Russia's Massive Nuclear-Powered Warship That Smokes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 гру 2023
- Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S.
Click the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now. See you in the game! playwt.link/NotWhatYouThink
Why the most weaponized battlecruiser in the world is nuclear-powered, but also has a smoke stack, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT
Music:
Cut the Mustard - Tigerblood Jewel
Linda Low - Lucention
Leaps - Jay Varton
Flightmode - Chris Shards
A Gentle Pulse - Imprismed
Orcas - Marten Moses
Alpha Code - Tellsonic
Lunch Break in Milan - Trabant 33
Soil Within - Max Anson
On the Trail - Tigerblood Jewel
Thyone - Ben Elson
Shortage - Marten Moses
Ostinato - Vieveri
Just the Right Amount - Arthur Benson_2
Secret Light - Max Anson
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock
Soviet Archives
Russian Ministry of Defense
National Archives
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Join us in War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S:
Follow my link to get the game, including an exclusive welcome bonus:
playwt.link/NotWhatYouThink
Just started the video, thanks for the heads-up for the sponsorship 😅
Wait, is steam not the primary method of propulsion when using a nuclear reactor as a heat source?
@@triple7988 I think the nuclear energy get converted into electric first (so it's able to be used by on-ship equipment), and then gets converted into kinetic by the ships motors
Not sure I understand the point of retiring a ship like this during a war. Their plans might be pushed out a bit.
Not what I think. That's for sure. 4:37 I thought I've paid for the f....reaking YT Premium to get rid of the commercials. BUT NO! 🤮
A torpedo turning into a rocket and then turning back into a torpedo is the most Soviet thing I've ever heard of
Yeah, the USN has had the same capability since the 1950's except they just skipped the first stage and went straight to rocket launched, which is why it's name is ASROC (Anti-Submarine Rocket) though it could parachute a nuclear depth change as well. We've even modernized the system into the 21st century with our newest homing torpedo and have made it VLS capable.
Maybe that's why the Soviets chose a torpedo launch? Not enough real estate left for another VLS or deck launcher box, so chose hull doors and torpedos.
The Soviets and now Ruskies have always loved fringe ideas because when they're the only one doing it, they can pretend they're the smartest and running cutting edge technology no one else can match. When in reality most of their (USSR/RU) "cutting edge" tech was stuff that'd already been thought about in the West but not chosen because we found an either better, simpler/easier, cheaper way to do it; or all of the above.
Like the USSR/RU Rocket torpedo, and no not their torpedo-rocket-torpedo torpedo. They have a submarine launched supercavitating torpedo that burns Rocket fuel for propulsion and has a gas generator at the nose to create a gas bubble around it, essentially removing the water and making it a regular missile, just "under" water. If all the stats are to be believed (General rule is to assume the West is low lowballing their top specs to hide true capabilities, and Eastern-Bloc, China, and now Russia is overstating them) this allows it to travel as fast as 200-250 knots. Sounds pretty good, and is, but it's loud as hell and once launched all stealth goes out the window.
Another example is Hypersonic missiles, Russia made such a MASSIVE deal about their "Hypersonic" Air Launched Ballistic Missile, the Kh-47M2 "Kinzhal". The joke for people that know about that stuff is almost EVERY Ballistic missile is Hypersonic by default due to how and where they're used/work. Even the OG, the V-2 "Rocket" (It's actually a single stage long range guided Ballistic Missile, but that's besides the point) is Hypersonic at its operating altitude. So hyping up a ballistic missle as some new "Hypersonic super weapon" is just giggle worthy chest thumping by RU that gets regurgitated by the media for their quota of fear mongering. (P.S. The US has been able to air launch Minuteman Ib's by para-yeeting them out the back of C-5 Galaxys since the 70's and that's a legit, intact, whole-ass ICBM, not just a TBM/MRBM. We just didn't expand it beyond the successful tests due to security concerns, needing more R&D, and Russia would've had a shit fit about it if we essentially made every heavy-lift transport plane a potential nuclear bomber. However the capability exists and if needed could be fully developed and carried out. Although as we've upgraded the entire ICBM stockpile to Minuteman III's, we'd need to find or develop a replacement for the Minuteman Ib we tested it with in the 70's)
The newer (Then V-2) SCUD is "Hypersonic" as well, and yet we shot down 25% of them in the Persian Gulf War when the MIM-104 Patriot and its PAC-1 and PAC-2 missiles ability to due so was unrefined and mostly theoretical outside a few test.
