class armor belt couldn't be penetrated by direct hits from 16 or 18 inch shells with as much as double the explosive payload of a Granit, and that's assuming the Granit could get past the 4 phalanx systems, when it was considered dubious that it could even get past 1 of the same system in the case of the Arleigh Burke destroyer. The Iowa class was designed to withstand direct hits from multiple weapons with many times the payload of a Granit. It's a great missile, but useless against a ship like the Iowa. The refit Iowa is larger, faster, has several times more armor, more anti-missile defenses, and more weapons, some of which the cruiser can't do anything about, like the superfiring guns (mind you, each shell carries double the explosive payload of a granit). It stomps the cruiser for the same reason the cruiser stomped the destroyer, it's simply a bigger fish. If you took the Peter the Great, made it longer, made the armor 4x thicker, made it 3 knots faster, gave it twice as many anti-missile defenses, and 9 superfiring guns, from which each shell impacts with double the explosive power of a granit, you would have built the equal of a refit Iowa class. It's not comparing elephants to whales, it's comparing a wolf to a grizzly bear. Also, if you look at the history of it, the refit Iowa class was specifically made as a response to this exact Russian ship, and was specially designed to merc it, at the expense of all other utility, which is why all the refit Iowa's were decommissioned shortly after the collapse of the soviet union, when these cruisers were no longer a threat, and the battleships stopped being worth the expense of maintaining.
@@brucetucker4847 not really. Why do you think russia has so many missiles cruisers/destroyers and even SSNG subs. Because that was there Answer to carrier Groups. Keep in mind we talk about a Ship build in 1974 agains a Ship from 1991. Arleigh Burkes are basicly the counter to Ships like Kirov / Slava or SSNG Subs. Arleigh Burkes job is to shot down anythink trying to touch its offensiv weopen. There Carriers. At 1980 Spruance class was around and i think 2-3 Crusier classes. And 1982-1983 the first Ticonderoga came out. So at the time Kirov was build the where a thread to a Carrier group since there would be nothing exept 3 years later to counter that class. In the Video we compare an old Ship against something build 20+ years later.
@@Hubidubi18 The Kirovs would have been overwhelmed and destroyed by hundreds of antiship missiles launched by planes from outside the range of anything the Kirovs or their escorts mounted. Keep in mind the US would always have multiple carrier groups in the North Atlantic in the event of war, so there would have been hundreds of strike aircraft they could sortie. Satellites and recon planes would have easily revealed the Kirov groups' locations so planes could target them with missiles from over the horizon without ever being spotted by the Soviets' radars - not to mention the swarm of HARMs that would annihilate any active radar the Soviets used. Submarines were a much more rational and deadly threat to American carriers. That would have been what kept US carriers on the friendly side of the GIUK gap, and it's very doubtful the Soviets would have been foolish enough to try to cross that gap with surface vessels.
Not to mention, there is only 1 Kirov. The Burke is a "Fleet Destroyer" meaning they escort Carriers unless they are on a specific mission, in which case there are always atleast 2 on a mission.
Gaming With Ryan negayory. Ticonderoga Cruisers and Sprunce class Destroyers each have 40+ ship-to-ship missiles AND 40+ Tomahawk missiles. Any SAM can be replaced by a Ship-to-Ship missile. Even a Sparrow missile can be used to target and hit a ship. And use guns to stop attacks. The Phoenix ADA can shoot down a Mortar and track a sneeze...
@@redtob2119 Yeah, but still...the Moskva was built as an air defense cruiser, with long, short and point blank AA systems to defend a task force from air and missile attacks. It's cruise missile punch was secondary, with little ASW capability. It only took a couple of modernized Soviet versions of a Harpoon missile to knock it out, even when it's mission is to shoot down incoming missiles! This indicates low crew quality, low equipment quality, or weaknesses that the Ukrainians knew about and were able to exploit.
@@cowpercoles1194 That is all irrelevant to what i said so i’m not reading it 😐 all i stated is he got the wrong ship and the kirov is more powerful which is true so there isn’t anything more to elaborate on
@@redtob2119 so you saying it will take about 2 neptune missle to sink her hahaha say what you want but i bet alot of system were so neglected by coruption im sure not all the missle will track or even fire.
While this is not surprising considering the Kirov is designed specifically for Anti-Surface Warfare and the Burke is designed for ground attack and fleet support, there is one thing very important that Binkov might have missed or overlooked. That is the TASM, which the Burke would have undoubtedly been loaded with on the onset of war which therefore means the Burke has about a dozen or two monkey wrench's in Bonkov's predictions.
My favorite part is that you're exploring the implications of these ships not having the same weapon systems that they used to have and the ways that changes the battle.
@@jorge227able1 In the show they frequently acknowledged that the destroyer was no match for a battlecruiser, they couldn't destroy it in a ship on ship battle, what they ended up doing was a special forces team snuck on and set off bombs in the gun magazines and engine compartment. Being able to secretly board a warship is also pretty unrealistic, but it makes for good TV, and does acknowledge that a destroyer can't go toe to toe with a ship that's something like 3 or 4x its tonnage.
@@QualityPen New Arleigh Burke destroyers are basically the same size as the Ticonderoga cruisers (both 9800 tons displacement), and assuming the newer ships make better use of that space (better weapons and sensors, more efficient layout, etc) it could certainly be true.
Now time to be realistica? How many AB destroyers do the US NAVY have and Ticonderoga class cruisers? Now how many can engage the one, maybe 2 battle cruisers one day. Considering they would be monitored the moment they go to sea, who would ever expect a one on one engagement being by total surprise? So who would be better prepared and choose the site for the engagement? So let's see the is another AB or even a smaller US SHIP with the AB. Even off the coast of Syria at high alert Russia could only muster one frigate to counter 2 AB attempting to intimidate them after they destroyed the Syrian AFB With a perfect missile barrage, And don't even claim any were defended. I counted ever impact crater on photo and video. The single tomahawk that was not a direct hit was detonated about 300m.from it's target because of the on board safety system engaged when it was below it's programmed altitude, that safety system was used to prevent collateral damage and risk to civilians near the base. The Russians were notified they were inbound and they could do nothing but start making up stories for propaganda to deny their total failure. Didn't know they had late happy hour bars in Syria! Are they drinking rocket fuel again with no vodka in Syria???? Or hung over on base?
Oh, yes I can't spell on my tablet But consider the AB has a attack SBN following that Battle cruiser constantly reporting it's posiion? Can they multitask that relic? They do have the only navy in the history that surrendered an entire fleet in it's entirety to Japan. Even their Admiralty weren't for over an POW 's and most died in prison camps. There best ships were either scrapped or sunk at entrances as gate guards for japan.
Don’t sleep on Tico. The refitted ones can literally engage ballistic missiles and satellites, on top of everything else. They’re a true full spectrum combatant. Sure, that stuff will be rolled out to the Burke’s soon enough, but the real badass will be the new Large Surface Combatant program that’s likely to be nuclear powered and have a much greater variety of ways to kill.
Binkov said he was interested in doing a cold war video for the 80's but i'm not sure if he would be willing to go any earlier than that. He said that the choice of late cold war was due to the better documentation so going any earlier will likely be discouraging to him.
yes!, and the outcome would be that the Evil tyrannical soviets would be crushed and the Polish and Russians would be freed. I think by the size of their army and their stronger logistical supply connection (all they have to do is drive to the battle, the US has to send it by ship over an entire atlantic ocean) they'd start to push back the americans on the western front back at first despite the US soldiers being more superiorly armed and trained and despite having superior tanks but once reinforcements arrive the tables will turn (a mosin nagant is no match for an m1 garand and neither is a t-34 a match for an m4 sherman). (and even then we'd have more tanks, of the 57,000 T-34's deployed on the Eastern front about 45,000 were destroyed (80%) compared to the 19,000 m4 shermans deployed on Normandy campaign in which only 3,700 were destroyed (20%). Not to mention we without a shadow of a doubt have air superiority, P51D's were better than the Yak 9's and La-7's on the western front and once Japan had been dealt with we would also without a shadow of a doubt gain naval superiority and with our ~25 aircraft carriers easily gain air superiority in the Arctic ocean too and the F4U-4's and F6F hellcats are also better than the La-7's and Yak-9's. Once he would have air superiority we would crush their Warmachine and crush their logistics with Strategic bombing just like with the germans. The Winter wouldn't stop us either, slow us down maybe but not stop us. Unlike the Germans we ACTUALLY have winter gear (the germans were not given winter gear because Hitler was retarded) and as proven in the battle of the Bulge unlike the German tanks the M4 sherman copes with the cold and bad conditions extremely well. oh and also we have the nuke. and with air superiority we wouldn't have much issue dropping it on a population center and hammer down a surrender. I'd say we'd lose atleast a million or 2 US soldiers but i recon it could be done by 1950.
"The The Soviets would have accelerated nuclear bomb devolopment and delivered it onto New York as soon as it was ready" BAAAAAA HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA the soviets were no where fucking near creating the nuclear bomb, the reason they knew was because the US told them and even if they did HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU DELIVER IT OVER THE ATLANTIC OCEAN! A). you have to have a plane big enough to carry it (little boy for EG: weighed over 5000kg's, only a B-29 in the US Arsenal could carry it) Russia had no such plane that could do this. B). you have the plane has to have over 5400km of range WITH the 5000kg bomb (and thats assuming a one way trip suicide mission) in which no plane on earth at this time could pull off. (the first plane in the world that would have ever have potentially pulled that off would have been the B-52 made in 1955.) C). you have to get over that Atlantic ocean without being shot down, again good fucking luck with that when the US has over 25 aircraft carriers with F4U-4's or without being spotted, again good luck with that too considering the US's Naval superiority and radar. The only plane on earth too this day that could have pulled off all 3 of those in such circumstances is the 2 billion dollar B-2 Spirit made in the 1980's. The way the US did it was because they had air superiority and launched the B-29 from Okinawa (the bomb was transported to that island by ship). The Russians would have to defeat the US navy and take Rhode island or something in order to be close enough for their super bomber (which they'd have to design and build) to get the bomb NY. and Considering that the US Navy was so much stronger than the Russian navy at that time that a Single Iowa class battleship and a hand full of Fletches could take on the Entire russian navy and probably win the odd's of Russia getting a nuke the NY are practically 0. their is no fucking way on gods green earth they could pull off a land invasion against the United states. Hell it was hard enough for the US to pull of D-day even with Britain having naval and Air superiority when we got their.
Stalin is supposed to have said that "Quantity has a quality all its own". My understanding is that there are 67 active Arleigh Burke class destroyers and only 1 active Kirov. This comparison seems to be of only academic interest.
Kirov was built as a platform for the biggest anti-ship missiles the Russians could fit. Burkes are escort, anti-submarine ships. US Navy Doctrine does not (until recently) viewed ships as anti-ship platforms. This is because the US has since ww2 that planes are the best weapon to attack ships- thus US would not try to close with Kirov until it had been attacked by Aircraft and disabled. Iowa's were not re-commissioned to counter the Kirov (beyond public relations) Iowa's were sent to Amphibious ready groups and were geared for Ground strike and gun fire support missions off shore. They were not geared for Ship to ship combat.
The Burkes only have small (13") homing torpedoes. The torps carried are small, anti-sub torps with warheads just big enough to damage a submarine, forcing it to the surface (mission-kill). The torps don't have the range or the boom to be effective against enemy surface ships.
M0RN1NGW00D - Do you want to talk about the bullshit with the astute subs not destroying a destroyer with guided torpedos Or the blatant anti british vibe I have with the show
Bubby theCuck what the hell does that have to do with bias? To quote from the princess bride "you keep using that word...I do not think you know what it means" th-cam.com/video/G2y8Sx4B2Sk/w-d-xo.html
So... this didn't age well, basically we now know a Burke, at less than 1/3 the tonnage, would just need to fire a few SM-6s, deploy the Seahawk's EW, and that would take care of Russia's _only_ active Kirov class ship, sending it to the bottom.
The fighting hobo has the stamina and hunger to win, but the crackhead needs the 'win' to buy his next fix and is desperate. An interesting fight methinks...
Today is the day the Moskva was reported sunk by the Ukraine. I flashed back to this video. I thought I would comment on the more probable outcome. For the longest time most of us feared the Russian army and navy. But the evidence is (1) Only 1 of Kirov's helicopters would be fit for service... so probably never find the Burke. (2) Kirov's S300 radar would never see US incoming missiles, (3) If US missiles were seen, intercepts with Russian long medium and short range missiles would only work about 50% as well as advertised. (4) Any hit from any US missile of any kind would probably incapacitate Kirov. 2nd and 3rd hits would sink Kirov.
The second and third point are just wrong. the S300 would see incoming missiles, as they would be harpoons, and the S300 would be capable of shooting it down
@@gamm8939 I looked like the damage on Moskva. ASMs appear to have come in from port, climbed vertically and impacted on Moskvas starboard revolving S300 launcher causing more damage below decks than above.. A Vertical terminal dive is the flight path of the old US harpoons..as main target was Soviet subs . More modern ASMs (Ukraine US French) don't have that dive. .. I think.. But I dont know. Maybe the S300 system saw the ASMs and just forgot to fire?
@@patclark2186 The missiles used by Ukraine fly below the operational ceiling of the S300, which is around 25 meters. But harpoons don't cruise at that altitude, so they will be seen and engaged. In a couple of years I am sure that Arleigh Burkes can defeat one of these, with new SSMs. But you have to consider the massive amount of CIWS on Kirov Class ships.
This is a random thought besides the uk-ru war but, US always good at creating not-existent threats. We very much feared a lot of things which let various pointless but costly wars only to be find out that "threats were non-existent from the beginning". As today we are still fearing imaginary threats that US throws out our face. If not the orange head, people were still fearing from the country who fails to provide even electricity.
Considering the Ukrainians who don't even have a navy to speak of can sink a ship like the Moskva, I have no doubt that the US navy would just completely obliterate the entire Baltic, Black sea, Arctic and Pacific fleet if they so desired.
It's not a great example, conditions are not the same. The Moskva was running dark, either due to EMCON or because they didn't think Ukraine was capable of launching anything at them anyway, the lack of AWACS in the black sea also did not help. They failed to intercept the missiles due to poor leadership and lack of awareness. There will never be a conventional war between the US and Russia anyway, it is near impossible.
@@mrdboy1210could be... then again the maintenance report on the ship was pretty damning. At the end of the day, it was a combination of things that, still, do not pose a good posture for Russian success
@@Chiberia You should stop calling everyone a Russian bot just because they have a different opinion. This is fucking stupid and I'm getting tired of hearing this shit everytime I don't have a pro-Ukrainian enough opinion to their liking. We would be much better off having constructive criticism and arguments instead of pushing the same rhetoric over and over.
Bubby theCuck it’s much worse then that! The Russians (I am Russian it’s all good) have 2 of the Kirov class Heavy-Missile Cruiser that have not been scrapped, mothballed or basically just exist. A little while after Putin took over there was one ship that barely worked and another that technically had weapons systems but was of questionable seaworthiness and power-plant its was suspect. The Heavy missile cruiser Peter-the-Great then under went a quick (by Russian standards) refit and upgrade (primarily to its C3I systems, increasing range and signal security). This allowed the Admiral Nakhimov to begin its “Total refit, complete subsystem replacement as well as at least one major system when it was announced that the Russian Navy would be replacing the 20 P-700 Granit NATO code name SS-N-24, with a forest of the new Kalibre missiles they used in Syria a few years ago. For financial, as well as operational reasons, it was decided that it would be better to have 2 fully modernized Kirov missile-cruisers (Peter the Great was to go next after Admiral Nakhimov) rather then 3 out of date once. And then the the Russian Shipyard got a hold of the project. Let’s put it this way. It 2008 the Admiral Nakhimov went into dry dock for modernization. IT HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN AGAIN! [in service or independently afloat]. Russian incompetence, mixed with a heavy dose of corruption, and a full glass of “no one gives a fuck” started pushing the completion date back year after next, and slowly but surely out of the ‘00s, and then out of the ‘10s and out of this decade and into 2020+ I believe. We have built half out Burke fleet at a rate of 2 per year JUST since they have began working on the Nakhimov upgrade. And it’s still not done. If the Russian Navy is lucky they just stole the money. If not lucky then they replaced the good equipment with low quality crap and shoddy work to pocket the difference. Oh! BTW! We have 22 Aegis CGs. The Kirov vs. The Later Ticonderoga class is clearly a more proper match up.
80x2 Zircon missiles, one sistership 1144 in reserve, two ships of the first rank of the type 1144 Orlan against 68 DDG's I have bad news for DDG's, they probably won't even be able to launch their missiles in time. You don't quite understand, Orlan is a real death star, only in reality. With its range of use of weapons (1500-5500 km) and the inability to parry such a salvo... even one such ship of the first rank can cause real devastation in the entire hemisphere.
An observation at 9:59 - the Standard Missiles (at least in Air Defense mode) are guided by the AN/SPG-62 Radar Director (4 of these on the ship at least) and so the Burke doesn't have to reduce defensive capability when using the SPY-1 for incoming tracking as attacking SM missiles would be guided by AN/SPG-62 antennae relaying data. It's an awesome movie you did :D
Lars Kraus kinda. It’s frequently called a BC, though I don’t think that’s its classification. Frankly, it’s pretty inefficient for its tonnage to its capacities. It provides area air defense no better then a Tico or Burke, and while it protects its self better then they do it has a limited offensive punch. It’s an outdated design concept that just doesn’t work that well, ie, cruisers don’t counter carriers. It’s real remaining use, I’d argue, is as a seaborne SAM pit to extend an IADS(integrated air defense system) off the shore. She’s not even an efficient cruise missile hauler, and in practice the Russians will use smaller vessels barring a showy action. I mean, she may be a monster, but she’s a fairly less then useful one.
@@josepetersen7112 its in need of modernization especially the weapon systems. But it got significantly more firepower than the burke and is a lot more versatile than the tico. Theyre both specialized ships while the kirov is supposed to be capable of basically everything. It basically combines both those ships into one. With no serious sea threats since the collaps of the UdSSR both the burke and tico have been geared towards attacking Land targets. Good example is the removal of the frontal cwis on the current burke destroyers.