Since then hundreds of software updates and overall system improvements to things like the FCS, Radar, etc, has exponentially refined this ability. The improved PAC-2 Variants since then (Like GEM and GEM+) are even better, and the PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE are EVEN better with the PAC-3's tracking, guidance, and maneuverability being so good they went with a Kinetic Hit-to-Kill warhead to completely smash a Ballistic/Cruise missile by literally just crashing into it at Mach Classified. They also have what they call a "Lethality Enhancer" which is a small blast charge to radially expel 24 low speed Tungsten fragments around the missile near impact to increase its cross-section, enhancing kill probability. Without the huge frag warhead this allowed them to miniaturize the missiles so you can stuff 15 PAC-3 or 12 PAC-3 MSE to a pod as opposed to only the 4 PAC-1/2's. This also gave them the ability to add an active radar to the PAC-3 missiles which lets the missile go pitbull and guide itself once it's close enough to the target.
BACK TO THE POINT: Multiple KH-47M2 "Kinzhal" missiles have already been intercepted by Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine war, using donated MIM-104 Patriot battery's armed with PAC-2 through PAC-3 MSE interceptors around Kyiv. So Russia's "New expensive super duper unstoppable missile" has already been easily intercepted multiple times by missiles the US has had for 10-20+ years. And the ability for the Patriot system to do so was once again considered "Certainly possible, but only theoretical".
So once again, the Russian systems performance was revealed to be overstated, and the Western/US systems performance turned out to be greater then what's been officially/publicly released.
@@pyro1047 The P-8 can deploy rocket propelled torpedoes as well.
Meanwhile Americans: ya'll need torpedo tubes ?
The definition of words matter! You mean rocket DELIVERED torpedoes. I don't believe the USN has rocket propelled torpedoes, though there may have been a classified development I don't know about. Haven't heard about anything like an ASROC or (cancelled) Sea-Lance for the P8 either.
The Kuznetsov normal speed might be 18 knots, but it's usual speed is governed by the power of it's tug boat.
I don't think you're kidding, but 😂🤣 *_DAMN!_* THAT'S some funny 💩 right there!
@HE-pu3nt wins the entire Internet today! 😊
Add to that the fact that nowadays it spends it's time in drydock and being on fire occasionally, you can further lower it's average speed.
@@WilliamRWarrenJr sadly for the Northern Fleet, it is not a joke.
It's TRUE!! @@WilliamRWarrenJr
The Moskva also had the same anti air, anti missile systems which did not prevent her from being promoted to the submarine service. The Ukrainian Neptune missiles used are roughly equivalent to Harpoons.
"Moscow" was exposed alone for treason.
No the moskva had the old ak630 not even ak630 2m
The kirov have the kashtan system wich is 10 times bettee in every aspect
@@ali-haider5788 But the moskova is 2 years newer than the kirov class, being 1977 for the kirov and the moskova being 1979
@@e.hellbrand9707 Don't try to reason with a vatnik.
yeah i heard F-35 is also promoted as a Submarine, such an Advance technologies
A Russian aircraft carrier that emits its own smoke screen.
Just what you want when trying to land an aircraft on a short moving runway.
😂😂
The Russian aircraft carrier is its version of the distraction Carnifex. The smoke is to draw enemy fire away from its actual functional ships.
don't forget about its Reliable Outboard Motors (Tugboats).
Did you watch the full video, he said it's just a joke
Whether on land or sea, the Russians focus WAY too much on raw firepower and not nearly enough on logistics, crew competency, range, accuracy, survivability/damage control, stealth, combined-arms tactics etc.
Orcs like dakka
I agree with everything else but range?
Every Major navy is actually developing such ships 13k+ displacement.
And arming them to teeth for land attack duties.
bcs they design it for nuclear war in mind, so logistic may out of question
well yeah, if you build a killdozer as an atheist nation vs a christian bunch of cultists then you need it to look the part, or they might fuck about and find out..
or is it just coincidence that the nation with 99% religion loving leaders just happens to not get along with the biggest bunch of atheists they can't control,
look what they did to Germany after Ignaz Semmelweis told the world of medicine to wash their hands, that was only 3 Bidens ago, they need their order and progress is scary.
The reason for these giants being classed as a cruiser is that they had to pass through the Bosporus being built at a shipyard on the Black Sea coast. There is a naval agreement that forbids passage of anything larger than a cruiser through there.
Someone did write down a very detailed specification which also had the strange side effect of creating aircraft carriers with some serious surface-to-surface armament with the Kuznetsov having Granit missile lauchers mounted in the flight deck
those ramjet missiles are awesome. the only thing even cooler are the ramjet artillery shells in development... that apparently use solid fuel, which is bizarre.
Many thanks for this update ! 👍🤝🙂
Crikey- so that’s why even the Kusnetsov is classified as a cruiser? The flight deck does mess with perception - another example is that at the waterline, the USS Gerald Ford and the Queen Mary 2 have the same beam at 134 ft (mind you the Ford stretches out to 256ft at the flight deck while the QM2 is only 147ft)
@@patricia1333 Kiev-class was also classified as aircraft carrying cruiser.
Montreaux convention i believe, signed in France in the 30's, which forbids vessels above 15k tons crossing the Bosphorus straits, and no carriers what-so-ever.
If you've seen the 'yacht fleet' owned by Russian oligarchs, I wonder what the Russian Navy means when they say 'upgrading battleships is too expensive'?
They mean that only the few rubles leftover after embezzlement by the oligarchs are left for battleships.
If we include the tonnage of those yachts Russia would be the biggest fleet by far.
@@theworkshopwhisperer.5902why tf would you include the yachts💀
US oligarchs have fleets of yachts, jets & even rockets too. They're both capitalists.
@@scotthill1600 it's a joke about how many super yachts have been made with Russian naval money.
As a new Ensign on my first deployment we were steaming near the Bearing Straits when a Kirov class was sortied to shadow us, or intimidate us, whatever. Even from a distance that b**ch looked like a steel mountain. We had as the centerpiece of our battle group the USS New Jersey (yea I'm old). I felt like the New Jersey could have held her own but damn.
Ah the good old days when Russia had an actual Navy.
I'm of that age and once sailed with the Iowa. It was amazing how steady it was in heavy seas as we bobbed around like apples.
@@vapoet I was stationed on a frigate. One turret on the New Jersey weight more than our ship 🙂
@@vapoet I had the view of USS Iowa from the flight deck of USS Eisenhower, both tied to Pier 12 in Norfolk. I was amazed at the her length being nearly that of Ike.
American propaganda working overtime now that the money is drying up and Russia is winning. Russia's been using the worst equipment and losing the war for the past two years on social media, yet there they still are fucking Nazi Ukrainians, the US and all of NATO😂...I know I'd be pretty pissed too😘🖕
I once had the privilege of landing my CH-46D on the deck of the New Jersey off the coast of California during a RIMPAC exercise (probably RIMPAC 88 but I could be wrong). We had to orbit and wait while their main battery fired its last broadsides. Man what a sight! I forget what we were bringing them but they sure were grateful. They gave us a great box lunch to eat in the cockpit and patches for our flight jackets, which I still have.
But to be honest the most heavily armed battleships ever built would not defeat modern cruise missiles with hard target penetrator warheads like the BROACH warhead. Those would cut through an Iowa class easily and do severe damage. Energetic materials have come a long way since WWII.
“Don’t blindly trust things you see on the internet, including what I say” I’m not gonna trust that
The explanation of the smoke pictures and admission that nothing, even yourself, online is trustworthy makes me respect you and I will continue watching your content!
I like your situational awareness.
The Russian surface ship reactors have problems in tropical waters where sea surface temperatures can exceed 30 degrees C (86 F). The oil fired superheaters allow the ship to create superheated dry steam for maximum power, something their reactors along cannot do. If you ever wondered why the Russians have never once sailed any of their big nuclear powered icebreakers to the Antarctic, this is the reason. Their reactors cannot operate safely on hot tropical water.
Some of the Kirov class vessels (All but Pytor Velikiy) also have 2x SA-N-4 OSA launchers with a total of 40 missiles, and all the ships have two RBU-1000 Antisubmarine depth charge projectors and 1 Udav-1 depth charge projector.
i think its had if they are not active
yep, OSA launchers were replaced by Kinzhal on Piotr Velikiy.
The oil boilers are not just a backup (though they work as that as well). The combining gear means that both the boilers and the reactors' steam can power the ship at the same time, leading to higher top speed in a burst when using both. Likewise, the second reactor is not "a backup" as the video says, both reactors usually work at the same time. But having two instead of one does double as a backup, since it's possible to move (slower) with just one.
He does mention that it's CONAS later, which makes the
original claim even more puzzling. Maybe it's because in virtually every
bit of footage out there, it looks like its cruising speed 10 knots 😄
Same goes for American carriers, at least regarding using both reactors. Not sure if they can run diesels at the same time as the reactors tho
@@LitmusPapyrus There is no combining gear on the Nimitz, and the diesel emergency generators cannot drive the main shafts in any way. They are meant for backup electrical power for the ship.
Oh look we have another American armchair general here 🤓
@@Burningarrow7 Considering what he said was correct, was there a point to your comment besides "I don't like Americans"? Besides, it would be armchair admiral, not general. We are talking about ships here, after all. 🙄
Admiral Kuznetsov's designation as an aircraft-carrying cruiser is very important under the Montreux Convention, as it allows the ship to transit the Turkish Straits.
The smoke chimney is for the indoor smoking room, sauna, and barbecue R&R area!! The design is very human!
Yeah I gotta take my truck to a smog test every other year to save the planet. Meanwhile the Russian aircraft carrier is single handled responsible for global warming
So are the American ones.
@@nickinthelead7904 they are friggin nuclear powered.