Project 1144"Orlan" Order of Nakhimov heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great" - the fourth and only in the ranks of the heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR) of the third generation of the project 1144"Orlan". The flagship of the Northern fleet of Russia. The main purpose-the destruction of enemy aircraft carrier groups. It is the largest in the world operating nieviadomy shock combat ship as of 2016. Main performance characteristics Length: 250 m. Width: 25 m. Height from the level of the main plane: 59 m. Draft: 11.5 m. Standard displacement: 23 750 tons. Full displacement: 25 860 tons. Power plant: 2 nuclear reactors of KN-3 type (300 MW), 2 auxiliary boilers, two turbines of 70 thousand HP (total 140 thousand HP), 4 power plants with a total capacity of 18 thousand kW, 4 steam turbine generators with a capacity of 3000 kW, 4 gas turbine generators of 1500 kW, two propeller shafts. Speed: 32 knots (about 60 km/h). Autonomy of navigation-60 days on food and supplies, 3 years on fuel. The design of the hull and superstructure Length 49 of the corridors of the ship - more than 20 kilometers. The ship has 6 decks, 8 tiers. The height of the fore-mast from the level of the main plane is 59 meters. The powerful nuclear power plant of the cruiser allows it to reach a speed of 32 knots (60 km/h) and is designed for operation for 50 years. For comparison, the cruiser "Peter the Great" is able to provide electricity and heat to the city for 150-200 thousand inhabitants. The crew of the cruiser - 1035 persons (105 officers, 130 officers, 800 sailors). They are located at 1600 areas of the ship, including 140 single and double cabins for officers and warrant officers, 30 of the forecastle for the sailors and petty officers (8-30 people), 220 platforms. The crew has 15 showers, two baths, a sauna with a 6×2.5 m swimming pool, a two-level medical unit with infirmaries, a pharmacy, x-ray and dental offices, an outpatient clinic, an operating room, a gym equipped with simulators, three cabins for midshipmen, officers and admirals, a lounge with Billiards and a piano. There are also vnutritorakalnah Studio and 12 of household televisions in the cabins and the cabin, not counting the 30 monitors for viewing broadcasts that are broadcast on the cable network of the ship. TARKR "Peter the Great" is one of the most modern and powerful ships of the Russian Navy and one of the most powerful attack ships in the world. The ship has the ability to defeat large surface targets and protect sea connections from air attacks and enemy submarines. It has an unlimited range of navigation, it is equipped with shock cruise missiles capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 2600 kilometers. TARKR " Peter the Great "is equipped with anti-ship missile system" Granite "(developed by" NPO mashinostroeniya"), equipped with 20 launchers CM-233 with advanced high-precision anti-ship cruise missiles P-700" Granite " installed under the upper deck, with an elevation angle of 60 degrees. Rocket length - 10 m, caliber-0,85 m, starting weight-7 t. Military head - piece in nuclear (500 kt), normal (750 kg of explosive) warheads or fuel-air warheads (explosives). Range-700 km, flight speed-1,6-2,5 M. Missiles have a multi-variant program of attack targets, increased noise immunity and are designed to strike at group targets. When volley firing one of them should be at high altitude to increase the detection range of the enemy, exchanging information with others that are literally spread over the surface of the water. In case of destruction of the rocket-the leader its place is automatically taken by one of guided missiles. Over-the-horizon target designation and guidance can be carried out by Tu-95RTS, Ka-25TS helicopter or space reconnaissance and target designation system. The ship is equipped with anti-aircraft complex "Reef" S-300F, there are 12 PU and 96 vertical launch missiles. There is also an Autonomous ship anti-aircraft system "Dagger". Each drum-type sub-deck PU has 8 single-stage solid-fuel remote-controlled missiles 9M330-2, the total stock-128 missiles. The cruiser is armed with anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex "Kortik", providing self-defense against a number of" accurate " weapons, including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, bombs, aircraft and helicopters, light-tonnage ships. Each unit has two 30-mm six-barrel AK-630M1-2 artillery units with two AO-18 assault rifles according to the "Gatling" scheme with a total rate of fire of 10,000 V / min and two blocks of 4 two-stage 9m311 missiles (SA-N-11) with a fragmentation rod warhead and a non-contact fuse. In the turret compartment is 16 missiles. Missiles unified with 2С6 missile complex "Tunguska". The control system of the Kortik air defense system consists of radar and television systems connected with each other using elements of artificial intelligence. Two installations of the Kortik air defense system are located in the bow of the ship on both sides of the Granit PU, and four others are located in the aft part of the main superstructure. "Peter the Great" in may 2010 In addition, the cruiser "Peter the Great" is equipped with 130-mm multi-purpose twin art installations "AK - 130" (length of trunks - 70 calibers, 840 shells) with a range of up to 25 km.rate of Fire-from 20 to 80 rounds per minute. The mass of the high-explosive shell-27 kg, has a shock, remote and radio detonators. Ready to fire ammunition-180 shells. The shooting control system Mr-184 allows simultaneous tracking and firing at two targets. The cruiser was also armed with two anti-submarine (5 PU Board) rocket-torpedo 533 mm complexes RPK-6M "Waterfall", missile-torpedoes which are capable of hitting submarines of the enemy at ranges up to 60 km as a combat head is used a small torpedo, UMGT-1. The rocket dives into the water, takes off into the air and delivers a torpedo to the target area, and there is already a word for UMGT-1, which again dives into the water. To combat enemy torpedoes the cruiser "Peter the Great" has a torpedo complex RCPTS-1 "Udav-1M" (10 pipes, rails, conveyor automatic recharge, reaction time - 15 sec. the maximum range is 3000 m, the minimum is 100 m, the weight of the rocket - 233 kg). The rocket launchers on the "Peter the Great "are placed as follows: one ten-pipe RBU - 12000 (firing range - 3000 m, projectile weight-80 kg) is installed in the bow of the ship on a turntable, two six-pipe RBU - 1000" Smerch - 3 " (range - 1000 m, projectile weight-55 kg) - in the aft on the upper deck on both sides. Working on counter-measures include two paired 150-mm PU PC-14 (complex shoots interference), protivoallergennye traps, decoys and towed about a torpedo goal with a powerful mechanism noise generator. On Board the cruiser based two anti-submarine ka-27. Radar facilities RAP / EW TARKR "Peter the Great" include 16 stations of three types. Ship surveillance, tracking and targeting consists of two stations of space communication (SATS), four stations space navigation (SATAU) and four special electronic stations. The air-surface situation is monitored by all-weather three-coordinate radar "Frigate-MAE" detecting targets at ranges of more than 300 km and altitudes up to 30 km. The cruiser also has three navigation stations, four radio-electronic control systems for firing airborne weapons, helicopter flight controls and a "friend / foe"identification system. The ship's sonar system includes a sonar with a hull antenna for search and detection of submarines at low and medium frequencies and a towed automated sonar system with a variable depth antenna (150-200 m) - at medium frequencies. When upgrading in 2019-2022 years in the armament of the cruiser will be added hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zircon", universal supersonic anti-ship missiles and medium-range missiles P-800 "Onyx" cruise missiles "Caliber". The missiles will be launched from 3s14 universal launchers.
"Heavy Nuclear Missile Cruiser" according to the Russians... ...but "white elephant" is a more fitting classification, given the totality of its circumstances and modern naval warfare.
Mickey G i think you're wrong. As a Military professional, one missile could Sink cargo ships, Size doesnt Play factor here. The Cargo ship is designed to Maximized its Cargo capacity, not Defensive Factor was Implemented. a missile could Easilly penetrat Cargo ships
I'd def as an American say that although they did miss some crucial weapons platforms on the arleigh burke (well also on the kirov) and some defensive countermeasures I'd stil give this win to the kirov...BUT the kirov class ship which displaces 28,000+ tonnes as compared to the arleigh burke's 9,000 tonnes making the kirov a ship in a totally different class that the destroyer and makes for a pretty lopsided match, the real battle should be between the actual US answer to the kirov which would be the retrofitted ww2 Iowa class battleship. Now this is the real match up here as the kirov sports over 150-180 seperate weapons systems and was made to counter airstrikes and build the literal.iron curtain around Russian perimeter making for a formidable surface warfare ship that has the capability of fighting other ships pretty effectively but is still primarily a surface to air platform. On the other hand the battleship is the epitome of the surface to surface fighting ship being the only warships in the world which can still fire 12 16 inch cannons which would be devastating to anything currently fielded today, on top of that they have hulls so thick and sturdily built that no ship in the world could ever hope to match the defensive power of these behemoths (actually they are no longer possible to even make today) so even if hit with most of the weapons of the kirov would likely not cause the ship to be destroyed or even inoperable. This is before the complete overhauling of the entire ship from the hull up to incorporate some 200+ new and modernized attack weapons and defensive countermeasures combined with the thick hull and the added 12 16 inch cannons with advanced targeting and ballistics the kirov would stand little chance in this proper match up between two monster ships I'd say the. kirov gets first hit advantage with its helicopters even then after the battleship takes a pounding it will continue to bring the fight and absolutely destroy the kirov and it's relatively light armor plus one 16 inch shell direct hit may just RIP the kirov in two. Outcome the battleship has a shorter range for detection and will most likely take the initial blow but it will not be effective enough to stop or even slow it, once the battleship starts to close the distance if it doesnt knock the kirov out with longer smaller modern munitions like guided missile and torpedoes then once in range of the cannons the kirov is utterly dead to rights as a broadside from the battleship woukd wipe the entirety of the kirov from existance
Nice video and I love the format, going to check out some more videos. For this one tho, it seems a strange comparison: a capital ship vs an escort destroyer? Of COURSE the Kirov will win! In a state of war if ever a single Burke came up against the Kirov all alone, as long as the Kirov was spotted at far range, the Burke would simply turn and run at flank speed. Offering battle to a ship double it's size, weight and crew and packing Granit anti-ship missiles with a warhead that will sink a Burke with only a single hit would be suicide, especially if it was the single CIWS variant.
Wrong, only one Kirov is serving currently and it is operating with 80's & 90's tech. Once the others have been modernized and are put to sea then you'll be correct.
i hope an accident occurs, and the kirov thats being upgraded gets wrecked beyond repair. also, i hope all russians working on the upgrades die in the accident too
kirov is a horrible ship. binkov has a european accent, so hes definitely biased in favour of the kirov. anything the russians make is crap. those things are only good in propaganda. when a russian opens his mouth, he is automatically lying. when they say the kirov is good, they are lying. also, a comment ive seen lately, is that most ships have 80s, 90s and 2000s tech. even so, the kirov is still crap. it may have tech of the same timeperiod, but they are around 50 years behind the west in almost everything..
Hikaru Midomiya there’s many things the Russians are good at. But their surface fleet is generally not something they brag about. It’s not modernized and is currently poor condition. Even when the Russians have an upgrade package available, they do one off’s on their ships and never do it again for any other. Currently, the most important surface combatants in the Russian fleet are almost all from the 70’s or 80’s with the exception of the Udaloy II built in 1999. This includes the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Kirov Battlecruiser, Slava Cruiser Class, Udaloy Destroyer Class, and the Sovremenny Destroyer Class. Including Frigates, the Russian Navy’s newest boats include two Gepard Class designed in 1991, one Admiral Gorshkov Class designed in 2003, and two Krivak IV Classes built in 2016. It should be noted that in October 2018, the Admiral Kuznetsov was hit by a crane when its dry dock accidentally sank and has yet to be repaired. Thus the Russian Navy has no blue water naval aviation at the moment. It’s actually quite sad that the innovative Russians have been displaced by the Chinese as the strongest non-US fleet on the oceans today.
An Arleigh Burke class has watertight bulkheads that prevent sinking when damaged, which is how the USS Cole survived a bomb detonation on her hull. Meanwhile, Russian warships don't have watertight bulkheads nor a competent crew, thus the Slava-class Moskva accidentally sank from a kitchen fire in Ukraine, lol.
the bomb which hit the ship in yemen was about 80kg, a P-700 Granit is 750kg of explosive, one hit anywhere would blow a huge chunk of the ship off and sink it, the bulkheads would no nothing.
HAAA! I'm Swiss and live in Austria at the moment. Would like to see that. I'd give it to the Swiss (decent airforce and A LOT of bunkers including a fighter jet storage facility in a mountain (Gotthard). Both rely on conscription where people only get drunk as fuck all the time, so quality of troops is awful in both. Military service is seen as an excuse to get drunk for a year.
+221 b most of the bunkers are out of service but the swiss have much more IFV, SPG and MBTs (like 3x the ammount). I guess it would be Austria defending and CH is the aggressor.
The Russians only have the Kuznetsov. You know what they say about Carriers, right? If you have one carrier, you have none. You always need a second carrier on stand by in case the first gets sunk, otherwise you'll have pilots in the air without a safe place to land. The Kuznetsov also is very old and breaks down often - as a matter of fact, on long trips it always has a tug boat following. US military has 19 carriers. The military only considers 10 to be 'actual' carriers, even though the other 9 are the same size as most other country's carriers and displace 45,000 tons. 19 fucking carriers. Most country's have one or two.
Yea, but I mean a single task group with a single carrier, perhaps with another rule of similar number of ships. I'm not asking for a naval war simulation, that's been done afaik.
Nimits have domination in number of aircrafts(50 vs 64-90), so it probably will win. Kuznetsov have 12 p-700 missiles additionali to those on Kirov so it have some additional chance, because those are hard to intercept. But I realy doubt, theat it will be possible for him to get in to a launch range. E-2 will see him long before. Same goes with air launched moskito|bramos missiles - attacking aircrats will be intercepted before launch. On other hand, harpuns are a lot slower, so they are easyer to intercept or run away. And modern naval s300 missiles have also decent range, so it will be hard to pierce Kuznetsov defence too. The first one who will loose it`s radars will loose the battle. Nimitz have an advantage of having E-2. But... there are satellites. They change picture once again. Damn, it is hard to see all nuances.... Like both task forces have attack subs in an order and they can change picture too...
Hopefully this is not a serious question. Kuznetsov can barely deploy, and is followed by an open ocean tug to make sure it gets back to port after it breaks down. These are all old Soviet ships. It would be target practice for the US Navy.
Nathan Corbett Thanks. Yamato is my favorite battleship out there. Only "disadvantage" (for me at least) is that it has a 3×3 main battery layout. While I like 4×3 (Montana-like) layout.
Interesting video, and nice break-down of the individual ship's capabilities. Thank you for acknowledgement that this kind of 1v1 duel is highly improbable as well. It is very unlikely that either the US Destroyer or especially the Kirov-class BC would be operating alone. The Russian BC would almost certainly have escorts. The US DD would have air support even if it were "alone". But there's another slight incongruity: We're putting a DD up against a BC???? Really? The Kirov-class has a 4:1 tonnage advantage! That's not even close to fair. If a Burke came across a Kirov and was forced to engage and did serious damage to the Kirov before being sunk while also reporting its position so that other ships and SSNs could come along and finish it off, the Burke would have done its job. Trading one or two Burkes for the only Kirov-class ship in the enemy's arsenal would be an overall win for the USN, albeit a costly one. A far more likely scenario is that the Burke IDs the Kirov with its helo, turns away and whistles in air strikes. 4-6 hours after initial contact the Kirov his hit by a massive missile salvo from air assets and sinks, never getting its missiles away on the elusive Burke, which keeps the range open with its superior speed...
The US wouldn't need allies. The US has OVERWHELMING air superiority (If North Korea, Russia, and China all combined their entire air fleets together they would barely have a numeric advantage over just the US Navy, which would leave them about 1,000 aircraft shy of the USAF's total strength on top of the US craft being simply better than the large majority of the NK/R/C fleet with their top fighters being only as good as the more numerous US top craft). The US has OVERWHELMING naval superiority (the US owns HALF of the entire world's aircraft carriers, as well as the majority of the world's nuclear powered submarines as well as the largest Navy in the world). The US has better ground vehicles (Most Chinese/Russian/NK vehicles are Soviet-Era, which Saddam found out in Desert Storm simply don't stand up to even 90's US tech). The only advantage China really has is more dudes, which is not nearly as big of a factor in modern conflict as it was even when the Brits trounced the Chinese in the Opium Wars. The Sino-American War would in actuality just be the Second Korean War, and while SK would take significant damage in the initial salvos of NK artillery the US, SK, and Japanese forces already in position would either stop the NK push (If they play defensively the US can muster its strength so NK would NEED a quick and decisive push right from Day 1 to take as much as they can before the US can deploy properly) or do significant enough damage to bog it down. Once the Western forces start to arrive (The Yanks, Brits, Frenchies, Krauts, Italians, Canadians, Aussies, possibly the Turks, and the others in NATO and EU) the tide would very quickly turn against the Commies. China would be hurt at least as bad by the disrupted trade with the US (It doesn't have as many alternatives as the US does to replace lost supplies), and the Chinese military simply is not a match for modern Western powers. North Korean forces would be force out of Korea and either China will surrender before the war arrives on their soil or the Western powers will strike Chinese assets with impunity before an invasion (likely on multiple fronts, when you have so many different militaries on your side with so many bases to launch from you can strike from every side). The air supremacy would mean Chinese armor and infantry would have a very tough time holding ground (By this point the Eastern air forces are all but neutralized, meaning A-10s and AC-130s can operate with impunity), and it wouldn't be long before Bejing itself is besieged.
USA vs China? The elephant in the room would be Russia. If Russia stayed completely neutral and out of the war, China would be stopped dead in Turkey. Long logistical train plus the natural choke point would stop any land advance, while American naval supremacy in the Pacific would sink anything the Chinese put on the ocean. China would put India, Japan, Australia and South Korea out of the fight pretty early in the conflict, but after stretching to Turkey would take a huge double pounding from the allies in Western Europe on one side, and the US navy and air force from the Pacific on the other. China would be taking bombs and missiles to her cities and factories, while the US forces would only be taking military casualties. Only one winner here. If Russia sided with the wing-wangs however, or merely let her troops pass through, USA would have to massivly commit airpower to NE Europe, which would weaken its Pacific bite - and the much longer front would be prone to crumbling in a lot of the less wealthy Eastern European countries.