My toddler came out as trans
@@ilikeleek4087He might be talking about all the planes. Even so, those are nothing compared to the kuznetsov
@@ilikeleek4087 the vast majority of US ships run on gas/diesel
I have to say, that is a good-looking ship. Its lines are aesthetically pleasing. I'm surprised that it can't reach maximum speed on both nuclear power plants.
Agreed, she does look good. But as a radar target, she'd stand out like a light house.
I wonder how many of the installed weapons actually worked.
My guess would be that the maintainance is non-existant.
That's one possible reason for having so many of them. Even of some fail, by chance some will work, and so it's not completely useless.
@zolikoff Or every time a weapon system broke, instead of repairing it they just added a new one.
Most likely that the systems did work when they were installed, but the constant lack of maintenance means that they don't operate properly anymore.
@@doggo_woo Honestly, even the idea of them working properly when they were first installed is probably being overly generous.
Small mistake - the normal speed of any Russian naval vessel is "dry docked" with a maximum speed of "the tugboat dragging it back to port"
It is so ridiculous that such big ships are cost too much but can be destroyed with a single rocket or drone.
I really have no confidence in their defense capabilities, because they simply aren;t tested enough. The US navy is constantly testing with one ship or another. And as we have seen, the Russian sailors are never trained well enough to maintain their ships.
not sure about single rocket, but 2 rockets + 1 drone could be enough I think
Shush~! (They'll hear you ...)@@vapoet
But you still have to deliver that rocket or drone ... not always easy.
And the big ships can take a helluva thumping before going down.
Now try actually hitting it. Without hypersonics.
A small side note on why we don’t have non-carrier nuclear surface ships anymore, getting the manning for the engineering department was basically impossible when they had to contend with carriers and submarines for nuclear qualified sailors
The last couple of generations wouldn't join up anyway. They'd much rather be out there pushing DEI and protesting for the protection of terrorists. The last two or three generations (most of them) make me want to puke when I watch their antics in the real world.
Yeah this is what really does it, the crew, technology, maintenance and finances to operate large, nuclear warships is pretty intense and you're better off using the nuclear ships to carry entire airbases around the world, or powering hidden submarines for months on end rather than pushing some guns around on ships that run just fine on conventional fuel
So the RPK-6 Vodopad is a horizontally-launched missile which starts above water, goes straight into the water, then goes airborne for 30 miles, then goes back underwater...
It's not manly enough to do things the easy way.
they just took a sub launched anti sub missile and put it on the ship, along with the launch tube.
@@xsu-is7vq I'm just surprised that it works, being designed to start off underwater.
A.b "destroyers" are the equivalent of light cruisers from ww2
👍👍😂😂Your are right Sir ! The corvette is "Yuri's fishing boat" and the cruiser Igor's week end yacht !😂😂👍👍
One depth charge, many dead fish float to surface!
@@CorePathwayeasy food on table lol
Yet they need the NATO to bring Russia down while hiding behind Ukrainians. How embarrassing.😂
As far as 'Cruisers' go re: Admiral Kuznetzov... the 'CV' designation for American aircraft carriers means 'Cruiser, Aviation', so I suppose the U.S. kinda/sorta does the same thing! (It's a relic from the original Langley, I believe)
The "V" specifically means heavier than air. The Zeppelins had some other designation. Airplane squadrons also use the V, as as VA, VF, and of course VM... The blimp squadrons used some other designation.
But considering my track record in other comments on this video (0-2) I may be wrong.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005
I didn't know that V meant heavier than air for aircraft (thanks!)... hadn't even thought of that. (Also, VP, with P for patrol. My gramps flew in VP17, in P2V Neptunes (There's that V again!)
But, I think (assume that) designations for aircraft and ships are unrelated, or maybe it's like the army's 'M' designation; The Abrams tank is the M1, and the Garand rifle was the M1. There is an M1 helmet, too. So many Ms...
CV, intuitively, seems like it should mean 'Carrier, aViation', or just 'Aircraft Carrier', rather than the 'Cruiser' which it is (or orginally was) The 'V' in CV is down too 'CA' having already been in use as 'Cruiser, Armored', and the USN perhaps didn't want two different ship types with the same class abbreviation/designation.
Cheers!
@@bholdr----0 I had assumed the Navy chose "V" because there were two claims to "A" for aviation -- heavier than air and lighter than air. But that was a long time ago and lighter than air may have seemed like it had a real future which today seems obviously wrong.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005
Yup, that's how I understand the 'V'... and: Lighter than air- you are right on about that too; It is, now, an obviously poor idea.
BUT, there are some misanthropic (Quixotic?) startups trying to bring rigid airships back... While the only use case that I can see (other than advertising, a la the Goodyear blimp) is as an ultra-expensive cruise ship in the air. (Which, tbh, seems like it would be pretty cool.)