The only chance China would really stand is in the nuclear fight, and that's only because both sides would lose, though even there, the U.S would likely lose a little bit less. In a conventional war, the U.S's massive advantage in airpower and naval power mean that China would be starved of all imports, suffering constant huge scale industrial bombing, and unable to equip it's huge hordes of infantry or feed it's gigantic populace. There is no situation in which China could launch a ground invasion of any U.S holdings. The U.S would win, but it would be a VERY bloody war. That's not even taking into account allies. Assuming Russia stays out of the war, (which it probably would, it has no binding treaties that would force its involvement,) roughly half the planet would be called into the fight against China on the side of the U.S. With allies, it becomes even more one sided, as the U.S could then operate out of Taiwan and Japan, making the aerial bombardment even more deadly, with the added benefit of Japan's VERY modern air force. There is no passable terrain that would make it possible for China to march through Tibet and Afghanistan to begin a ground assault on U.S allies, and it's very unlikely China would even make significant progress into Afghanistan at all, given the large U.S presence in the area already. Rough terrain favors the defenders.
Yes, Kirov vs Burke is an odd matchup, even for the already uneven class comparison of a flagship-role Battlecruiser against an escort-role Destroyer. I think that's kind of the point though. Kirov wins and not that easily... against *a single Burke*. The broader statement from that about the two Navies as a whole is pretty significant.
@Стојан Јовић Look I get the 'hometeam" instinct and it's not crazy to imagine that one Kirov battlecruiser fighting three Burke destroyers would do a lot better than a 1v1 matchup would suggest (because flagship role ships are generally better equipped to engage in that kind of matchup than escorts are) but you gotta also consider the specific loadout of the Kirov and that multiple Aegis destroyers with the Burke's loadout acting together can share their anti-ballistic curtain increasing their effectiveness beyond that basic numerical advantage. The Kirov is stronger than the Burke, OBVIOUSLY, and it better be stronger for what it's supposed to do in its fleet role. But hyperbole like "maybe 1000" makes the Kirov seem weak because NO modern surface ship can be expected to take on myriad opponents from a peer navy and making that kind of claim just sounds like overcompensation.
For close-in Kirov defenses, it's got 6-8 CIWS guns. Also: "The size of the [Granit] missile limits the platforms on which it can operate and be launched from. It has only been deployed from Oscar-class submarines, Kirov-class battlecruisers, and the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Ships of all three types will have their Granit missiles replaced with new launch cells to carry smaller Oniks and Kalibr cruise missiles in greater numbers." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit
The fact that a comparison is being drawn between a destroyer and a battlecruiser almost 3x its weight shows you all you need to know about to the two navies
syed musa lol. Isn’t the only aircraft carrier Russia has a floating rust bucket? Caught fire after a few sorties in Syria? Doesn’t even have a slot large enough to repair it? Can’t launch loaded fighters because it was built with one of those cute little jump ramps? Russia is a joke. Everything they have dates back to before the collapse of the USSR. This is why only one of these ancient out dated relics are still floating. Its about as sad as the Russian “stealth” fighter when they can’t even stamp out the exterior panels to fit snug. What a joke.
@syed musa LOL no it shows that the Russian navy is top-heavy, with a handful of very big ships forming the biggest part of the total firepower available. Compare those 3 battlecruisers (with only 1 currently in active service) to the 65 destroyers the US has available and tell me which navy has more firepower at its disposal? The US also has big ships: the Ticonderoga class, of which it has 22 (2 for each carrier), and the supercarriers, of which it has 11. But they don't form the main share of US naval firepower (not counting the carrier's air wings of course). That role goes to the smaller multi-role workhorses, the Destroyers. That's a sign of a powerful, large and well-balanced navy. The Chinese are going for a similar model now that they are becoming the world's second most powerful navy. They are building lots of smaller multi-role frigates and destroyers that form the lion's share of the fleet's combat power, and a smaller number of big type 055 cruisers to accompany the carriers.
People do need to realize that Russia’s naval doctrine, yes, Is Indeed very much on the aggressive side, but they also focus mainly on area-denial, which Is why the Kirov-class ships are designed the way they are. They’re meant to deny the enemy, such as the US for example, to gain territory, with the help of ground-based air and missile support, and If you combine that with a Kirov-class battle cruiser and say, two Slava-class cruisers, that would make for a very, very difficult area to attack, hence the reason why no one wants to Invade Russia. Russia Is so defense-heavy, they are merely an impenetrable fortress. Now, If we talk about just their offensive capabilities only, well.. that’s a different story.
@@person4905 Yes, it would. In either case the Kirov would be annihilated by submarines or aircraft before it ever got within 800 miles of a US surface ship. (For that matter so would a single Burke- or Ticonderoga-class operating unsupported within range of significant Russian land-based air or submarine forces, but I can't imagine a scenario where a USN commander would be stupid enough to try that.)
Bruce Tucker aircraft no, submarines maybe, Kirov was designed to take on US Carrier groups all by itself which usually consist of a carrier (obvi) a Tico, 1-2 Burkes maybe a frigate and a attack sub, the Kirov was designed to swat F-14s out of the sky with its endless amount of SAMs and 8 CIWS and subs there’s probably a good 50/50 of who will get taken out first, the Kirov has the same ASW capabilities of the Udaloy class ASW destroyer and the same ASW Radar and sensors but it’s all about who gets detected first
Bruce Tucker okay maybe the sub part was a little generous probably around 25-75 in favour of the sub but the rest is true, 48 S-300FM long range SAM and 64 3K95 “Kinzhal” point Defense SAM and 6 CADS-N-1 Kortik CIWS will knock anything out of the sky with little problems, but the Sonar is very good on the Kirov, the “Horse Jaw” LF hull sonar and “Horse Tail” VDS (Variable Depth Sonar) are exceptional in finding subs and equipped with 2x10 RBU-1000 305mm ASW Rocket Launchers, 1x6 RBU-12000 254mm Rocket Launcher and 10x533mm Torpedoes and pretty effective against subs if they get detected
Well considering the Kirov is 28,000 tons loaded and the Burkes are 8,900 loaded I think you should even up the displacement and do 3 Burkes against a Kirov.
Russian Navy has a habit of putting launcher tubes right on the broadside of the vessel. One well placed hellfire and you have the fuel and warheads of 6 missiles exploding on the ship
I know you mentioned this, but the comparison makes no sense. The Burke was not designed for ship-ship warfare, nor in wartime would it ever be fighting alone. It would always have a CVN and SSN nearby. These are the vessels that would attack the Kirov.... The Kirov vs the modernized Iowa class battleships would be a more interesting discussion, but they have all been retired.
The Iowa class would win. Ships are not built to take 27 rounds of hot steel a minute anymore. The Kirov is no different. The USS Missouri was modernized with 2-3 CWIS’ and multiple missle silos as well. 10/10 Iowa class win, even if they get hit by missles.
@@chandlerboyd3386 the iowa needs to be within 40km of the kirov to shoot it with iowa's main guns. I don't think there will be a kirov captain stupid enough to do that
kirov is a horrible ship though. binkov has a european accent, so hes definitely biased in favour of the kirov. anything the russians make is crap. those things are only good in propaganda. when a russian opens his mouth, he is automatically lying. when they say the kirov is good, they are lying. also, a comment ive seen lately, is that most ships have 80s, 90s and 2000s tech. even so, the kirov is still crap. it may have tech of the same timeperiod, but they are around 50 years behind the west in almost everything.
That's just not how this would play out. There would be a lot more missiles flying. The idea is to overwhelm the enemy. The Moskva is sitting at the bottom of the Black Sea from just two Neptunes.
@Garviel Loken Some of the Tomahawks carried have been upgraded to attack slow moving targets. However, they fly slowly in a straight line and would reduce the magazine capacity for other systems. a VLS has wonderful capabilities for carrying a mix of weapons but you must remember that the more you carry of one weapon the fewer you have of all the others. For example, if the Burke is carrying any SM-3 missiles, they would be useless in this sort of engagement as it is exoatmospheric only, but they would decrease the number of other available missiles. Also, Tomahawk is very easy to intercept.
Burke flight 3 can carry a mix of sm6, sm2, sm3, tomawak block 5 (in future also lrasm) with a total of 96 weapons, covering surface and air objetives. I mean can destroy a kirov cruise easily becauae can detect before
Only if you pretend satellites and fixed-wing aircraft don't exist. Neither of those ships would never be cruising around in the open ocean blindly hunting for each other like this, it's an absurd scenario.
Awesome videos !!! If might add, most of USN ships other then Carriers are designed for fleet defence ( minus subs). Ship to ship Combat ist the duty of subs and Carriers
You did it again. Why compare the Kirov Battlecruiser, to a Destroyer, when you can compare it to the Ticonderoga Class Cruisers which are closer to it's class. This is like all the videos where you compared North Korea's chances if the US doesn't have access to it's allies, which is silly since the only reason NK and the US are at Odd's is because they threaten US allies.
It propaganda. Anybody who has been in the Navy knows that the Burke would waste the Soviet era Kirov. The Burke has the firepower of a cruiser, and is technologically FAR superior. The US Navy crews are also much better trained, and operate at sea at least 9 months out of every 18 month period, and when not on deployments are constantly training and cross-decking to other ships to gain experience. There is no match here. Burke destroys the Kirov easily. This is just fact. And any sea service professional knows it, including the senior officers and admirals in the Russian Navy.
You underestimated the Arleigh Burkes capabilities, offensive and defensive. The Tomahawks carried in the VLS slots can also target moving ships rather than just ground targets (they are Tomahawk Block IV TLAMs - which have the integrated capability of the once-standalone Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) active radar homing anti-ship missile), as mentioned SM-6 missiles can be used to target surface ships, but so can the SM-2 series of missiles which are likely to be found loaded in some of the Burke VLS slots (96 for newer variants and 90 for older variants, but the ships with 90 slots would also have 8x Harpoon missiles on deck-mounted canister launchers). The RIM 162 ESSM SAMs you mentioned which are loaded in the VLS are actually quad-packed, so when you provided a range of between 8-16 ESSM SAMs, it would actually be 8x4 to 16x4 ESSMs for a total of 32 to 64 anti air missiles. Superior USN radar, electronic warfare capability, chaff/flare launchers, and radar decoy capability weren't factored in either. Add in superior training for USN sailors (see the Moskva sinking to prove the inadequate training of Russian sailors, also supported by many other Russian ships being sunk by a non-existent Ukraine navy), and the fact USN ships are well-maintained with Russian maintenance and reliability highly questionable (see their ski-jet aircraft carrier which has seen more time in port undergoing repair and in drydock undergoing major overhauls than it has been actually operational or deployed), there is no concern over USN ships being properly equipped/sustained due to superior budget support, and they go in for regular dry-dock maintenance as needed based on well-established service schedules. USN sailor training is also enhanced as a result of regular deployments to warzones over the past several decades and a very significant amount of organized training exercises with allies to ensure NATO interoperability between ships. Put simply, I'm sorry, but the Kirov would not win. Although the scenario is super unrealistic anyway, as neither ship would ever be engaged one versus one. If the Kirov engaged any ship, it would be with supporting vessels. If the Kirov and supporting vessels went to engage a lone USN destroyer, it would do the sensible thing and use its ample speed to evade. Once it's done evading, the Kirov's battleground would find itself facing a carrier strike group, and then it's all over from there without a doubt.
Kirov would not break a sweat. Remember it’s a missile guided battlecruiser. The sheer number of missiles it carries means game over. Iowa is a WW2 battleship and it was built with her big guns as main armament. Allthough she was given missiles when she was reactivated she was still an outdated design even with the missiles added. Her thick armour may have allowed her to stay a float for some time though.
1 or 2 Kirov vs 62 Burke!!! and The United States added the anti ship Tomahawk, the new LRASM and the Naval Strike Missile apart of the Harpoon, SM2 and SM6
The Kirov would easily hold down any 7th fleet you could procure. And that’s just one, potentially three kirovs could become active in an emergency pinning down the fleet with a incoming fist of missiles. The many accompanying ships of the fleet would be destroyed near instantly and if missiles fail the twin 130mm turrets would gun the fleet down. Stop arguing. Stop it.
@@stewie1237 You have an IQ lower than Magic-Johnson's T-Cell count. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about in the context of Naval Warfare OR Naval History. You're a blithering imbecile.
I was a sailor on the USS Fife DD-991 and had the privilege of seeing the Frunze up close and personal in 1989. The Fife was a Spruance class Destroyer with vertical launch capabilities. We followed the Frunze for several days in the Indian Ocean. I think the Soviet Captain thought it would be easy to intimidate us, but he failed to calculate his capabilities pretty much the same as Binkov failed. Its nice when you have a bunch of systems on your ship, but when they don't work it can be disheartening. Sorry Captain Ivan...or what ever your name was. The Frunze decided to "run" I guess they thought that they got tired of us running elint capture on them for as long as we did. Wow. It outran its Surface Action Group it was attached to. But...it couldn't out run us. We stuck to them like a limpet. And...our systems were functional. Given the disparity in the number of operational systems between our two ships I imagine the Frunze would have been a burning hulk if shooting would have started. I can't guarantee that the Fife would have gotten off scot free, but it would have been in better shape than that Soviet era hunk of junk. The Fife has since gone to a watery grave. I seriously doubt that a more modern and capable Burke class would fare any worse against a Kirov. The Kirov class like so many of the old Soviet Navy were paper tigers. The average Soviet sailor didn't have the skills necessary to maintain even the simplistic Soviet systems. Wrong again Binkov.
That's because Phalanx CIWS mounts are not really useful against supersonic missiles. Most modern warships rely on SAM systems with advanced radar to shoot down missiles, because they're too fast.
Realistically speaking a serious threat like a kirov would likely be engaged by a full-up task force including a carrier 4 Berks and a Ticonderoga, sm-6 is would probably be held in reserve for fleetdefense with the actual attack being delivered by aircraft. Also given that this video was made three years ago there are a couple new missile types which have been added including the long-range Naval Strike missile and if chatter is to be believed a Naval Strike tomahawk( we had them in the eighties and it wouldn't be that hard to install an anti-ship seaker head.
With respect, first, you didn't account for the 2 × Mark 32 triple torpedo tubes (six Mk-46 or Mk-50 torpedoes, mounted on the burke, which may make a difference against the kirov, and the one extra phanlax CIWS was replaced by 2 25mm m242 bush master cannons, so please consider this factors when comparing both ships at max loadout
Suleiman The Magnificent By who? Global firepower... Their data is incorrect, (eg. Israel has more than 250 planes...) and their whole why of calculating is incorrect as well. And besides that, Saying that army X is better than Y overall and only basing it on numbers is impossible, in a real war the amount of variables is endless. :)
Suleiman The Magnificent Egypt's military is massive and they operate many eastern and western weapon systems. I would root for Israel in this battle but I see Egypt pulling through.
Oppo Neo7 no... around 100F-16i, 100f-16cd, around 100 f-15abcdi. Note that all f-15 are also groud attack capable. All of these are fighters. All f-16cd and f-15abcd were upgraded with the avionics of the f-16i and f-15i respectively, those have modern avionics.
I get it, the Burke class destroyers are one helluva class of Destroyer. But having a Destroyer to be compared with not another Destroyer, not a Cruiser but a Battlecruiser, is rather insane on my opinion. Considering the fact that IOWA battleships were put back into service mainly to counter those Battlecruisers, it would have been an interresting battle to see these two clashes, even if Kirov might have came up easily on top, even against the latest variant of IOWA Battleship (which is in a terrible ship at this time). Considering that USN has cruisers that would have also been a better or at least a more interresting option and that the Russian navy also has cruisers or destroyers (a lot are at least as old as some US destroyers and a few a modern), I liked the idea of the video, the fight is really interresting, but there were better options on my opinion.
Yes, the burks have one ciws. However, the second ciws was replaced by rim-ram that can engage targets at a greater distance than the ciws. Also, ESSM is also deployed on burks. 4 missiles in one vls tube. Also, 20 mm romote firing guns have been added.
Given how poorly maintained the Moskova was based on a maintenance report, we can probably expect that the Kirov to be in similarly poor condition with most of the offensive and defensive systems either offline or well past their refurbishment date. Also there's only one Kirov class in active service vs 70 active Arleigh Burke destroyers.
Project 1144"Orlan" Order of Nakhimov heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great" - the fourth and only in the ranks of the heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR) of the third generation of the project 1144"Orlan". The flagship of the Northern fleet of Russia. The main purpose-the destruction of enemy aircraft carrier groups. It is the largest in the world operating nieviadomy shock combat ship as of 2016. Main performance characteristics Length: 250 m. Width: 25 m. Height from the level of the main plane: 59 m. Draft: 11.5 m. Standard displacement: 23 750 tons. Full displacement: 25 860 tons. Power plant: 2 nuclear reactors of KN-3 type (300 MW), 2 auxiliary boilers, two turbines of 70 thousand HP (total 140 thousand HP), 4 power plants with a total capacity of 18 thousand kW, 4 steam turbine generators with a capacity of 3000 kW, 4 gas turbine generators of 1500 kW, two propeller shafts. Speed: 32 knots (about 60 km/h). Autonomy of navigation-60 days on food and supplies, 3 years on fuel. The design of the hull and superstructure Length 49 of the corridors of the ship - more than 20 kilometers. The ship has 6 decks, 8 tiers. The height of the fore-mast from the level of the main plane is 59 meters. The powerful nuclear power plant of the cruiser allows it to reach a speed of 32 knots (60 km/h) and is designed for operation for 50 years. For comparison, the cruiser "Peter the Great" is able to provide electricity and heat to the city for 150-200 thousand inhabitants. The crew of the cruiser - 1035 persons (105 officers, 130 officers, 800 sailors). They are located at 1600 areas of the ship, including 140 single and double cabins for officers and warrant officers, 30 of the forecastle for the sailors and petty officers (8-30 people), 220 platforms. The crew has 15 showers, two baths, a sauna with a 6×2.5 m swimming pool, a two-level medical unit with infirmaries, a pharmacy, x-ray and dental offices, an outpatient clinic, an operating room, a gym equipped with simulators, three cabins for midshipmen, officers and admirals, a lounge with Billiards and a piano. There are also vnutritorakalnah Studio and 12 of household televisions in the cabins and the cabin, not counting the 30 monitors for viewing broadcasts that are broadcast on the cable network of the ship. TARKR "Peter the Great" is one of the most modern and powerful ships of the Russian Navy and one of the most powerful attack ships in the world. The ship has the ability to defeat large surface targets and protect sea connections from air attacks and enemy submarines. It has an unlimited range of navigation, it is equipped with shock cruise missiles capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 2600 kilometers. TARKR " Peter the Great "is equipped with anti-ship missile system" Granite "(developed by" NPO mashinostroeniya"), equipped with 20 launchers CM-233 with advanced high-precision anti-ship cruise missiles P-700" Granite " installed under the upper deck, with an elevation angle of 60 degrees. Rocket length - 10 m, caliber-0,85 m, starting weight-7 t. Military head - piece in nuclear (500 kt), normal (750 kg of explosive) warheads or fuel-air warheads (explosives). Range-700 km, flight speed-1,6-2,5 M. Missiles have a multi-variant program of attack targets, increased noise immunity and are designed to strike at group targets. When volley firing one of them should be at high altitude to increase the detection range of the enemy, exchanging information with others that are literally spread over the surface of the water. In case of destruction of the rocket-the leader its place is automatically taken by one of guided missiles. Over-the-horizon target designation and guidance can be carried out by Tu-95RTS, Ka-25TS helicopter or space reconnaissance and target designation system. The ship is equipped with anti-aircraft complex "Reef" S-300F, there are 12 PU and 96 vertical launch missiles. There is also an Autonomous ship anti-aircraft system "Dagger". Each drum-type sub-deck PU has 8 single-stage solid-fuel remote-controlled missiles 9M330-2, the total stock-128 missiles. The cruiser is armed with anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex "Kortik", providing self-defense against a number of" accurate " weapons, including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, bombs, aircraft and helicopters, light-tonnage ships. Each unit has two 30-mm six-barrel AK-630M1-2 artillery units with two AO-18 assault rifles according to the "Gatling" scheme with a total rate of fire of 10,000 V / min and two blocks of 4 two-stage 9m311 missiles (SA-N-11) with a fragmentation rod warhead and a non-contact fuse. In the turret compartment is 16 missiles. Missiles unified with 2С6 missile complex "Tunguska". The control system of the Kortik air defense system consists of radar and television systems connected with each other using elements of artificial intelligence. Two installations of the Kortik air defense system are located in the bow of the ship on both sides of the Granit PU, and four others are located in the aft part of the main superstructure. "Peter the Great" in may 2010 In addition, the cruiser "Peter the Great" is equipped with 130-mm multi-purpose twin art installations "AK - 130" (length of trunks - 70 calibers, 840 shells) with a range of up to 25 km.rate of Fire-from 20 to 80 rounds per minute. The mass of the high-explosive shell-27 kg, has a shock, remote and radio detonators. Ready to fire ammunition-180 shells. The shooting control system Mr-184 allows simultaneous tracking and firing at two targets. The cruiser was also armed with two anti-submarine (5 PU Board) rocket-torpedo 533 mm complexes RPK-6M "Waterfall", missile-torpedoes which are capable of hitting submarines of the enemy at ranges up to 60 km as a combat head is used a small torpedo, UMGT-1. The rocket dives into the water, takes off into the air and delivers a torpedo to the target area, and there is already a word for UMGT-1, which again dives into the water. To combat enemy torpedoes the cruiser "Peter the Great" has a torpedo complex RCPTS-1 "Udav-1M" (10 pipes, rails, conveyor automatic recharge, reaction time - 15 sec. the maximum range is 3000 m, the minimum is 100 m, the weight of the rocket - 233 kg). The rocket launchers on the "Peter the Great "are placed as follows: one ten-pipe RBU - 12000 (firing range - 3000 m, projectile weight-80 kg) is installed in the bow of the ship on a turntable, two six-pipe RBU - 1000" Smerch - 3 " (range - 1000 m, projectile weight-55 kg) - in the aft on the upper deck on both sides. Working on counter-measures include two paired 150-mm PU PC-14 (complex shoots interference), protivoallergennye traps, decoys and towed about a torpedo goal with a powerful mechanism noise generator. On Board the cruiser based two anti-submarine ka-27. Radar facilities RAP / EW TARKR "Peter the Great" include 16 stations of three types. Ship surveillance, tracking and targeting consists of two stations of space communication (SATS), four stations space navigation (SATAU) and four special electronic stations. The air-surface situation is monitored by all-weather three-coordinate radar "Frigate-MAE" detecting targets at ranges of more than 300 km and altitudes up to 30 km. The cruiser also has three navigation stations, four radio-electronic control systems for firing airborne weapons, helicopter flight controls and a "friend / foe"identification system. The ship's sonar system includes a sonar with a hull antenna for search and detection of submarines at low and medium frequencies and a towed automated sonar system with a variable depth antenna (150-200 m) - at medium frequencies. When upgrading in 2019-2022 years in the armament of the cruiser will be added hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zircon", universal supersonic anti-ship missiles and medium-range missiles P-800 "Onyx" cruise missiles "Caliber". The missiles will be launched from 3s14 universal launchers.
In real life however each destroyer has sattelite coms for secondary detection for scanning area around the ship that multiply each of destroyer ship capability to hunt and destroy each other...
So a warship that is more than double the size of it's opponent will most likely win the battle. Who'd have thunk such a thing. When comparing ships in battle you have to keep the tonnage at least close so in this case you would have two Burke class destroyers.
Imperial Mexico would be interesting, but does Mexico really have enough centralized control to pull something off like that? I was under the impression that Mexico had disunification and corruption issues similar to 1900s Republic of China.
Generally, you would expect a cruiser to defeat a destroyer in head-to-head battle. But consider the German experience in WW2. They used many of their heavy cruisers and 'pocket battleships' and battleships as raiders, and all were hunted down. Smaller ships or aircraft located and damaged them, and then the pack closed in to sink them. A Burke would shadow, rather than confront Kirov. Bring in some subs or an air-wing and the Kirov would be running for home, or sunk.
He also missed out the Kirov torpedoes and twin cannon, Kirov ships are also armed with an air launched nuclear torpedo, some sources say that Pyotr was armed with one and some say only the other 3 Kirovs were armed with them.
Incorrect: U.S. Tomahawk Missiles go in blocks - there is the T-LAM (Tomahawk land-attack missile), and also a surface attack variant anti-ship missile. They make 3-4 different types. The one you are talking about (TLAM) uses TERCOM (terrain contour matching) navigation.
![일상 속 기분 좋음 [Proto disco meme]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DwmEIaZ7XGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
My grandad was in the navy in the 1980’s serving in the RN and he shadowed the Kiev from Africa to the English Channel
Cool.
rob 998 You’re so funny and clever dude!
@rob 998 Why does Gen X never get any love?
On the USS Fife in '89 we shadowed the Frunze off Africa and made them soil themselves. The Soviets didn't even have a highway from coast to coast. All their stuff was bubblegum and bailing wire. They looked great on paper, but would have fallen apart in a real fight. We sailed with the RN and the Australians. The Aussies were a blast to hang out with in port. However, we pulled into Hong Kong and were relaxing at the Hong Kong Fleet Club and an RN ship pulled into port. They were so rowdy and got in so many fights their liberty was cancelled and they were back at sea before the sun went down.
@@colerape "fallen apart in a real fight"
The soviet navy sent ballistic missile submarines to the US in 1988. NATO detected them leaving their ports but lost them in the ocean. The soviet submarines came close enough to take photographs of the US coast undetected. The soviets always had the americans by the neck. Did you forget that the USSR single handedly won the european theater of ww2 ?
80% of all german soldiers died in front of a soviet soldier. More german soldiers died in battle of stalingrad than during the 6 years of fighting on the western front. And before you mention your "great" lend lease, I must remind you that it made up only 7% of the total soviet production and didn't arrive in useful quantities till 1943, when the german army was already in retreat.
The soviet military of the late 1970s and early 1980s would have been truly invincible in a European war. The US military in the 1990s admitted that they would have had a hard time destroying the armour of the T 72 and could not penetrate the armour of the T 80. More than 5000 T 80 tanks were in service with the soviet army by the mid 1980s . The soviets took 27 million casualties in ww2. The yank empire will collapse in a few days if they lost 500,000 men in a war. I dont hate americans but you all brag a lot when you lost to farmers in vietnam and cave dwellers in afghanistan. And you all compare yourselves with the soviets who won the greatest land battles in history.
I dont like the soviet government and their inhumane policies but denying the might of the soviet armed forces and the sheer will and determination of the soviet people is a bit stupid.
US Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier vs Canadian Lighthouse please
+MR.Chickennuget 360
Oh it's you again.
Light house four ,Carrier one. Three planes crashed into light house in dark, one Carrier grounded. In water way to shallow to cruse in, trying to land last plane after destroying light house with planes. Several crew overboard lost, several planes smashed in crash,captain evacuated with severe burns to crotch from soup spilled in lap. Should have sent planes ,not aircraft carrier.
Summary, we had a really bad day. ----? ???? What ???Reactor leak!!! What?!!! Fire ?!!! What?!!! Holy s---- !!! This day ain't over yet.!----
@uh wot using nuclear weapons is a bridge that you can't uncross, And Noone who is in the least bit
Sane will cross it.
Never happened.
MR.Chickennuget 360 - per PM Trudeau’s initiative that’s a transsexual indigenous lighthouse.
Kirov vs Burke? Seriously?
Kirov displacement is 25000+t, Burke - around 7000t. You should compare Kirov-class to Ticonderoga-class at least, or, more honestly, Slava-class and Ticonderoga-class.
Burke should be compared to Sovremenny-Class destroyer.
Half a minute in the viedeo it is said that they are not directly comparable
Burke T K O 😂😂😂
Pavel Galitsyn
The comparison is about country’s main Naval ships So it’s fine. It’s in the same way when people compare Nimitz to Kuznetsov.
Kirov class is a very old ship with very old equipment. She is running off the cannibalised gear from her sisters and Russia has a much smaller defence budget than the old Soviet union and a lot of commitments to pay for.
Even worse... burke is not really made to engage larger ships... still it would put up a decent fight.
Partly proves that the battleships concept is totally out of time...and that the us navy is so reduculasly over powered.
Us navy got more than twice the number of carriers than the rest of the world together.... and they are over twice the size.
Really just two of the largest carrier have more capacity than all other nations carrier combined.
Also us navy alone got more fighter and attack aircraft than the full Russian airforce combined.
Retired US Navy CPO here. I’ve toured Russian ships. I was amazed of how they disregarded the most basic maintenance. Painted over gasket watertight seals. Cheaply made fire fighting equipment. Wide spaced structural framing. Their weapon systems are redundant cause of the high rate of breakdowns. They are a tough people with poor leadership.
back then they were lack of fund + poor , now day it diffirent , look at they new war ship way better then 2000s period , same with the Chinese , both of those country are not the same country when you are in service and they are America main enemy it just matter of time befor America and china have a sea battle to determent who the new world super power
inoue jerry let China and Russia go at each other first before you can play with the big boys.
Agree! But that's true only in 1990's but today it was upgraded. And kinzhal is a very deadly missile.
as a russian sailor, as much as i hate to say it, yes they have poor maintenance, not sure but now tho
This comment aged like fine wine
Isn't Kirov a battle cruiser while Burke is a destroyer? Kashin, Udaloy, and Sovremennyy Classes are comparable Russian destroyers.
I commented before on the need to compare Burke Flight III (or Tico).
Nice profile pic
Mickey G yes but the Burke is obviously better than those this battle is more fair
Yes, but the Kirov is 20 years older
Andrés The Royal Marine Kirov is old but it's tough. Burke is new but weak like tin can and cost cutting.
Russian capital ship, a 25,000 ton battlecruiser, of which 3 were ever made, against a US destroyer that is less than 1/3 the tonnage, of which over 60 have been made, in a 1 on 1 fight.
Next up: Spetsnaz Special Forces vs. Iowa National Guard, to determine if the US or Russia has a better land army.
Curious how kirov would fair against a refit iowa.
@@brianlanglois2776 With the refit, Iowa would stomp it, without breaking a sweat. Kirov doesn't have any weapons that can penetrate Iowa's citadel, and the refit Iowa had a bunch of its secondary five inch guns replaced with missile launchers, carrying harpoon, tomahawk, and other various modern missiles, (which the Kirov can probably defend against), it also still has its superfiring guns (which the Kirov can't do anything about). Most importantly, the refit Iowas were fitted with FOUR Phalanx CIWS systems each, compared to the single one an Arleigh Burke has, which is already almost an impenetrable defense, so nothing the Kirov could shoot at it would get through. Even if none of the 16 harpoon missiles the Iowa carries got through, at 33 knots its faster than Kirov, so it could move in close range even if Kirov was running, and use its superfiring guns. Almost any hit with a 2,000 pound shell would be a 1 shot kill. Being designed to handle hits from weapons like that, any hits against the Iowa would be fairly ineffective, if the Kirov even managed to land any which is dubious with the 4 phalanx systems (The Iowa's armor belt, at the waterline where missiles are designed to hit, is over a foot thick. The Kirov's thickest armor is 3 inches.)
The Iowa class was retired because it was obnoxiously expensive to maintain and ship on ship warfare was seen as an outdated specialization, but it's still the best ship-on-ship vessel ever made with its refit. It's big weakness would be high flying aircraft which the Kirov doesn't have. What the navy found with the Iowas is that since we aren't fighting against blue-water navies, their effectiveness on ground targets was in the same neighborhood as a destroyer, while costing like 10x as much to run, and that a carrier was a far better investment if you're going to spend that kind of money because it gives you something a lot more rounded than an ultra-powerful, ultra-specialized anti-ship vessel
@@siegfriedarmory6271 despite me preferring the US, I have to say it's more likely the Kirov will win. Yes the Iowa has 4 CIWS and would win if it got in range of it's guns, however the missiles carried by modern ships, especially Russian ones would decimate on hit and cripple it in a couple. The Iowa may stop about a dozen at most but it's defenses would get overwhelmed. CIWS is a last resort defence, modern US DDs rely on missiles to stop missiles, not CIWS
@@siegfriedarmory6271 This is a battle between an elephant and a whale) Incomparable concepts. No ship has a chance to survive against RCC Granite. Iowa is just a big goal that you should not come close to.
Subsonic light RCCs like Harpoon are ineffective against flotillas with strong air defense. Although they can be launched a lot and they are much cheaper than the P-700, which costs like a small fighter.
P-700 is a monster, out of categories. It doesn't matter how the target is protected.
"The missile is equipped with various types of warheads. It can be either a semi-armor-piercing (HE-penetrating) warhead weighing 584-750 kg, or a tactical nuclear TNT equivalent of up to 500 kilotons. The missile is guided using an active radar guidance head. On-board autonomous selective system RCC control system is built on the basis of a three-processor on-board computer (BCM) using several information channels, which allows you to successfully understand a difficult jamming situation During the group launch of missiles (salvo), missiles, having detected an enemy with their homing heads, exchange information, identify and distribute targets according to their size, relative position and other parameters. The digital computer contains electronic data on modern classes ships; tactical information, for example, on the type of ship warrants, which allows the missile to determine what is in front of it is a convoy, aircraft carrier or landing group, and attack the main targets in its composition; data on counteracting enemy electronic warfare, capable of staging missiles to lead missiles away from targets; tactics of evading fire from air defense systems. "
They are launched only by a pack for a group target. When a leading rocket can assess the situation and distribute goals for the rest.
In addition, the warhead is armored and accelerates to the maximum speed at the finish path to the target, the guns simply are not able to stop the two-ton “bolide”, which also carries a 500 kiloton warhead.
@@elusive6119 The Granit is a pretty powerful anti-ship missile but it wasn't designed to contend with the huge amount of armor Iowa has. Iowa's armor belt is over a foot thick, most ships have 2 or 3 inches at most (Peter the Great's 3 inch armor is considered very thick). The Iowa class armor belt couldn't be penetrated by direct hits from 16 or 18 inch shells with as much as double the explosive payload of a Granit, and that's assuming the Granit could get past the 4 phalanx systems, when it was considered dubious that it could even get past 1 of the same system in the case of the Arleigh Burke destroyer. The Iowa class was designed to withstand direct hits from multiple weapons with many times the payload of a Granit. It's a great missile, but useless against a ship like the Iowa.
The refit Iowa is larger, faster, has several times more armor, more anti-missile defenses, and more weapons, some of which the cruiser can't do anything about, like the superfiring guns (mind you, each shell carries double the explosive payload of a granit). It stomps the cruiser for the same reason the cruiser stomped the destroyer, it's simply a bigger fish. If you took the Peter the Great, made it longer, made the armor 4x thicker, made it 3 knots faster, gave it twice as many anti-missile defenses, and 9 superfiring guns, from which each shell impacts with double the explosive power of a granit, you would have built the equal of a refit Iowa class. It's not comparing elephants to whales, it's comparing a wolf to a grizzly bear.
Also, if you look at the history of it, the refit Iowa class was specifically made as a response to this exact Russian ship, and was specially designed to merc it, at the expense of all other utility, which is why all the refit Iowa's were decommissioned shortly after the collapse of the soviet union, when these cruisers were no longer a threat, and the battleships stopped being worth the expense of maintaining.
Odds that these two ships would ever engage in a 1 on 1 surface battle: 0.0%
They were never meant for that. It's like asking whether the M16A2 or AK-74M would make a better 1200-meter sniper rifle.
@@brucetucker4847 The kirov was specifically made for attacking not one destroyer but a whole carrier group
@@ignacioaguirrenoguez6218 Then it was made by idiots hooked on wishful thinking.
@@brucetucker4847 not really. Why do you think russia has so many missiles cruisers/destroyers and even SSNG subs. Because that was there Answer to carrier Groups. Keep in mind we talk about a Ship build in 1974 agains a Ship from 1991. Arleigh Burkes are basicly the counter to Ships like Kirov / Slava or SSNG Subs. Arleigh Burkes job is to shot down anythink trying to touch its offensiv weopen. There Carriers. At 1980 Spruance class was around and i think 2-3 Crusier classes. And 1982-1983 the first Ticonderoga came out. So at the time Kirov was build the where a thread to a Carrier group since there would be nothing exept 3 years later to counter that class.
In the Video we compare an old Ship against something build 20+ years later.