Cheers.
@@bholdr----0 I just looked up "us navy blimps" and the Wikipedia article says they were used by "ZP-14" -- there's the answer! Must be for Zeppelin? But the blimps were K-1 etc of the K class. The rigid airships were ZR-1 etc. I wonder if there ever were plans for a CZ lighter than air carrier.
“Don’t blindly trust things you see on the internet, including what I say.” Never a truer word spoken! You have my respect for that statement alone!
Since the late stages of the Cold War in the 80s when I joined the RAN I knew about these ships, and we trained a lot to fight the Soviets in the Pacific and possibly Indian Oceans. Their ships seemed incredibly heavily armed. I knew the Kirov class had a combination of nuclear and oil-fired boilers, but assumed they were for extra speed, like modern CODAG/CODOG setups. It made sense to me considering they could both feed the existing steam turbines. I didn’t realise they were backups for a backup. That alone says a lot for Soviet/Russian engineering.
Our old 1950s British designed oil-fired boilers(River class, modified type 12 Rothesay and Leander classes)didn’t smoke at all usually. Nor did our 1960s American designed ones(Perth class, modified Charles F. Adams).🤣
I haven’t finished watching the video yet, but when I do I’ll be off to do some more research! 👍
Ok, just got to 3:39 and ai need to correct you. Nuclear power is just a means of heating boilers just like oil-fired boilers. They are just a different means of heating the water for a steam turbine.
13:27, “The Russians claim…”. 🤣
You're correct about 3:39. We didn't word it properly.
Finally, agreed about having a single, hugely expensive, visible, and doubtfully reliable nor capable vessel(one big target against a saturation attack by modern stealth weapons) compared to many more smaller and cheaper vessels which in combination are just as effective. EW triangulation is just one example against this principle. We saw their warships operating alone around SE Asia, and we always operated in a task unit of at least 2.
Simply a carryover of the Cold War, and Russia still trying to flex. Badly.
@@NotWhatYouThinkAmerican propaganda working overtime now that the money is drying up and Russia is winning. Russia's been using the worst equipment and losing the war for the past two years on social media, yet there they still are fucking Nazi Ukrainians, the US and all of NATO😂...I know I'd be pretty pissed too😘🖕
@@NoName-ds5uqthis Kirov class design is a typical product of the soviet era : "is it big? Make the next one f* big!". All of these designs have been developed with the "one final blow" on mind, and not designed for sustained wars. But even for this partizan style of war, the Sovietunion did not have enough money - and russia today has much less than the Soviets had. Russia is 1.5% of the world economy (before 2022) - it is a negligible, annoying cohabitant who needs to be shown his place.
There are 195 recognized countries on this planet, most of them are probably pretty damn poor in comparison to the USA or Europe. To contribute just 1.5% to the world economy is amazingly bad. @@spxram4793
Goofy thing about those Kinzhal launchers, it only has 64. The bow launchers were some special design that never got completed. That's something that got me awhile ago when I looked at this ship.
The other thing was the expenses to restore the other Kirov classes is likely because they all sustained some sort of damage overtime. One has it;s engine room complete catch on fire and the other had an incident with one of it's nuclear reactors and had to permanently shut that unit down leaving it with one.
Love the fact that you adress misinformation, very important topic.
The reason why Russia labeled their biggest ships as cruisers stems mostly from their need to pass from the black sea to the Mediterranean through the Dardanelles. Because the treaty of Montreux makes it possible for turkey to deny aircraft carriers free passage through the strait.
A similar case can be seen in Japan where the (helicopter) carriers of the japanese navy are officially classified as helicopter destroyers because the japanese constitution forbids the use of offensive weapons such as aircraft carriers.
Thank you bro for uploading just in time, I was gerting bored and I needed a good vid to watch, tysm bro I cant stop watching ur vids please never lower your quality
In America it’s considered a high honor to serve aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier, in ruzzia it’s considered a death sentence.
Russia doesn’t have a nuclear aircraft carrier
Russia does not have any nuclear-power carriers but they do have similar powered submarines. Remember Kursk with all crews lost, russian warships r dangerous to the enemies as well to their own crews. 😂😅😊
Russia* speak english properly
@@sebastian-FX357Z1Yet they captured tons of NATO weapons and tanks successfully.😂 It's all over the news.
@@DsFk80s Yeah land based combat results in losses. What a shocking revelation. 😂
It will probably be lost due to a "negligent russian sailor smoking a cigarette"
Understood. But the Kirov ships look AWESOME.