@@Hubidubi18 The Kirovs would have been overwhelmed and destroyed by hundreds of antiship missiles launched by planes from outside the range of anything the Kirovs or their escorts mounted. Keep in mind the US would always have multiple carrier groups in the North Atlantic in the event of war, so there would have been hundreds of strike aircraft they could sortie. Satellites and recon planes would have easily revealed the Kirov groups' locations so planes could target them with missiles from over the horizon without ever being spotted by the Soviets' radars - not to mention the swarm of HARMs that would annihilate any active radar the Soviets used.
Submarines were a much more rational and deadly threat to American carriers. That would have been what kept US carriers on the friendly side of the GIUK gap, and it's very doubtful the Soviets would have been foolish enough to try to cross that gap with surface vessels.
2:23: Checkmate, flat earthers. Your move.
Robert Daniel Curtis lol, nice one 😄
There are people who believe in flat earth?
greekmarine troller yes
Keyvan Maris wtf
greekmarine troller yep
"This is an Arleigh Burke destroyer, it was built to fight, you better know how", The Last Ship.
last ship isn't accurate and the plot is only there to satisfy its viewers
The Last Ship's ramming scene is quite unrealistic.
A thin-hulled ramming destroyer vs Iowa class's 310mm belt armour is quite foolish.
Lee Hong Jin no, he armed every missile in the ship, through cinema the ram detonated envy single one, effectively a 7000 tonne torpedo
im watching it now
Even Iran has better ships than those Arleigh Burke!
Wouldn't it be more fitting if the Kirov gets pitted against the Ticonderoga-class cruiser?
Grombrindal it would be similar. The Ticonderoga is only slightly bigger than the Arleigh Burke.
Not to mention, there is only 1 Kirov. The Burke is a "Fleet Destroyer" meaning they escort Carriers unless they are on a specific mission, in which case there are always atleast 2 on a mission.
Zumwalt class.
See the weapons and stealth systems on Wikipedia before you make that statement. It doesn't need ciws. ;)
Gaming With Ryan negayory. Ticonderoga Cruisers and Sprunce class Destroyers each have 40+ ship-to-ship missiles AND 40+ Tomahawk missiles. Any SAM can be replaced by a Ship-to-Ship missile. Even a Sparrow missile can be used to target and hit a ship. And use guns to stop attacks. The Phoenix ADA can shoot down a Mortar and track a sneeze...
*a naval threat appears*
Usn: we need a new warships
Modernized Iowa: hey
Usn: no
Modernized Iowa: *I'm literally the ship that you're looking for*
Nuclear Aegis Iowa
@@willj78 that would do MORE THAN ENOUGH
leave the iowas alone! there retired! they did there time , to precious to use and too expensive to update.
No
@@marioncobaretti2280 USA spends 500 billion a year on defense they have more then enough to update it and recomission it.
turns out two Ukrainian made Neptunian missiles is just enough...
No that was the Moskova class missile cruiser this is the much larger and much more powerful Kirov class BATTLEcruiser
@@redtob2119 Yeah, but still...the Moskva was built as an air defense cruiser, with long, short and point blank AA systems to defend a task force from air and missile attacks. It's cruise missile punch was secondary, with little ASW capability. It only took a couple of modernized Soviet versions of a Harpoon missile to knock it out, even when it's mission is to shoot down incoming missiles! This indicates low crew quality, low equipment quality, or weaknesses that the Ukrainians knew about and were able to exploit.
@@cowpercoles1194 That is all irrelevant to what i said so i’m not reading it 😐 all i stated is he got the wrong ship and the kirov is more powerful which is true so there isn’t anything more to elaborate on
@@redtob2119 Kirov is an outdated ship. It would also have the same fate as the Moskova class did.
@@redtob2119 so you saying it will take about 2 neptune missle to sink her hahaha say what you want but i bet alot of system were so neglected by coruption im sure not all the missle will track or even fire.
CNN vs RT.... Please
Even grandma knows CNN is fake news.
topkitena and RT is straight propaganda from putin.
Well at least it's straight, not homosexual
I don't think its an epic rap battle
Kirov Reporting,
Some people will get the reference
RED ALERTTT MA' BOY !
"Bearing set"
Red alert lol
Acknowledged
WE WILL BURY THEM
While this is not surprising considering the Kirov is designed specifically for Anti-Surface Warfare and the Burke is designed for ground attack and fleet support, there is one thing very important that Binkov might have missed or overlooked. That is the TASM, which the Burke would have undoubtedly been loaded with on the onset of war which therefore means the Burke has about a dozen or two monkey wrench's in Bonkov's predictions.
My favorite part is that you're exploring the implications of these ships not having the same weapon systems that they used to have and the ways that changes the battle.
Interesting. The Arleigh Burke does well for a much smaller ship.
Rangatiratūmeke thats because its more adcanced and some info in this video is false.
This guy hasn’t watched the
Last ship ain’t no Kirov can stop a Tom chandler
Lol the nathan james is the best warship
Laughs in Iowa.
Cause the show is unbiased.
@@atomicred604 nathan james ain't even real
@@jorge227able1 In the show they frequently acknowledged that the destroyer was no match for a battlecruiser, they couldn't destroy it in a ship on ship battle, what they ended up doing was a special forces team snuck on and set off bombs in the gun magazines and engine compartment.
Being able to secretly board a warship is also pretty unrealistic, but it makes for good TV, and does acknowledge that a destroyer can't go toe to toe with a ship that's something like 3 or 4x its tonnage.
Kirov vs Ticonderoga😊✋
A much more fair fight.
@@QualityPen
New Arleigh Burke destroyers are basically the same size as the Ticonderoga cruisers (both 9800 tons displacement), and assuming the newer ships make better use of that space (better weapons and sensors, more efficient layout, etc) it could certainly be true.
Now time to be realistica? How many AB destroyers do the US NAVY have and Ticonderoga class cruisers? Now how many can engage the one, maybe 2 battle cruisers one day. Considering they would be monitored the moment they go to sea, who would ever expect a one on one engagement being by total surprise? So who would be better prepared and choose the site for the engagement? So let's see the is another AB or even a smaller US SHIP with the AB.
Even off the coast of Syria at high alert Russia could only muster one frigate to counter 2 AB attempting to intimidate them after they destroyed the Syrian AFB With a perfect missile barrage, And don't even claim any were defended. I counted ever impact crater on photo and video. The single tomahawk that was not a direct hit was detonated about 300m.from it's target because of the on board safety system engaged when it was below it's programmed altitude, that safety system was used to prevent collateral damage and risk to civilians near the base. The Russians were notified they were inbound and they could do nothing but start making up stories for propaganda to deny their total failure. Didn't know they had late happy hour bars in Syria! Are they drinking rocket fuel again with no vodka in Syria???? Or hung over on base?
Oh, yes I can't spell on my tablet
But consider the AB has a attack SBN following that Battle cruiser constantly reporting it's posiion? Can they multitask that relic? They do have the only navy in the history that surrendered an entire fleet in it's entirety to Japan. Even their Admiralty weren't for over an POW 's and most died in prison camps. There best ships were either scrapped or sunk at entrances as gate guards for japan.
Don’t sleep on Tico. The refitted ones can literally engage ballistic missiles and satellites, on top of everything else. They’re a true full spectrum combatant. Sure, that stuff will be rolled out to the Burke’s soon enough, but the real badass will be the new Large Surface Combatant program that’s likely to be nuclear powered and have a much greater variety of ways to kill.
Do Operation Unthinkable
Binkov said he was interested in doing a cold war video for the 80's but i'm not sure if he would be willing to go any earlier than that. He said that the choice of late cold war was due to the better documentation so going any earlier will likely be discouraging to him.
TheSovietSpy 17 .......hellz to the yeah !!!
yes!, and the outcome would be that the Evil tyrannical soviets would be crushed and the Polish and Russians would be freed.
I think by the size of their army and their stronger logistical supply connection (all they have to do is drive to the battle, the US has to send it by ship over an entire atlantic ocean)
they'd start to push back the americans on the western front back at first despite the US soldiers being more superiorly armed and trained and despite having superior tanks but once reinforcements arrive the tables will turn
(a mosin nagant is no match for an m1 garand and neither is a t-34 a match for an m4 sherman).
(and even then we'd have more tanks, of the 57,000 T-34's deployed on the Eastern front about 45,000 were destroyed (80%) compared to the 19,000 m4 shermans deployed on Normandy campaign in which only 3,700 were destroyed (20%).
Not to mention we without a shadow of a doubt have air superiority, P51D's were better than the Yak 9's and La-7's on the western front and once Japan had been dealt with we would also without a shadow of a doubt gain naval superiority and with our ~25 aircraft carriers easily gain air superiority in the Arctic ocean too and the F4U-4's and F6F hellcats are also better than the La-7's and Yak-9's.
Once he would have air superiority we would crush their Warmachine and crush their logistics with Strategic bombing just like with the germans. The Winter wouldn't stop us either, slow us down maybe but not stop us.
Unlike the Germans we ACTUALLY have winter gear
(the germans were not given winter gear because Hitler was retarded) and as proven in the battle of the Bulge unlike the German tanks the M4 sherman copes with the cold and bad conditions extremely well.
oh and also we have the nuke. and with air superiority we wouldn't have much issue dropping it on a population center and hammer down a surrender.
I'd say we'd lose atleast a million or 2 US soldiers but i recon it could be done by 1950.
+Alberto Amoruso
*Laughs at my comment*
*brings no evidence to counteract my claims*
*Brainwashed trump hater who just listens to media about him*
"The The Soviets would have accelerated nuclear bomb devolopment and delivered it onto New York as soon as it was ready"
BAAAAAA HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA
the soviets were no where fucking near creating the nuclear bomb, the reason they knew was because the US told them and even if they did
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU DELIVER IT OVER THE ATLANTIC OCEAN!
A). you have to have a plane big enough to carry it
(little boy for EG: weighed over 5000kg's, only a B-29 in the US Arsenal could carry it)
Russia had no such plane that could do this.
B). you have the plane has to have over 5400km of range WITH the 5000kg bomb (and thats assuming a one way trip suicide mission)
in which no plane on earth at this time could pull off.
(the first plane in the world that would have ever have potentially pulled that off would have been the B-52 made in 1955.)
C). you have to get over that Atlantic ocean without being shot down, again good fucking luck with that when the US has over 25 aircraft carriers with F4U-4's or without being spotted, again good luck with that too considering the US's Naval superiority and radar.
The only plane on earth too this day that could have pulled off all 3 of those in such circumstances is the 2 billion dollar B-2 Spirit made in the 1980's.
The way the US did it was because they had air superiority and launched the B-29 from Okinawa (the bomb was transported to that island by ship). The Russians would have to defeat the US navy and take Rhode island or something in order to be close enough for their super bomber (which they'd have to design and build) to get the bomb NY.
and Considering that the US Navy was so much stronger than the Russian navy at that time that a Single Iowa class battleship and a hand full of Fletches could take on the Entire russian navy and probably win the odd's of Russia getting a nuke the NY are practically 0.
their is no fucking way on gods green earth they could pull off a land invasion against the United states.
Hell it was hard enough for the US to pull of D-day even with Britain having naval and Air superiority when we got their.
Stalin is supposed to have said that "Quantity has a quality all its own". My understanding is that there are 67 active Arleigh Burke class destroyers and only 1 active Kirov. This comparison seems to be of only academic interest.
@Marcus Tullius Russia has one operational kirov cruiser and one in the modernization phase, this means one operational.
Kirov was built as a platform for the biggest anti-ship missiles the Russians could fit. Burkes are escort, anti-submarine ships. US Navy Doctrine does not (until recently) viewed ships as anti-ship platforms.
This is because the US has since ww2 that planes are the best weapon to attack ships- thus US would not try to close with Kirov until it had been attacked by Aircraft and disabled.
Iowa's were not re-commissioned to counter the Kirov (beyond public relations) Iowa's were sent to Amphibious ready groups and were geared for Ground strike and gun fire support missions off shore. They were not geared for Ship to ship combat.
68
*KIROV REPORTING*
The 225677th Fragment of the Man-Emperor of Mankind wrong kirov my emperor.
FOR THE UNION!
We are all Kirov.
Helium mix optimal!
IS THAT YOUR HOUSE OVER THERE?
I just love how unbiased this channel is. Keep up the great work!
unbiased? lol
it shows a quite a bit of bias, and more than a little inaccuracy in some of the things they say.
You forgot the torpedo load out, and we’ve practiced the art of shooting from a moving target at another moving target for almost 2 centuries now.
The Burkes only have small (13") homing torpedoes. The torps carried are small, anti-sub torps with warheads just big enough to damage a submarine, forcing it to the surface (mission-kill). The torps don't have the range or the boom to be effective against enemy surface ships.
That wouldn't even scratch the kirovs armored belt
@@ro_5907 honestly I don’t even think it could hit the boat just because of its limited tange
This makes me think of The Last Ship TV show
yeah, that TV series is crap, very unrealistic, they didnt even try
That Person YOU WHAT
That Person Come at me...
That Person dont talk bout my show like thats
M0RN1NGW00D - Do you want to talk about the bullshit with the astute subs not destroying a destroyer with guided torpedos
Or the blatant anti british vibe I have with the show
Great channel. Been watching for a few months. I like your approach and the clearly unbiased opinions. Mad props to you.
"Clearly unbiased opinions" as he proceeds to compare the combat potential of a Battlecruiser to a DD.... you're a blabbering moron.
Bubby theCuck old battlecruiser vs new destroyer... Seems fair
Bubby theCuck You're comparing a old battlecruiser to a modern Destroyer you smartass.
Bubby theCuck what the hell does that have to do with bias? To quote from the princess bride "you keep using that word...I do not think you know what it means"
th-cam.com/video/G2y8Sx4B2Sk/w-d-xo.html
Bubby, dont be such an americunt just because burke lost. Youre a disgrace to our country, this is why people think us americans are brainwashed.
So... this didn't age well, basically we now know a Burke, at less than 1/3 the tonnage, would just need to fire a few SM-6s, deploy the Seahawk's EW, and that would take care of Russia's _only_ active Kirov class ship, sending it to the bottom.
That is just not true. The Moskva was a Slava Cruiser, sinking the Peter the Great would need more
@@gamm8939so what we thinking 4 Neptune missiles instead?
@@gamm8939 nope
How about 1940s hobo vs 1980s crackhead....
Lol
The fighting hobo has the stamina and hunger to win, but the crackhead needs the 'win' to buy his next fix and is desperate. An interesting fight methinks...
Lmao that would be hillarious
Crack is a PED
Today is the day the Moskva was reported sunk by the Ukraine. I flashed back to this video. I thought I would comment on the more probable outcome. For the longest time most of us feared the Russian army and navy.
But the evidence is (1) Only 1 of Kirov's helicopters would be fit for service... so probably never find the Burke. (2) Kirov's S300 radar would never see US incoming missiles, (3) If US missiles were seen, intercepts with Russian long medium and short range missiles would only work about 50% as well as advertised. (4) Any hit from any US missile of any kind would probably incapacitate Kirov. 2nd and 3rd hits would sink Kirov.
The second and third point are just wrong. the S300 would see incoming missiles, as they would be harpoons, and the S300 would be capable of shooting it down
@@gamm8939 I looked like the damage on Moskva. ASMs appear to have come in from port, climbed vertically and impacted on Moskvas starboard revolving S300 launcher causing more damage below decks than above.. A Vertical terminal dive is the flight path of the old US harpoons..as main target was Soviet subs . More modern ASMs (Ukraine US French) don't have that dive. .. I think.. But I dont know. Maybe the S300 system saw the ASMs and just forgot to fire?
@@patclark2186 The missiles used by Ukraine fly below the operational ceiling of the S300, which is around 25 meters. But harpoons don't cruise at that altitude, so they will be seen and engaged. In a couple of years I am sure that Arleigh Burkes can defeat one of these, with new SSMs. But you have to consider the massive amount of CIWS on Kirov Class ships.
Add poorly trained crew
This is a random thought besides the uk-ru war but, US always good at creating not-existent threats. We very much feared a lot of things which let various pointless but costly wars only to be find out that "threats were non-existent from the beginning". As today we are still fearing imaginary threats that US throws out our face. If not the orange head, people were still fearing from the country who fails to provide even electricity.
Considering the Ukrainians who don't even have a navy to speak of can sink a ship like the Moskva, I have no doubt that the US navy would just completely obliterate the entire Baltic, Black sea, Arctic and Pacific fleet if they so desired.
It's not a great example, conditions are not the same. The Moskva was running dark, either due to EMCON or because they didn't think Ukraine was capable of launching anything at them anyway, the lack of AWACS in the black sea also did not help. They failed to intercept the missiles due to poor leadership and lack of awareness. There will never be a conventional war between the US and Russia anyway, it is near impossible.
@@mrdboy1210could be... then again the maintenance report on the ship was pretty damning. At the end of the day, it was a combination of things that, still, do not pose a good posture for Russian success
США не успели бы все корабли России уничтожить
@@ИринаВасильева-ы1р1е what a lazy Russian bot - doesn’t even bother with a username
@@Chiberia You should stop calling everyone a Russian bot just because they have a different opinion. This is fucking stupid and I'm getting tired of hearing this shit everytime I don't have a pro-Ukrainian enough opinion to their liking. We would be much better off having constructive criticism and arguments instead of pushing the same rhetoric over and over.
3 Kirov's vs 68 and counting DDG's..... good luck with that one.
Bubby theCuck it’s much worse then that! The Russians (I am Russian it’s all good) have 2 of the Kirov class Heavy-Missile Cruiser that have not been scrapped, mothballed or basically just exist.
A little while after Putin took over there was one ship that barely worked and another that technically had weapons systems but was of questionable seaworthiness and power-plant its was suspect.
The Heavy missile cruiser Peter-the-Great then under went a quick (by Russian standards) refit and upgrade (primarily to its C3I systems, increasing range and signal security).
This allowed the Admiral Nakhimov to begin its “Total refit, complete subsystem replacement as well as at least one major system when it was announced that the Russian Navy would be replacing the 20 P-700 Granit NATO code name SS-N-24, with a forest of the new Kalibre missiles they used in Syria a few years ago.
For financial, as well as operational reasons, it was decided that it would be better to have 2 fully modernized Kirov missile-cruisers (Peter the Great was to go next after Admiral Nakhimov) rather then 3 out of date once.
And then the the Russian Shipyard got a hold of the project. Let’s put it this way. It 2008 the Admiral Nakhimov went into dry dock for modernization. IT HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN AGAIN! [in service or independently afloat].
Russian incompetence, mixed with a heavy dose of corruption, and a full glass of “no one gives a fuck” started pushing the completion date back year after next, and slowly but surely out of the ‘00s, and then out of the ‘10s and out of this decade and into 2020+ I believe.
We have built half out Burke fleet at a rate of 2 per year JUST since they have began working on the Nakhimov upgrade. And it’s still not done.
If the Russian Navy is lucky they just stole the money. If not lucky then they replaced the good equipment with low quality crap and shoddy work to pocket the difference.
Oh! BTW! We have 22 Aegis CGs.
The Kirov vs. The Later Ticonderoga class is clearly a more proper match up.
WorshipinIdols Russians building Lider.
Wow
80x2 Zircon missiles, one sistership 1144 in reserve, two ships of the first rank of the type 1144 Orlan against 68 DDG's
I have bad news for DDG's, they probably won't even be able to launch their missiles in time.
You don't quite understand, Orlan is a real death star, only in reality. With its range of use of weapons (1500-5500 km) and the inability to parry such a salvo... even one such ship of the first rank can cause real devastation in the entire hemisphere.
Then they should've compared it to a ticonderoga class cruiser
An observation at 9:59 - the Standard Missiles (at least in Air Defense mode) are guided by the AN/SPG-62 Radar Director (4 of these on the ship at least) and so the Burke doesn't have to reduce defensive capability when using the SPY-1 for incoming tracking as attacking SM missiles would be guided by AN/SPG-62 antennae relaying data.
It's an awesome movie you did :D
Kirov really is a monster and if memory serves me right the only ship in the world classified as a Battlecruiser in service today.
Lars Kraus kinda. It’s frequently called a BC, though I don’t think that’s its classification. Frankly, it’s pretty inefficient for its tonnage to its capacities. It provides area air defense no better then a Tico or Burke, and while it protects its self better then they do it has a limited offensive punch. It’s an outdated design concept that just doesn’t work that well, ie, cruisers don’t counter carriers. It’s real remaining use, I’d argue, is as a seaborne SAM pit to extend an IADS(integrated air defense system) off the shore.
She’s not even an efficient cruise missile hauler, and in practice the Russians will use smaller vessels barring a showy action.
I mean, she may be a monster, but she’s a fairly less then useful one.
@@josepetersen7112 its in need of modernization especially the weapon systems. But it got significantly more firepower than the burke and is a lot more versatile than the tico. Theyre both specialized ships while the kirov is supposed to be capable of basically everything. It basically combines both those ships into one. With no serious sea threats since the collaps of the UdSSR both the burke and tico have been geared towards attacking Land targets. Good example is the removal of the frontal cwis on the current burke destroyers.
Project 1144"Orlan"
Order of Nakhimov heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great" - the fourth and only in the ranks of the heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR) of the third generation of the project 1144"Orlan".
The flagship of the Northern fleet of Russia.
The main purpose-the destruction of enemy aircraft carrier groups.
It is the largest in the world operating nieviadomy shock combat ship as of 2016.
Main performance characteristics
Length: 250 m.
Width: 25 m.
Height from the level of the main plane: 59 m.
Draft: 11.5 m.
Standard displacement: 23 750 tons.
Full displacement: 25 860 tons.
Power plant: 2 nuclear reactors of KN-3 type (300 MW), 2 auxiliary boilers, two turbines of 70 thousand HP (total 140 thousand HP), 4 power plants with a total capacity of 18 thousand kW, 4 steam turbine generators with a capacity of 3000 kW, 4 gas turbine generators of 1500 kW, two propeller shafts.
Speed: 32 knots (about 60 km/h).
Autonomy of navigation-60 days on food and supplies, 3 years on fuel.
The design of the hull and superstructure
Length 49 of the corridors of the ship - more than 20 kilometers. The ship has 6 decks, 8 tiers. The height of the fore-mast from the level of the main plane is 59 meters.
The powerful nuclear power plant of the cruiser allows it to reach a speed of 32 knots (60 km/h) and is designed for operation for 50 years. For comparison, the cruiser "Peter the Great" is able to provide electricity and heat to the city for 150-200 thousand inhabitants.
The crew of the cruiser - 1035 persons (105 officers, 130 officers, 800 sailors). They are located at 1600 areas of the ship, including 140 single and double cabins for officers and warrant officers, 30 of the forecastle for the sailors and petty officers (8-30 people), 220 platforms. The crew has 15 showers, two baths, a sauna with a 6×2.5 m swimming pool, a two-level medical unit with infirmaries, a pharmacy, x-ray and dental offices, an outpatient clinic, an operating room, a gym equipped with simulators, three cabins for midshipmen, officers and admirals, a lounge with Billiards and a piano. There are also vnutritorakalnah Studio and 12 of household televisions in the cabins and the cabin, not counting the 30 monitors for viewing broadcasts that are broadcast on the cable network of the ship.
TARKR "Peter the Great" is one of the most modern and powerful ships of the Russian Navy and one of the most powerful attack ships in the world.
The ship has the ability to defeat large surface targets and protect sea connections from air attacks and enemy submarines. It has an unlimited range of navigation, it is equipped with shock cruise missiles capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 2600 kilometers.
TARKR " Peter the Great "is equipped with anti-ship missile system" Granite "(developed by" NPO mashinostroeniya"), equipped with 20 launchers CM-233 with advanced high-precision anti-ship cruise missiles P-700" Granite " installed under the upper deck, with an elevation angle of 60 degrees. Rocket length - 10 m, caliber-0,85 m, starting weight-7 t.
Military head - piece in nuclear (500 kt), normal (750 kg of explosive) warheads or fuel-air warheads (explosives). Range-700 km, flight speed-1,6-2,5 M. Missiles have a multi-variant program of attack targets, increased noise immunity and are designed to strike at group targets. When volley firing one of them should be at high altitude to increase the detection range of the enemy, exchanging information with others that are literally spread over the surface of the water. In case of destruction of the rocket-the leader its place is automatically taken by one of guided missiles.
Over-the-horizon target designation and guidance can be carried out by Tu-95RTS, Ka-25TS helicopter or space reconnaissance and target designation system.
The ship is equipped with anti-aircraft complex "Reef" S-300F, there are 12 PU and 96 vertical launch missiles.
There is also an Autonomous ship anti-aircraft system "Dagger". Each drum-type sub-deck PU has 8 single-stage solid-fuel remote-controlled missiles 9M330-2, the total stock-128 missiles.
The cruiser is armed with anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex "Kortik", providing self-defense against a number of" accurate " weapons, including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, bombs, aircraft and helicopters, light-tonnage ships. Each unit has two 30-mm six-barrel AK-630M1-2 artillery units with two AO-18 assault rifles according to the "Gatling" scheme with a total rate of fire of 10,000 V / min and two blocks of 4 two-stage 9m311 missiles (SA-N-11) with a fragmentation rod warhead and a non-contact fuse. In the turret compartment is 16 missiles. Missiles unified with 2С6 missile complex "Tunguska". The control system of the Kortik air defense system consists of radar and television systems connected with each other using elements of artificial intelligence. Two installations of the Kortik air defense system are located in the bow of the ship on both sides of the Granit PU, and four others are located in the aft part of the main superstructure.
"Peter the Great" in may 2010
In addition, the cruiser "Peter the Great" is equipped with 130-mm multi-purpose twin art installations "AK - 130" (length of trunks - 70 calibers, 840 shells) with a range of up to 25 km.rate of Fire-from 20 to 80 rounds per minute. The mass of the high-explosive shell-27 kg, has a shock, remote and radio detonators. Ready to fire ammunition-180 shells. The shooting control system Mr-184 allows simultaneous tracking and firing at two targets.
The cruiser was also armed with two anti-submarine (5 PU Board) rocket-torpedo 533 mm complexes RPK-6M "Waterfall", missile-torpedoes which are capable of hitting submarines of the enemy at ranges up to 60 km as a combat head is used a small torpedo, UMGT-1. The rocket dives into the water, takes off into the air and delivers a torpedo to the target area, and there is already a word for UMGT-1, which again dives into the water.
To combat enemy torpedoes the cruiser "Peter the Great" has a torpedo complex RCPTS-1 "Udav-1M" (10 pipes, rails, conveyor automatic recharge, reaction time - 15 sec. the maximum range is 3000 m, the minimum is 100 m, the weight of the rocket - 233 kg). The rocket launchers on the "Peter the Great "are placed as follows: one ten-pipe RBU - 12000 (firing range - 3000 m, projectile weight-80 kg) is installed in the bow of the ship on a turntable, two six-pipe RBU - 1000" Smerch - 3 " (range - 1000 m, projectile weight-55 kg) - in the aft on the upper deck on both sides. Working on counter-measures include two paired 150-mm PU PC-14 (complex shoots interference), protivoallergennye traps, decoys and towed about a torpedo goal with a powerful mechanism noise generator.
On Board the cruiser based two anti-submarine ka-27.
Radar facilities RAP / EW TARKR "Peter the Great" include 16 stations of three types. Ship surveillance, tracking and targeting consists of two stations of space communication (SATS), four stations space navigation (SATAU) and four special electronic stations. The air-surface situation is monitored by all-weather three-coordinate radar "Frigate-MAE" detecting targets at ranges of more than 300 km and altitudes up to 30 km.
The cruiser also has three navigation stations, four radio-electronic control systems for firing airborne weapons, helicopter flight controls and a "friend / foe"identification system.
The ship's sonar system includes a sonar with a hull antenna for search and detection of submarines at low and medium frequencies and a towed automated sonar system with a variable depth antenna (150-200 m) - at medium frequencies.
When upgrading in 2019-2022 years in the armament of the cruiser will be added hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zircon", universal supersonic anti-ship missiles and medium-range missiles P-800 "Onyx" cruise missiles "Caliber". The missiles will be launched from 3s14 universal launchers.
"Heavy Nuclear Missile Cruiser" according to the Russians...
...but "white elephant" is a more fitting classification, given the totality of its circumstances and modern naval warfare.
@@TheDude50447 you
alergh burke class vs cargo ships...
Cargo ship is probably tougher than most modern warship out there due to its sheer size, the only thing is that it's unarmed.
Cargo ships are like the Burke's only kryptonite
USS Iowa vs Kirov.
The Burke would probably hit the Cargo ship by accident. Oh wait, it already happened many times...
Mickey G i think you're wrong.
As a Military professional, one missile could Sink cargo ships, Size doesnt Play factor here.
The Cargo ship is designed to Maximized its Cargo capacity, not Defensive Factor was Implemented.
a missile could Easilly penetrat Cargo ships
Battlecruiser vs destroyer...
Next up: winged hussars vs leopard 2...
Next up: Triggered Murican, because somebody says, hes not on the top of the world ;)
I'd def as an American say that although they did miss some crucial weapons platforms on the arleigh burke (well also on the kirov) and some defensive countermeasures I'd stil give this win to the kirov...BUT the kirov class ship which displaces 28,000+ tonnes as compared to the arleigh burke's 9,000 tonnes making the kirov a ship in a totally different class that the destroyer and makes for a pretty lopsided match, the real battle should be between the actual US answer to the kirov which would be the retrofitted ww2 Iowa class battleship. Now this is the real match up here as the kirov sports over 150-180 seperate weapons systems and was made to counter airstrikes and build the literal.iron curtain around Russian perimeter making for a formidable surface warfare ship that has the capability of fighting other ships pretty effectively but is still primarily a surface to air platform. On the other hand the battleship is the epitome of the surface to surface fighting ship being the only warships in the world which can still fire 12 16 inch cannons which would be devastating to anything currently fielded today, on top of that they have hulls so thick and sturdily built that no ship in the world could ever hope to match the defensive power of these behemoths (actually they are no longer possible to even make today) so even if hit with most of the weapons of the kirov would likely not cause the ship to be destroyed or even inoperable. This is before the complete overhauling of the entire ship from the hull up to incorporate some 200+ new and modernized attack weapons and defensive countermeasures combined with the thick hull and the added 12 16 inch cannons with advanced targeting and ballistics the kirov would stand little chance in this proper match up between two monster ships I'd say the. kirov gets first hit advantage with its helicopters even then after the battleship takes a pounding it will continue to bring the fight and absolutely destroy the kirov and it's relatively light armor plus one 16 inch shell direct hit may just RIP the kirov in two. Outcome the battleship has a shorter range for detection and will most likely take the initial blow but it will not be effective enough to stop or even slow it, once the battleship starts to close the distance if it doesnt knock the kirov out with longer smaller modern munitions like guided missile and torpedoes then once in range of the cannons the kirov is utterly dead to rights as a broadside from the battleship woukd wipe the entirety of the kirov from existance
They aren't "battlecruisers", the Russians have different nomenclature.
@@Sun-Tzu- when it's more than triple the weight I'd say it's in a slightly different class
I think maybe this video is a reference to a scenario in the US TV show, The Last Ship
Nice video and I love the format, going to check out some more videos. For this one tho, it seems a strange comparison: a capital ship vs an escort destroyer? Of COURSE the Kirov will win! In a state of war if ever a single Burke came up against the Kirov all alone, as long as the Kirov was spotted at far range, the Burke would simply turn and run at flank speed. Offering battle to a ship double it's size, weight and crew and packing Granit anti-ship missiles with a warhead that will sink a Burke with only a single hit would be suicide, especially if it was the single CIWS variant.
I wont be dissapointed by the great detail and good edits and clear explanations you do on everything keep that up
Kirov class battlecruisers are being modernized now so there's no more 80's and 90's technology on board that ship.
Wrong, only one Kirov is serving currently and it is operating with 80's & 90's tech. Once the others have been modernized and are put to sea then you'll be correct.
i hope an accident occurs, and the kirov thats being upgraded gets wrecked beyond repair. also, i hope all russians working on the upgrades die in the accident too
kirov is a horrible ship. binkov has a european accent, so hes definitely biased in favour of the kirov. anything the russians make is crap. those things are only good in propaganda. when a russian opens his mouth, he is automatically lying. when they say the kirov is good, they are lying. also, a comment ive seen lately, is that most ships have 80s, 90s and 2000s tech. even so, the kirov is still crap. it may have tech of the same timeperiod, but they are around 50 years behind the west in almost everything..
Hikaru Midomiya there’s many things the Russians are good at. But their surface fleet is generally not something they brag about. It’s not modernized and is currently poor condition. Even when the Russians have an upgrade package available, they do one off’s on their ships and never do it again for any other.
Currently, the most important surface combatants in the Russian fleet are almost all from the 70’s or 80’s with the exception of the Udaloy II built in 1999. This includes the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Kirov Battlecruiser, Slava Cruiser Class, Udaloy Destroyer Class, and the Sovremenny Destroyer Class. Including Frigates, the Russian Navy’s newest boats include two Gepard Class designed in 1991, one Admiral Gorshkov Class designed in 2003, and two Krivak IV Classes built in 2016.
It should be noted that in October 2018, the Admiral Kuznetsov was hit by a crane when its dry dock accidentally sank and has yet to be repaired. Thus the Russian Navy has no blue water naval aviation at the moment. It’s actually quite sad that the innovative Russians have been displaced by the Chinese as the strongest non-US fleet on the oceans today.
@Hikaru Midomiya
Where are your aircraft supercarriers, Ivan?
An Arleigh Burke class has watertight bulkheads that prevent sinking when damaged, which is how the USS Cole survived a bomb detonation on her hull. Meanwhile, Russian warships don't have watertight bulkheads nor a competent crew, thus the Slava-class Moskva accidentally sank from a kitchen fire in Ukraine, lol.
the bomb which hit the ship in yemen was about 80kg, a P-700 Granit is 750kg of explosive, one hit anywhere would blow a huge chunk of the ship off and sink it, the bulkheads would no nothing.
@@89hhbuh8yuvghbhu that's if your Tankie friends can even hit the Arleigh Burke.
A swarm of 6 - 12 at 100 - 250km is almost certain to hit the Arleigh Burke.@@BaronessAishi055
Switzerland vs Austria next pls!
HAAA! I'm Swiss and live in Austria at the moment. Would like to see that. I'd give it to the Swiss (decent airforce and A LOT of bunkers including a fighter jet storage facility in a mountain (Gotthard). Both rely on conscription where people only get drunk as fuck all the time, so quality of troops is awful in both. Military service is seen as an excuse to get drunk for a year.
Switzerland obv
Switzerland wont attack .. Switzerland is a Country Fort Or a fort as big as a country
+JagPanzer this whole channel is mostly about hypothetical scenarios so... whats your point again?
+221 b most of the bunkers are out of service but the swiss have much more IFV, SPG and MBTs (like 3x the ammount). I guess it would be Austria defending and CH is the aggressor.
Ticonderoga class might be better comparison.
suzettespencer the results wouldn't be too different. Ticos and Burkes aren't too different.
Exactly! Two of those would match tonnage _and_ date of launch. Roughly.
a
@kimjongskill your right 30 more missiles in the Ticos than a Burke and an extra Phalanx, practically no difference at all.
Frederick wouldn't lots of those be tomahawks though? Or older SM2s
I find it so adorable how the helicopters go ! lol
I wonder what a battle between a full Kuznetsov Task Group and Nimitz-class Carrier Task Group look like.
I think that Nimitz-class Group would win but I dont know I only know lots of things about ground forces and air forces not Navy :)
The Russians only have the Kuznetsov. You know what they say about Carriers, right? If you have one carrier, you have none. You always need a second carrier on stand by in case the first gets sunk, otherwise you'll have pilots in the air without a safe place to land. The Kuznetsov also is very old and breaks down often - as a matter of fact, on long trips it always has a tug boat following. US military has 19 carriers. The military only considers 10 to be 'actual' carriers, even though the other 9 are the same size as most other country's carriers and displace 45,000 tons. 19 fucking carriers. Most country's have one or two.
Yea, but I mean a single task group with a single carrier, perhaps with another rule of similar number of ships. I'm not asking for a naval war simulation, that's been done afaik.