I thought the boilers were used to add superheat to the reactor steam at high speed because reactors don't make superheated steam but saturated steam which is bad for turbine blades and causes erosion of the blading . I am a former boiler operater and our high pressure boilers have superheaters built in them
Pressurised water reactors make superheated steam as their primary circuit is at extreme pressures allowing the steam created in the turbine circuit to be significantly above 100C
I dont know if the russians use pwr or boiling water reactors which run at lower pressure, but apparently make enough heat for a power plant
The US Navy decommissioned all of their nuclear powered cruisers not due to high operating costs but because their combat systems were obsolete, arm launchers and rotating antennas, and there was no easy way, in some classes no way whatsoever to reconfigure their hulls to accommodate Mk-41 VLS and their superstructures would have had to have been removed and replaced with a completely different superstructure to house the SPY-1 radars and other combat management equipment used by the Aegis system. It was cheaper to retire them and replace them with new Ticonderoga class CGs.
I remember that while serving on a Nimitz class carrier in the 1980's that the Kirov class was the only surface ship we actually feared.
As if it was allowed to get close to an American CVN. (300miles "close")
Now you see that the fear was wasted; if they launched something at you the missile would have blown up in it's own launch tube and taken out the ship - parts of the system would have been sold for cases of vodka.
@@Kr0N05🤦🏼♂️
@@YYukova While a facepalm is a warranted response to that claim during the heyday of the USSR, we're talking about the Russian Federation here. All I'll say is 'remember the Moskva...'
@@Kr0N05 dope propaganda you're spreading 😂get your sources straight
Good detective work on the smoke images. I blindly believed them.
That's alot of claimed firepower for one ship and we know that Russian contractors never lie about the systems they build.
Most People might not realized this. Nuclear Power is basically a fancy name for Morden Steam Engines. The Nuclear Fusion is just a fuel to fire up the boilers. Then they use heated boiler to propels the propellers and electrical dynamo for operate. Basically the ships stills pretty much the same after WWI it just that you just have a firebox as Nuclear Powerhouse. It still has boilers and stuff. Hence Steam can be reuse. Ships still don’t need to refueling much like WWIi because steam can circulate into water which can be reuse. Most Steam Engines are usually refilling Oil or Coal but not much on Water. Steam Locomotives refill more water due to it release steam out. Plus, Turbine Steam engine works better on ships than Trains. And Steam Turbine is better on circulating steam into water. Which reduce the water usage.
I didn't blink at "smoke can be seen from space, because I've seen my own house's roof and yard in a satelite photo, in real time view like a sophisticated military surveilance satelite has, of course it can be seen! The ship itself is many times smaller than a diesel cloud, but tens of times larger than my house.
Not as armed as my ships in stormworks
Basically this thing can identify as a "Battle group"
No, just as a larger target.
@@vapoet And an easy target for western subs at that. 😂🤣😅🤣😂
@@Never2late4UA Virginia-class could probably remove this thing from service within days of a war breaking out. Mk. 48 torpedoes are nothing to laugh at.
@@Never2late4UUSA is a weak don't compare that with Russia
@@Never2late4U Yet the west built the same sitting ducks that had to be escorted by 5 ships
2:37 I appreciate a UA-camr who keeps us on our toes
Only a drunk Russian would think that ship could hold a candle compared to the US Navy.
I do wonder though how a Kirov would compare to a modern Burke III.
While it has 4x the missiles on paper, the quality of the missiles should also be taken into consideration.
The video already states that modern Aegis may have the ability to intercept even all P-700 missiles. P-700s are old weapons using obsolete technology, and I fully believe that Aegis could intercept all of them. As far as I'm aware Kirov doesn't have any more anti-ship weaponry, effectively leaving it disarmed.
As for the US ship, I think it cannot be overstated just how powerful the universal size for Mk41 missiles is. The cells can be filled with anything they want really, unlike the S-300s on the Kirov which can do air defense and air defense _only._ With the new LRASM missiles coming up, I'm not confident that the outdated radars of Kirov will be able to target and attempt an intercept against them. And even if they could, VLS has incredible potential of saturation attack. S-300 is not active radar homed (please correct me if I'm wrong?) so the amount of incoming LRASMs (again, provided Kirov could even see them) that Kirov could intercept at a time would be limited by the Kirov's radars themselves. No matter what they will hardly be stopping 20 - 30 LRASMs coming at them.
Also it gives the question how the Kirov would compare to modern aegis vessels other than the Burke, say the Chinese 055?
With 112 VLS cells, active-radar guided HHQ-9Bs and YJ-21 anti-ship ballistic missiles, I'm almost certain that the 055 would wipe the floor with Kirov, but again I might be overlooking something here.
Come on, Admiral Nakhimov is soon leaving docks with state of the art weapons including hypersonic. Then Peter the Great will be docked for the same upgrade.
@@TheRVSN Leaving the dock under its own power, or do they need a tugboat to move it?
@@brucetucker4847 Ask the shipyard.