Nimits have domination in number of aircrafts(50 vs 64-90), so it probably will win. Kuznetsov have 12 p-700 missiles additionali to those on Kirov so it have some additional chance, because those are hard to intercept. But I realy doubt, theat it will be possible for him to get in to a launch range. E-2 will see him long before. Same goes with air launched moskito|bramos missiles - attacking aircrats will be intercepted before launch. On other hand, harpuns are a lot slower, so they are easyer to intercept or run away. And modern naval s300 missiles have also decent range, so it will be hard to pierce Kuznetsov defence too. The first one who will loose it`s radars will loose the battle. Nimitz have an advantage of having E-2. But... there are satellites. They change picture once again. Damn, it is hard to see all nuances.... Like both task forces have attack subs in an order and they can change picture too...
Hopefully this is not a serious question. Kuznetsov can barely deploy, and is followed by an open ocean tug to make sure it gets back to port after it breaks down. These are all old Soviet ships. It would be target practice for the US Navy.
Japan vs South Korea please.
H K nice profile pic. The IJN Yamato was a beautiful ship.
Nathan Corbett Thanks. Yamato is my favorite battleship out there. Only "disadvantage" (for me at least) is that it has a 3×3 main battery layout. While I like 4×3 (Montana-like) layout.
H K I thought the turret layout was fine. My problem with the ship was the gap in the range of the anti-aircraft guns.
Arguably its main disadvantage that made it so useless during the war was its large fuel consumption due to engines' lack of efficiency.
Why?
But then again, how would it fare against an Ukrainian R-360 Neptune?
Maybe it can
Depends if the crew is at there station or drunk
Interesting video, and nice break-down of the individual ship's capabilities. Thank you for acknowledgement that this kind of 1v1 duel is highly improbable as well. It is very unlikely that either the US Destroyer or especially the Kirov-class BC would be operating alone. The Russian BC would almost certainly have escorts. The US DD would have air support even if it were "alone". But there's another slight incongruity: We're putting a DD up against a BC???? Really? The Kirov-class has a 4:1 tonnage advantage! That's not even close to fair. If a Burke came across a Kirov and was forced to engage and did serious damage to the Kirov before being sunk while also reporting its position so that other ships and SSNs could come along and finish it off, the Burke would have done its job. Trading one or two Burkes for the only Kirov-class ship in the enemy's arsenal would be an overall win for the USN, albeit a costly one. A far more likely scenario is that the Burke IDs the Kirov with its helo, turns away and whistles in air strikes. 4-6 hours after initial contact the Kirov his hit by a massive missile salvo from air assets and sinks, never getting its missiles away on the elusive Burke, which keeps the range open with its superior speed...
lmao what are you talking about? the arleigh burke can easily take it out. this video is biast
could you please do a USA vs China with allies modelled in? it would be fun to see how geopolitics plays a hand in a war
These guys are not so smart to understand and predict geo politics.
The US wouldn't need allies. The US has OVERWHELMING air superiority (If North Korea, Russia, and China all combined their entire air fleets together they would barely have a numeric advantage over just the US Navy, which would leave them about 1,000 aircraft shy of the USAF's total strength on top of the US craft being simply better than the large majority of the NK/R/C fleet with their top fighters being only as good as the more numerous US top craft). The US has OVERWHELMING naval superiority (the US owns HALF of the entire world's aircraft carriers, as well as the majority of the world's nuclear powered submarines as well as the largest Navy in the world). The US has better ground vehicles (Most Chinese/Russian/NK vehicles are Soviet-Era, which Saddam found out in Desert Storm simply don't stand up to even 90's US tech). The only advantage China really has is more dudes, which is not nearly as big of a factor in modern conflict as it was even when the Brits trounced the Chinese in the Opium Wars.
The Sino-American War would in actuality just be the Second Korean War, and while SK would take significant damage in the initial salvos of NK artillery the US, SK, and Japanese forces already in position would either stop the NK push (If they play defensively the US can muster its strength so NK would NEED a quick and decisive push right from Day 1 to take as much as they can before the US can deploy properly) or do significant enough damage to bog it down. Once the Western forces start to arrive (The Yanks, Brits, Frenchies, Krauts, Italians, Canadians, Aussies, possibly the Turks, and the others in NATO and EU) the tide would very quickly turn against the Commies. China would be hurt at least as bad by the disrupted trade with the US (It doesn't have as many alternatives as the US does to replace lost supplies), and the Chinese military simply is not a match for modern Western powers. North Korean forces would be force out of Korea and either China will surrender before the war arrives on their soil or the Western powers will strike Chinese assets with impunity before an invasion (likely on multiple fronts, when you have so many different militaries on your side with so many bases to launch from you can strike from every side). The air supremacy would mean Chinese armor and infantry would have a very tough time holding ground (By this point the Eastern air forces are all but neutralized, meaning A-10s and AC-130s can operate with impunity), and it wouldn't be long before Bejing itself is besieged.
Murderer 14 would take too long. Maybe a multi part series?
USA vs China? The elephant in the room would be Russia. If Russia stayed completely neutral and out of the war, China would be stopped dead in Turkey. Long logistical train plus the natural choke point would stop any land advance, while American naval supremacy in the Pacific would sink anything the Chinese put on the ocean. China would put India, Japan, Australia and South Korea out of the fight pretty early in the conflict, but after stretching to Turkey would take a huge double pounding from the allies in Western Europe on one side, and the US navy and air force from the Pacific on the other. China would be taking bombs and missiles to her cities and factories, while the US forces would only be taking military casualties. Only one winner here.
If Russia sided with the wing-wangs however, or merely let her troops pass through, USA would have to massivly commit airpower to NE Europe, which would weaken its Pacific bite - and the much longer front would be prone to crumbling in a lot of the less wealthy Eastern European countries.
The only chance China would really stand is in the nuclear fight, and that's only because both sides would lose, though even there, the U.S would likely lose a little bit less.
In a conventional war, the U.S's massive advantage in airpower and naval power mean that China would be starved of all imports, suffering constant huge scale industrial bombing, and unable to equip it's huge hordes of infantry or feed it's gigantic populace. There is no situation in which China could launch a ground invasion of any U.S holdings. The U.S would win, but it would be a VERY bloody war.
That's not even taking into account allies. Assuming Russia stays out of the war, (which it probably would, it has no binding treaties that would force its involvement,) roughly half the planet would be called into the fight against China on the side of the U.S. With allies, it becomes even more one sided, as the U.S could then operate out of Taiwan and Japan, making the aerial bombardment even more deadly, with the added benefit of Japan's VERY modern air force. There is no passable terrain that would make it possible for China to march through Tibet and Afghanistan to begin a ground assault on U.S allies, and it's very unlikely China would even make significant progress into Afghanistan at all, given the large U.S presence in the area already. Rough terrain favors the defenders.
Yes, Kirov vs Burke is an odd matchup, even for the already uneven class comparison of a flagship-role Battlecruiser against an escort-role Destroyer.
I think that's kind of the point though. Kirov wins and not that easily... against *a single Burke*. The broader statement from that about the two Navies as a whole is pretty significant.
@Стојан Јовић Look I get the 'hometeam" instinct and it's not crazy to imagine that one Kirov battlecruiser fighting three Burke destroyers would do a lot better than a 1v1 matchup would suggest (because flagship role ships are generally better equipped to engage in that kind of matchup than escorts are) but you gotta also consider the specific loadout of the Kirov and that multiple Aegis destroyers with the Burke's loadout acting together can share their anti-ballistic curtain increasing their effectiveness beyond that basic numerical advantage.
The Kirov is stronger than the Burke, OBVIOUSLY, and it better be stronger for what it's supposed to do in its fleet role.
But hyperbole like "maybe 1000" makes the Kirov seem weak because NO modern surface ship can be expected to take on myriad opponents from a peer navy and making that kind of claim just sounds like overcompensation.
This is like have a boxing match using a 260 lb boxer and a 130 lb MMA fighter.
Otherwise, great video like always Binkov.
For close-in Kirov defenses, it's got 6-8 CIWS guns. Also: "The size of the [Granit] missile limits the platforms on which it can operate and be launched from. It has only been deployed from Oscar-class submarines, Kirov-class battlecruisers, and the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Ships of all three types will have their Granit missiles replaced with new launch cells to carry smaller Oniks and Kalibr cruise missiles in greater numbers." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit
ONE THING is for sure: BURKES NEED REAL ANTI SHIP CRUISE MISSILES (LRASM and/or Tomahawk block V, a new anti ship capable tomahawk)
It's important to note that the USN has 65 Burkes to the 2 (1 that actually works) Kirovs.
Hmmn, so what would be the outcome of 65 Burkes stumbling across the one sea-worthy Russia Kirov ? ;)
@@wealthelife The Kirov spontaneously catching fire like the Kuznetsov.
70 as of May 2022
The fact that a comparison is being drawn between a destroyer and a battlecruiser almost 3x its weight shows you all you need to know about to the two navies
syed musa lol. Isn’t the only aircraft carrier Russia has a floating rust bucket? Caught fire after a few sorties in Syria? Doesn’t even have a slot large enough to repair it? Can’t launch loaded fighters because it was built with one of those cute little jump ramps?
Russia is a joke. Everything they have dates back to before the collapse of the USSR. This is why only one of these ancient out dated relics are still floating.
Its about as sad as the Russian “stealth” fighter when they can’t even stamp out the exterior panels to fit snug. What a joke.
@syed musa LOL no it shows that the Russian navy is top-heavy, with a handful of very big ships forming the biggest part of the total firepower available. Compare those 3 battlecruisers (with only 1 currently in active service) to the 65 destroyers the US has available and tell me which navy has more firepower at its disposal? The US also has big ships: the Ticonderoga class, of which it has 22 (2 for each carrier), and the supercarriers, of which it has 11. But they don't form the main share of US naval firepower (not counting the carrier's air wings of course). That role goes to the smaller multi-role workhorses, the Destroyers. That's a sign of a powerful, large and well-balanced navy. The Chinese are going for a similar model now that they are becoming the world's second most powerful navy. They are building lots of smaller multi-role frigates and destroyers that form the lion's share of the fleet's combat power, and a smaller number of big type 055 cruisers to accompany the carriers.
@syed musa ever heard of a light attack cruiser either way I dont think weight would amount to much when you get 70 missiles cramed down your throat
People do need to realize that Russia’s naval doctrine, yes, Is Indeed very much on the aggressive side, but they also focus mainly on area-denial, which Is why the Kirov-class ships are designed the way they are. They’re meant to deny the enemy, such as the US for example, to gain territory, with the help of ground-based air and missile support, and If you combine that with a Kirov-class battle cruiser and say, two Slava-class cruisers, that would make for a very, very difficult area to attack, hence the reason why no one wants to Invade Russia. Russia Is so defense-heavy, they are merely an impenetrable fortress. Now, If we talk about just their offensive capabilities only, well.. that’s a different story.
Would love to see this channel to analyse battles from the series 'the last ship'.
Try a Ticonderoga class. Good luck.
Mike Seeley still would end the same
@@person4905 Yes, it would. In either case the Kirov would be annihilated by submarines or aircraft before it ever got within 800 miles of a US surface ship. (For that matter so would a single Burke- or Ticonderoga-class operating unsupported within range of significant Russian land-based air or submarine forces, but I can't imagine a scenario where a USN commander would be stupid enough to try that.)
Bruce Tucker aircraft no, submarines maybe, Kirov was designed to take on US Carrier groups all by itself which usually consist of a carrier (obvi) a Tico, 1-2 Burkes maybe a frigate and a attack sub, the Kirov was designed to swat F-14s out of the sky with its endless amount of SAMs and 8 CIWS and subs there’s probably a good 50/50 of who will get taken out first, the Kirov has the same ASW capabilities of the Udaloy class ASW destroyer and the same ASW Radar and sensors but it’s all about who gets detected first
@@person4905 That is an absurd fantasy.
Bruce Tucker okay maybe the sub part was a little generous probably around 25-75 in favour of the sub but the rest is true, 48 S-300FM long range SAM and 64 3K95 “Kinzhal” point Defense SAM and 6 CADS-N-1 Kortik CIWS will knock anything out of the sky with little problems, but the Sonar is very good on the Kirov, the “Horse Jaw” LF hull sonar and “Horse Tail” VDS (Variable Depth Sonar) are exceptional in finding subs and equipped with 2x10 RBU-1000 305mm ASW Rocket Launchers, 1x6 RBU-12000 254mm Rocket Launcher and 10x533mm Torpedoes and pretty effective against subs if they get detected
95 dislikes are from Flat Earthers.
Perplexed Penguin
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Actually might be because he's comparing a BATTLECRUISER to a DESTROYER.
Haha. They had heart attack seeing the illustration
Dislikes was added everyday dude, people are wake up..!! There is no prove that the water curve 360° on spinning globe.. bullshit
@@kawankawan2301 theres no proof its flat dumbass.
Well... *that* was answered pretty conclusively.
yeah, keep dreaming, this beast is way more powerful than most ships
Damn if Captain Nagata was on that US ship he would show to fire Tomahawks with NOAA data
Well considering the Kirov is 28,000 tons loaded and the Burkes are 8,900 loaded I think you should even up the displacement and do 3 Burkes against a Kirov.
Two will do. No need to add another.
ticonderoga class vs kirov or kirov vs modernized iowa class
That could be interesting
I would do that but the Iowa would need some buffs
@@sanakhtthefatetwister9116 which buffs? other than sm6 and sm2 missiles
@@sanakhtthefatetwister9116 wym, the iowas already have missiles installed
what he does not emphasize is that there is only one Kirov, according to the video, but there are 70 Arleigh Burkes as of May 2022
Why the hell is listening to this is so goddamn intense and fun?
When a Russian Battlecruiser is almost destroyed by a small Destroyer.”Huzah! Your bad and you should feel bad!”.
Russian Navy has a habit of putting launcher tubes right on the broadside of the vessel. One well placed hellfire and you have the fuel and warheads of 6 missiles exploding on the ship
This comment aged well. 👌
I know you mentioned this, but the comparison makes no sense. The Burke was not designed for ship-ship warfare, nor in wartime would it ever be fighting alone. It would always have a CVN and SSN nearby. These are the vessels that would attack the Kirov....
The Kirov vs the modernized Iowa class battleships would be a more interesting discussion, but they have all been retired.
The Iowa class would win. Ships are not built to take 27 rounds of hot steel a minute anymore. The Kirov is no different.
The USS Missouri was modernized with 2-3 CWIS’ and multiple missle silos as well.
10/10 Iowa class win, even if they get hit by missles.
@@chandlerboyd3386 the iowa needs to be within 40km of the kirov to shoot it with iowa's main guns. I don't think there will be a kirov captain stupid enough to do that
Doesn't take into account that the kirov has about 20 anti ship missiles that weight 7 tons with more range than what the Iowa has to offer.
You're right he did mention it, and covered what you just said so why bring it up since he already did?
kirov is a horrible ship though. binkov has a european accent, so hes definitely biased in favour of the kirov. anything the russians make is crap. those things are only good in propaganda. when a russian opens his mouth, he is automatically lying. when they say the kirov is good, they are lying. also, a comment ive seen lately, is that most ships have 80s, 90s and 2000s tech. even so, the kirov is still crap. it may have tech of the same timeperiod, but they are around 50 years behind the west in almost everything.
Do one on Moskva, oh wait.
That's just not how this would play out. There would be a lot more missiles flying. The idea is to overwhelm the enemy. The Moskva is sitting at the bottom of the Black Sea from just two Neptunes.
Do Morocco Vs Algeria please!
HOI4 Modern day mod scenario :D
يب ودي اعرف مين بيفوز
Aimen the Moroccan thaiboxer El Habry no one cares about that?
It's up there for vote on his website, currently it got the fewest vote, so guess you have to wait for many more months.
Mustafa'nın Tahtası only to know who is the most powerful.
How come you never talked about the Burke’s tomahawk missles? Or the effectiveness of the phalanx when you were talking about the russian twin gun?
He mentioned that tomahawk cruise missiles can only engage fixed target in the annotations
@Garviel Loken Some of the Tomahawks carried have been upgraded to attack slow moving targets. However, they fly slowly in a straight line and would reduce the magazine capacity for other systems. a VLS has wonderful capabilities for carrying a mix of weapons but you must remember that the more you carry of one weapon the fewer you have of all the others. For example, if the Burke is carrying any SM-3 missiles, they would be useless in this sort of engagement as it is exoatmospheric only, but they would decrease the number of other available missiles.
Also, Tomahawk is very easy to intercept.
Burke flight 3 can carry a mix of sm6, sm2, sm3, tomawak block 5 (in future also lrasm) with a total of 96 weapons, covering surface and air objetives. I mean can destroy a kirov cruise easily becauae can detect before
130 mils >>>>> 20 vs large ships. Hell, if you hit that 130 mil shot, a fishing boat is gonna turn into a floating wreck faster than the burst of 20s
Not true, block 5 tomahawk can engage surface ships. In addtion is going to integrate Lrasm stealth missile
I just realized you should do a current military naval skirmish, between whoever. Very interesting
Yes a Kirov would beat a Burke 1v1 any day, but there is only 1 Kirov and 66 Burkes with the US building more.
The helicopters have a major role that I had never imagined
Yup! (Scout)
Only if you pretend satellites and fixed-wing aircraft don't exist. Neither of those ships would never be cruising around in the open ocean blindly hunting for each other like this, it's an absurd scenario.
Awesome videos !!! If might add, most of USN ships other then Carriers are designed for fleet defence ( minus subs). Ship to ship Combat ist the duty of subs and Carriers
You did it again. Why compare the Kirov Battlecruiser, to a Destroyer, when you can compare it to the Ticonderoga Class Cruisers which are closer to it's class. This is like all the videos where you compared North Korea's chances if the US doesn't have access to it's allies, which is silly since the only reason NK and the US are at Odd's is because they threaten US allies.
Darryl Harris You don't get the point of rhose vids do you?
Apparently not. What was the point?
It propaganda. Anybody who has been in the Navy knows that the Burke would waste the Soviet era Kirov. The Burke has the firepower of a cruiser, and is technologically FAR superior. The US Navy crews are also much better trained, and operate at sea at least 9 months out of every 18 month period, and when not on deployments are constantly training and cross-decking to other ships to gain experience.
There is no match here. Burke destroys the Kirov easily. This is just fact. And any sea service professional knows it, including the senior officers and admirals in the Russian Navy.
Chris Akins I heard that Putin recently Retrofitted these Battleship-lookalike Monsters with today's Technologies
Arleigh Burke class destroyer vs the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyer please.
You underestimated the Arleigh Burkes capabilities, offensive and defensive.
The Tomahawks carried in the VLS slots can also target moving ships rather than just ground targets (they are Tomahawk Block IV TLAMs - which have the integrated capability of the once-standalone Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) active radar homing anti-ship missile), as mentioned SM-6 missiles can be used to target surface ships, but so can the SM-2 series of missiles which are likely to be found loaded in some of the Burke VLS slots (96 for newer variants and 90 for older variants, but the ships with 90 slots would also have 8x Harpoon missiles on deck-mounted canister launchers).
The RIM 162 ESSM SAMs you mentioned which are loaded in the VLS are actually quad-packed, so when you provided a range of between 8-16 ESSM SAMs, it would actually be 8x4 to 16x4 ESSMs for a total of 32 to 64 anti air missiles.
Superior USN radar, electronic warfare capability, chaff/flare launchers, and radar decoy capability weren't factored in either. Add in superior training for USN sailors (see the Moskva sinking to prove the inadequate training of Russian sailors, also supported by many other Russian ships being sunk by a non-existent Ukraine navy), and the fact USN ships are well-maintained with Russian maintenance and reliability highly questionable (see their ski-jet aircraft carrier which has seen more time in port undergoing repair and in drydock undergoing major overhauls than it has been actually operational or deployed), there is no concern over USN ships being properly equipped/sustained due to superior budget support, and they go in for regular dry-dock maintenance as needed based on well-established service schedules. USN sailor training is also enhanced as a result of regular deployments to warzones over the past several decades and a very significant amount of organized training exercises with allies to ensure NATO interoperability between ships.
Put simply, I'm sorry, but the Kirov would not win. Although the scenario is super unrealistic anyway, as neither ship would ever be engaged one versus one. If the Kirov engaged any ship, it would be with supporting vessels. If the Kirov and supporting vessels went to engage a lone USN destroyer, it would do the sensible thing and use its ample speed to evade. Once it's done evading, the Kirov's battleground would find itself facing a carrier strike group, and then it's all over from there without a doubt.
Yeah, that was an interesting Binkov scenario, but SO unlikely. That Burke would be just the cherry on top of a U.S. carrier battlegroup tidal wave.
How about Kirov vs Iwoa class. The theoretical Naval Battle that spawned the re-activation of the Iowa class battleship.
Kirov would not break a sweat. Remember it’s a missile guided battlecruiser. The sheer number of missiles it carries means game over. Iowa is a WW2 battleship and it was built with her big guns as main armament. Allthough she was given missiles when she was reactivated she was still an outdated design even with the missiles added. Her thick armour may have allowed her to stay a float for some time though.
1 or 2 Kirov vs 62 Burke!!! and The United States added the anti ship Tomahawk, the new LRASM and the Naval Strike Missile apart of the Harpoon, SM2 and SM6
Yeah but a single Kirov could stand down the pacific fleet. Plus there are more Kirovs coming so stop being a ameriboo.
@@stewie1237 One Kirov holding down the US 7th Fleet? You're a blithering imbecile and know nothing about modern naval combat. Stop it.
It could blockade them for 24 hours + standing alone easily. Please stop.
The Kirov would easily hold down any 7th fleet you could procure. And that’s just one, potentially three kirovs could become active in an emergency pinning down the fleet with a incoming fist of missiles. The many accompanying ships of the fleet would be destroyed near instantly and if missiles fail the twin 130mm turrets would gun the fleet down. Stop arguing. Stop it.
@@stewie1237 You have an IQ lower than Magic-Johnson's T-Cell count.
You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about in the context of Naval Warfare OR Naval History. You're a blithering imbecile.
I was a sailor on the USS Fife DD-991 and had the privilege of seeing the Frunze up close and personal in 1989. The Fife was a Spruance class Destroyer with vertical launch capabilities. We followed the Frunze for several days in the Indian Ocean. I think the Soviet Captain thought it would be easy to intimidate us, but he failed to calculate his capabilities pretty much the same as Binkov failed. Its nice when you have a bunch of systems on your ship, but when they don't work it can be disheartening. Sorry Captain Ivan...or what ever your name was. The Frunze decided to "run" I guess they thought that they got tired of us running elint capture on them for as long as we did. Wow. It outran its Surface Action Group it was attached to. But...it couldn't out run us. We stuck to them like a limpet. And...our systems were functional. Given the disparity in the number of operational systems between our two ships I imagine the Frunze would have been a burning hulk if shooting would have started. I can't guarantee that the Fife would have gotten off scot free, but it would have been in better shape than that Soviet era hunk of junk. The Fife has since gone to a watery grave. I seriously doubt that a more modern and capable Burke class would fare any worse against a Kirov. The Kirov class like so many of the old Soviet Navy were paper tigers. The average Soviet sailor didn't have the skills necessary to maintain even the simplistic Soviet systems. Wrong again Binkov.
Sure thing buddy
So they deleted a phoenix point defense system for cost savings 🤦♂️
Really there’s not enough in the defense budget
That's because Phalanx CIWS mounts are not really useful against supersonic missiles. Most modern warships rely on SAM systems with advanced radar to shoot down missiles, because they're too fast.
SM-6 rendered them obsolete.
You're an imbecile.
it was either the phalanx or a fancy toilet for the captain
sea ram is useful, and its bolt on
That mount is being used for laser weapons now, they didn't install the CIWS because its not a CIWS mount anymore..
I feel like the new tomahawk maritime sensor upgrade would really shift the balance here
Realistically speaking a serious threat like a kirov would likely be engaged by a full-up task force including a carrier 4 Berks and a Ticonderoga, sm-6 is would probably be held in reserve for fleetdefense with the actual attack being delivered by aircraft. Also given that this video was made three years ago there are a couple new missile types which have been added including the long-range Naval Strike missile and if chatter is to be believed a Naval Strike tomahawk( we had them in the eighties and it wouldn't be that hard to install an anti-ship seaker head.
The Kirov would not be traveling alone it would definitely have some other formidable ships traveling with it
With respect, first, you didn't account for the 2 × Mark 32 triple torpedo tubes (six Mk-46 or Mk-50 torpedoes, mounted on the burke, which may make a difference against the kirov, and the one extra phanlax CIWS was replaced by 2 25mm m242 bush master cannons, so please consider this factors when comparing both ships at max loadout
You're not sitting 25 mm as anti missile man. Those are designed for fast attack boats
25mm bushmaster cant shot down a missile , it was not design to be a ciws lol
The Torpedo tubes are intended to be used against Submarines, not ships.
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816
This must be a troll account
@@cavinhannahs1879 i dont remember a kirov, ever sinking a arleigh burke. it might be possible in russian propaganda stories, but in real life? no.
Wouldn't it be more fair to assess a battle between the entire Kirov fleet vs. the entire Burke fleet?
Israel vs Egypt
Suleiman The Magnificent By who? Global firepower... Their data is incorrect, (eg. Israel has more than 250 planes...) and their whole why of calculating is incorrect as well. And besides that, Saying that army X is better than Y overall and only basing it on numbers is impossible, in a real war the amount of variables is endless.
:)
Suleiman The Magnificent Egypt's military is massive and they operate many eastern and western weapon systems. I would root for Israel in this battle but I see Egypt pulling through.
ori kojokro yes they have 250 aircraft,but the fighter plane just 60 -70
Egypt is ranked 10th compared to Israel being 15th
Oppo Neo7 no... around 100F-16i, 100f-16cd, around 100 f-15abcdi. Note that all f-15 are also groud attack capable. All of these are fighters. All f-16cd and f-15abcd were upgraded with the avionics of the f-16i and f-15i respectively, those have modern avionics.
I get it, the Burke class destroyers are one helluva class of Destroyer. But having a Destroyer to be compared with not another Destroyer, not a Cruiser but a Battlecruiser, is rather insane on my opinion. Considering the fact that IOWA battleships were put back into service mainly to counter those Battlecruisers, it would have been an interresting battle to see these two clashes, even if Kirov might have came up easily on top, even against the latest variant of IOWA Battleship (which is in a terrible ship at this time). Considering that USN has cruisers that would have also been a better or at least a more interresting option and that the Russian navy also has cruisers or destroyers (a lot are at least as old as some US destroyers and a few a modern), I liked the idea of the video, the fight is really interresting, but there were better options on my opinion.
Iowa Battleships are less capable than any Burke or Tico
Yes, the burks have one ciws. However, the second ciws was replaced by rim-ram that can engage targets at a greater distance than the ciws. Also, ESSM is also deployed on burks. 4 missiles in one vls tube. Also, 20 mm romote firing guns have been added.
Given how poorly maintained the Moskova was based on a maintenance report, we can probably expect that the Kirov to be in similarly poor condition with most of the offensive and defensive systems either offline or well past their refurbishment date.
Also there's only one Kirov class in active service vs 70 active Arleigh Burke destroyers.
Do France vs. Germany
ChrisPCock France would just surrender
Result is a stalemate, but France has nuclear weapons?
Only two Neptune missiles to take out the Moskva from a country without a navy.
Project 1144"Orlan"
Order of Nakhimov heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great" - the fourth and only in the ranks of the heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR) of the third generation of the project 1144"Orlan".
The flagship of the Northern fleet of Russia.
The main purpose-the destruction of enemy aircraft carrier groups.
It is the largest in the world operating nieviadomy shock combat ship as of 2016.
Main performance characteristics
Length: 250 m.
Width: 25 m.
Height from the level of the main plane: 59 m.
Draft: 11.5 m.
Standard displacement: 23 750 tons.
Full displacement: 25 860 tons.
Power plant: 2 nuclear reactors of KN-3 type (300 MW), 2 auxiliary boilers, two turbines of 70 thousand HP (total 140 thousand HP), 4 power plants with a total capacity of 18 thousand kW, 4 steam turbine generators with a capacity of 3000 kW, 4 gas turbine generators of 1500 kW, two propeller shafts.
Speed: 32 knots (about 60 km/h).
Autonomy of navigation-60 days on food and supplies, 3 years on fuel.
The design of the hull and superstructure
Length 49 of the corridors of the ship - more than 20 kilometers. The ship has 6 decks, 8 tiers. The height of the fore-mast from the level of the main plane is 59 meters.
The powerful nuclear power plant of the cruiser allows it to reach a speed of 32 knots (60 km/h) and is designed for operation for 50 years. For comparison, the cruiser "Peter the Great" is able to provide electricity and heat to the city for 150-200 thousand inhabitants.
The crew of the cruiser - 1035 persons (105 officers, 130 officers, 800 sailors). They are located at 1600 areas of the ship, including 140 single and double cabins for officers and warrant officers, 30 of the forecastle for the sailors and petty officers (8-30 people), 220 platforms. The crew has 15 showers, two baths, a sauna with a 6×2.5 m swimming pool, a two-level medical unit with infirmaries, a pharmacy, x-ray and dental offices, an outpatient clinic, an operating room, a gym equipped with simulators, three cabins for midshipmen, officers and admirals, a lounge with Billiards and a piano. There are also vnutritorakalnah Studio and 12 of household televisions in the cabins and the cabin, not counting the 30 monitors for viewing broadcasts that are broadcast on the cable network of the ship.
TARKR "Peter the Great" is one of the most modern and powerful ships of the Russian Navy and one of the most powerful attack ships in the world.
The ship has the ability to defeat large surface targets and protect sea connections from air attacks and enemy submarines. It has an unlimited range of navigation, it is equipped with shock cruise missiles capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 2600 kilometers.
TARKR " Peter the Great "is equipped with anti-ship missile system" Granite "(developed by" NPO mashinostroeniya"), equipped with 20 launchers CM-233 with advanced high-precision anti-ship cruise missiles P-700" Granite " installed under the upper deck, with an elevation angle of 60 degrees. Rocket length - 10 m, caliber-0,85 m, starting weight-7 t.
Military head - piece in nuclear (500 kt), normal (750 kg of explosive) warheads or fuel-air warheads (explosives). Range-700 km, flight speed-1,6-2,5 M. Missiles have a multi-variant program of attack targets, increased noise immunity and are designed to strike at group targets. When volley firing one of them should be at high altitude to increase the detection range of the enemy, exchanging information with others that are literally spread over the surface of the water. In case of destruction of the rocket-the leader its place is automatically taken by one of guided missiles.
Over-the-horizon target designation and guidance can be carried out by Tu-95RTS, Ka-25TS helicopter or space reconnaissance and target designation system.
The ship is equipped with anti-aircraft complex "Reef" S-300F, there are 12 PU and 96 vertical launch missiles.
There is also an Autonomous ship anti-aircraft system "Dagger". Each drum-type sub-deck PU has 8 single-stage solid-fuel remote-controlled missiles 9M330-2, the total stock-128 missiles.
The cruiser is armed with anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex "Kortik", providing self-defense against a number of" accurate " weapons, including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, bombs, aircraft and helicopters, light-tonnage ships. Each unit has two 30-mm six-barrel AK-630M1-2 artillery units with two AO-18 assault rifles according to the "Gatling" scheme with a total rate of fire of 10,000 V / min and two blocks of 4 two-stage 9m311 missiles (SA-N-11) with a fragmentation rod warhead and a non-contact fuse. In the turret compartment is 16 missiles. Missiles unified with 2С6 missile complex "Tunguska". The control system of the Kortik air defense system consists of radar and television systems connected with each other using elements of artificial intelligence. Two installations of the Kortik air defense system are located in the bow of the ship on both sides of the Granit PU, and four others are located in the aft part of the main superstructure.
"Peter the Great" in may 2010
In addition, the cruiser "Peter the Great" is equipped with 130-mm multi-purpose twin art installations "AK - 130" (length of trunks - 70 calibers, 840 shells) with a range of up to 25 km.rate of Fire-from 20 to 80 rounds per minute. The mass of the high-explosive shell-27 kg, has a shock, remote and radio detonators. Ready to fire ammunition-180 shells. The shooting control system Mr-184 allows simultaneous tracking and firing at two targets.
The cruiser was also armed with two anti-submarine (5 PU Board) rocket-torpedo 533 mm complexes RPK-6M "Waterfall", missile-torpedoes which are capable of hitting submarines of the enemy at ranges up to 60 km as a combat head is used a small torpedo, UMGT-1. The rocket dives into the water, takes off into the air and delivers a torpedo to the target area, and there is already a word for UMGT-1, which again dives into the water.
To combat enemy torpedoes the cruiser "Peter the Great" has a torpedo complex RCPTS-1 "Udav-1M" (10 pipes, rails, conveyor automatic recharge, reaction time - 15 sec. the maximum range is 3000 m, the minimum is 100 m, the weight of the rocket - 233 kg). The rocket launchers on the "Peter the Great "are placed as follows: one ten-pipe RBU - 12000 (firing range - 3000 m, projectile weight-80 kg) is installed in the bow of the ship on a turntable, two six-pipe RBU - 1000" Smerch - 3 " (range - 1000 m, projectile weight-55 kg) - in the aft on the upper deck on both sides. Working on counter-measures include two paired 150-mm PU PC-14 (complex shoots interference), protivoallergennye traps, decoys and towed about a torpedo goal with a powerful mechanism noise generator.
On Board the cruiser based two anti-submarine ka-27.
Radar facilities RAP / EW TARKR "Peter the Great" include 16 stations of three types. Ship surveillance, tracking and targeting consists of two stations of space communication (SATS), four stations space navigation (SATAU) and four special electronic stations. The air-surface situation is monitored by all-weather three-coordinate radar "Frigate-MAE" detecting targets at ranges of more than 300 km and altitudes up to 30 km.
The cruiser also has three navigation stations, four radio-electronic control systems for firing airborne weapons, helicopter flight controls and a "friend / foe"identification system.
The ship's sonar system includes a sonar with a hull antenna for search and detection of submarines at low and medium frequencies and a towed automated sonar system with a variable depth antenna (150-200 m) - at medium frequencies.
When upgrading in 2019-2022 years in the armament of the cruiser will be added hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zircon", universal supersonic anti-ship missiles and medium-range missiles P-800 "Onyx" cruise missiles "Caliber". The missiles will be launched from 3s14 universal launchers.
In real life however each destroyer has sattelite coms for secondary detection for scanning area around the ship that multiply each of destroyer ship capability to hunt and destroy each other...
It is a hypothetical situation. In reality each country would field more assets and a 1v1 isn't realistic
So a warship that is more than double the size of it's opponent will most likely win the battle. Who'd have thunk such a thing. When comparing ships in battle you have to keep the tonnage at least close so in this case you would have two Burke class destroyers.
México vs Brazil or Mexico vs Central America.
Imperial Mexico would be interesting, but does Mexico really have enough centralized control to pull something off like that? I was under the impression that Mexico had disunification and corruption issues similar to 1900s Republic of China.
TheF22Craft no podemos con nadien, we don't even have fighter jets.
Charles Melenyzer México Is very corrupt :(
SLAVE 702 Centro America me la pela.
SLAVE 702 we do have fighter jets but they are old and weak. Anyways we could easily invade Central America.
Do Azerbaijan-Armenia
Generally, you would expect a cruiser to defeat a destroyer in head-to-head battle. But consider the German experience in WW2. They used many of their heavy cruisers and 'pocket battleships' and battleships as raiders, and all were hunted down. Smaller ships or aircraft located and damaged them, and then the pack closed in to sink them. A Burke would shadow, rather than confront Kirov. Bring in some subs or an air-wing and the Kirov would be running for home, or sunk.
No mention of torpedo use, both ships have that capability.
the range is too short, almost useless
Dude ur facts are good but ur missing electronic warfare crew served guns and many other high tech weapons Burks have
He also missed out the Kirov torpedoes and twin cannon, Kirov ships are also armed with an air launched nuclear torpedo, some sources say that Pyotr was armed with one and some say only the other 3 Kirovs were armed with them.
Lol, implying the Russians don't use electronic warfare...
What about the Captain's 9mm?
Incorrect: U.S. Tomahawk Missiles go in blocks - there is the T-LAM (Tomahawk land-attack missile), and also a surface attack variant anti-ship missile. They make 3-4 different types. The one you are talking about (TLAM) uses TERCOM (terrain contour matching) navigation.