@@TheRVSNconsidering they've delayed her return to service 3 times now I question if those upgrades for the Veliky will be worth it. What's the point in upgrading your old ship with modern weapons if by the time it returns to service those weapons are easy to stop?
@@TheRVSNOh yeah and they've announced Pyotr Veliky is going to be retired from service. Looks like it'll just be Nakhimov.
True about being careful what you see on the internet. However, from first hand experience, you can see a Russian warship burning heavy oil fuel 30 miles away from the bridge of a warship. They have very limited endurance at sea before breaking down.
Video: Speaks for six seconds.
Me: "KIROV REPORTING!"
You are correct when you state the Kirov class cannot achieve top speed without bringing an oil-fired boiler online. During the 1970s I was stationed in USS Francis Hammond (FF-1067), we were conducting SOAP or Soviet Out-Of-Area Operations. Simply put, we were following a Kirov class ship and another ship. The Soviets would very rarely venture outside their home waters. My ship was tasked to follow them around the Pacific.
Hopefully this one doesn’t mysteriously sink on them!!!
😉😏
Yes, it could be an environment disaster!!
Honestly just calling it battleship and is good example for what the 21st-century battleship would look like
"Even when intercepted, it'll fly because of inertia" I guess Russians forgot most physics and how "interception" works
Confucius says "Do not use a cannon to kill a fly" 15:31
Imagine being captaining that 😮
I would felt like Davy Jones
CYKA BLYAAAAAAT
US Navy: 😂 awe! Hold our beer!
This is like their version of a Yamamoto. All their eggs in one basket.
And is a nightmare to maintain and constantly breaks down lol
"it would be embarassing to have to be towed back"
I think we are WAY past that point of potential embarassment and just accept this as a day of life considering the Kuzentsoff has accompanying tugboats.
American propaganda working overtime now that the money is drying up and Russia is winning. Russia's been using the worst equipment and losing the war for the past two years on social media, yet there they still are fucking Nazi Ukrainians, the US and all of NATO😂...I know I'd be pretty pissed too😘🖕
The Kuznetzov task group at this point is 50% tugboats, 10% involuntary submarines, and 40% propaganda potential (notice there are no actual warships)
Very interesting report. Merry Christmas
A very slick and good looking ship.
The Moskva was supposed to be awesome as well; we know how well that ship was maintained
No "no smoking" signs near the compartments where the ordnance is stored😉
Such a badass Machine, If only it was maintained properly, then you could say "it can sink anything"
but now they can say: it can sink anytime.
You guys are out here talking about weapon systems... But damn that white tender on the side looks gigantic ! It looks around 10-15m (for reference the majority of pleasure boats are shorter than that). That ship has an integrated fishing boat, how tf does one manage that ?
Also, the sheer amount of life rafts gives a good idea of the crew complement. Just in the first frame I counted 38 of these ! That's space for at least 760 people (assuming 20 people per raft, but modern tech could fit 40 per raft easily in canisters that size) without accounting for the other side of the ship !
Interesting video, thanks for sharing! 👍
Everyone thinks our weapons technology is what makes the US military so great, it is but a small part. Our logistics, like it ability to feed and arm our soldiers in the other side of the planet is what makes us so powerful. Any insurgency can fight a defensive war on their own turf, but only America can sustain a war anywhere in the world.
you do know they are really low on large cargo ships do you? If war would break out in Taiwan usa could do nothing.
don't forget our N C O's
And all while failing their last 6 audits, failing to account for 60% of their assets, failing to account for almost half a trillion $ each year, of graft and fraud, stealing from the American people, for fake wars, expending our troops for graft and profiteering. USA! USA!
Just like how you sustained in Vietnam and Afghanistan
@@bigbadcivic2 The U.S. can still out produce any other country and we still know how to build cargo ships. Look at liberty and victory ships.
Curious for max speed if they need to run a Nuclear reactor and the boilers or if they could just run both reactors. Or are you saying both reactors and both the boilers would all need to be running for max speed?
7:00 - Imagine being on the bridge of that ship back then!!! What a ride!
Great video, well done👍
Russian navy: I want to get better!
Russian economy: that’s the neat part, you don’t.
Russians call Kirov a missile cruiser, while Kuznetsov is an aircraft carrying cruiser
Excellent stuff bro
I was not ready for the Youri's fishing boat 😂
If all of her defences are as well maintained and operated as the Moscwa then I'm not sure how dangerous this ship really is.
What I understand is that if you put that many systems on a ship, it becomes very hard to maintain and operate because of tight spaces and poor working conditions.
That's why they have over 700 personal on board for the maintenance plus the ship is very big and have good working condition
If there is anything the russians have REALLY not figured out its having a capable marine, if you want to know how not to set up your marine department just look at the russian fleet
Many years ago, on patrol in the Med, the Kirov was on the horizon. As I watched, smoke billowed from her stacks, indicating that the steam from the steam generators was being superheated. Damn - that thing was fast.
2:53 is why i enjoy this channel so much
The reason i stay on this channel is because it mention things as they are no propaganda
This being the 21st century, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that only one of Piotr Vik’s reactors works and only on days that have two vowels in their names, the Granit launchers would sink the ship if they tried to flood them all at once and only one of the six point defence systems actually works, using parts cannibalised from the other five. They made big claims about Slava-class missile cruisers too, until Moskva met its end at the hands of two little missiles fired from a truck.
its true!
The Moskva's two sisters visited Norfolk and San Diego respectively in 1989 and they were open for tours. A noteworthy feature was the complete absence of any damage control equipment, even fire extinguishers, anywhere visitors were allowed. If you have ever been on a US Navy or Japan Maritime Self Defense Force ship you know the passageways are lined with fire hoses, applicators, axes, power tools, de-watering pumps, wooden shoring, plugs, clamps to sea leaky pipes, low light cameras and oxygen breathing apparatus. Every compartment has battery powered battle lanterns and sound powered phones that work just fine when the power is out. None of these were visible on Moskva's sisters. Damage Control Russian Navy style appears to be abandoning ship and letting it sink.
TRUE@@philsalvatore3902
8:17
And also, probably 1/3 the size of the Yamato-class (which is 72,000 tons of estimation)
Them nuclear diesel hybrids are cutting edge hahaha
The vokopad system is actually cool I’m all in for western surface warships to have torpedoes as weapons too
small correction, the defenition of a battlecruiser requires it to fight in the line of battle, hence a BATTLEcruiser, but the line of battle strategy isnt used anymore so therefore it isnt a battlecruiser
I would like to see it next to the Moscova!!😆
That pool is so nasty! So much mildew!
The shipwreck would likely keep flying due to the momentum. However it won't reach the target unless it was shot down by like CIWS. The distance is too great if it was intercepted by missiles. However its warhead probably won't detonate due to the samage and its not guided so it might still miss even with the momentum.
The shipwreck might be able to sustain a hit from older SAM which use blast-fragmentation warhead. The later SM-2 and SM-6 have enlarged warhead, while the SM-3 uses a direct-hit kinetic warhead. Those would easily destroy the shipwreck in air.
the newest Russian submarine ive heard is OP. They call it the Moskva.
😂😂😂😂
Beautiful looking vessel.
I respect your humble honesty! "DON'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU HEAR/READ ON THE INTERNET! "
Wow it is invincible like the Moskva 😊
I respect your alert for not taking the internet at face value. Seems to be very important these days
Talk about putting all your eggs into one basket!!
🤣
"I guess this Corvette is just Yuri's fishing boat." 🤣
A absolutely love the way say to not even trust what you say. Kudos to you to spread awareness about critical thinking! Something that is almost extinct it looks like these day...
Regardless of politics nd everything that's going on, I honestly wish I could see a Kirov class Battlecruiser irl (some time in my lifetime)
I never thought I’d hear a kirov be described as stealthy
In comparison to many Russian ships which are normally on fire I suppose it could be considered stealthy
So the KIROV CGN is what we call a CONAS propulsion system or COmbination Nuclear And Steam. They use the conventional oil fired steam plant for inshore and near inshore propulsion and the Nuclear power plant for when they are heading further out to sea. We also know that her top speed is 32 to 35 kts based on she was one of the first ships to make it to the MIKE SSN disaster and she made well over 30kts in 20 to 30 foot seas.
Even nuclear aircraft carriers have diesel engines. They are used for backup or emergency supplementary propulsion and drive the same electric motors as the nuclear reactors do.
The main shafts are not electric, they are driven directly mechanically by a steam turbine powered by the reactors. The only current exception to this are the nuclear icebreakers. Otherwise there's usually no electrical means to drive the main shafts at all. However, there can be smaller positioning thrusters that are electric. They are not normally used but will work as a "backup" to move the ship very very slowly.
Those Diesels' primary purpose is to power the reactors' coolant pumps in the event that both reactors go down at the same time. AKA "Dead in the water", a drill we practiced frequently. We can recover from that in as little as 30 min.
If the back up to the back up to the backup should fail, there is a giant rubber band running the length of the ship to provide stored power.
The Russians have an honest understanding of their own technology.
I'm building one in 1/700 at the moment. Thanks for all the nice footage
About Nakhimov ship, it was said that it would return to the fleet in 2018, then it was postponed till 2020, later till 2022, and then 2023, and finally in 2023 it was announced that it will be back in fleet in 2024. I suspect that this just keep going to happen. Modernization project costed more than 200 billion rubles which is 2 billion USD with todays exchange rate (keep in mind that ruble was more expensive in the past)