Kirov carries 20 P-700, that have range of about 670 km. which is more then the F-18 range broken in half. Is a ship made for destroying entire aricraft carrier groups.
Szomorú,de mint, mondtam ez a hajó szép. És nem kell hadtörténeti és egyéb következtéseket levonni mert, a HMS Hood is hasonlóan szép volt. Azért az osztrák magyar Szent Istvánról figyelemre méltó modellek készülnek. Most is. Modellezésre mind érdemesek. Készíts modellt bármelyik amerikai "anyahajóról"! Megérii-e?
A másik, a himnusz, az (szovjet-orosz, orosz-szovjet) felett futó video is érdekes. Ez a hajó szép. Nem véletlen Azt mondják ami szép, az jó is lehet. Illik a látványhoz a Karib tenger kalózai zenéje és (a sz-o, sz) himnusz is.
They do have one limitation. In order to use their full speed they have to use a combination of nuclear and fuel oil. Not nuclear alone which would limit their range at maximum speed. For this reason I wouldn't call the Kirov's a true nuclear powered cruiser. The USS Long Beach was a nuclear power cruiser. It could operate at maximum speed on nuclear power alone. See Janes Fighting Ships for further information.
@TheKifinas The Kirov is a fine ship but for the eariler reasons I would not call her a nuclear powered cruiser. Shes a hybrid a best. As for the Long Beach she is a combat vet. She saw action off Veitnam when her missiles shot down some Migs. Has the Kirov seen combat action?
@TheKifinas True But the Long Beach was also alot older then the Kirov. She was one of the first nuclear powered surface ships buildt. I still wouldn't call the Kirov a true nuclear powered cruiser due to her need to use oil to run at full power.
@SVB222 yamato 263 m long and kirov class battle cruisers are only 252 m long. yamato is bigger, wider and heavier. yamato is the biggest battle ship ever built only us navy carriers are bigger
@SovietBear91 sej4as eto samij boljschok nadwodnij ne avianesuschij,atomnij krejser,atomnij emu soljarka s ma3utom ne nuzni, a jamato eto ww2 eto uze ne korablj,a metalolom!
Soviet Bear! I really want to know what music you've put in this video. It's one helluva ship, it was because of this ship that the US refurbished some of their WW2 Battleships
the Kirov was an amazing development and a brilliant return to the concept of a heavily armed and armored surface combatant. She was designed to kill US aircraft carriers with her 20 supersonic P-700 Granit missiles. It would have been a difficult mission to accomplish but I'm sure the 4 ship Kirov class would have accounted for at least two Nimitz class carriers before being sent to the bottom. Imagine a Russia with twenty of these bad ass ships!
Protected by a Kiev class carrier with its airwing and some Sovremeny class destroyers plus some Akula class attack submarines then I think that they would have sinked more than 2 US carriers before being destroyed.
2 carrier battle groups have too many escorts and subs protecting them for that to happen with the force you describe. However IMHO 2 Kirov's supported by 2 Kuznetsov class aircraft carriers, 4 Sovremeny class DDs, 2 Slava Class cruisers could sink one Nimitz carrier and four or five escorts (4 Arleigh Burke class destroyers and one Ticonderoga class cruiser?). before all the Russian surface ships are destroyed. that would be one BIG battle! The subs would do each other in.
@1138thz they never would attack Nimitz carriers with kirovs. they would use attack subs, destroyers and naval aviation. your nimitz carrier battlegroup would have no chance against hundred super sonic missiles like the Sunburn. how you want intercept lets say 50 missiles which are 5-10m above the water and have a speed of mach 3. that is impossibru! i like how you american fanboys say that soviets could do nothing against your mighty Nimitz. soviets would sunk this ducks in 5 minutes.
Do you have an inferiority complex? Forget your fantasies, The RU hasn't enough of a Navy to be taken seriously now and the last time Russia won a fleet action was 150 years ago (The Battle Of Sinop) But in the 1980's the Soviet fleet would have made you proud by sinking a carrier or two before all its major combat ships were sent to the bottom. The only place your scenario would work today is the Black Sea and we don't send Carriers into your lake.
@1138thz i think you have a complex. i talked about USSR`s navy and not about russian navy. soviet naval aviation was the strongest in the 70`s and 80`s just describe me how us navy should stop 20 missiles launched by kirov, 40 missiles launched by Tu-16 and Tu-95 and other 20 missiles launched by subs. just check Sunburn, P-700, and ss-n-16 stallion. this beast can go up to mach 3. why USSR does not had big carriers, because carriers are only good against 3rd world countrys like iraq.
The dumbest thing about your analyses is the idiotic notion that Kirov Tu-16 and Tu-95 are going to sneak up on a CVBG to get in range without being detected. But its all academic now Russia is a nation that cant even build its own large ships anymore and couldn't afford to buy them if she did. Have a nice time living in your distorted little fantasy world Ivan.
But, none of that can take away the fact that the Kirov's were and are great ships
The Kirovs ad the other smaller russian ships have an enormous number of excellent SAMs: I think that 1 russian carrier would be enough to supply air cover.
Ok, so as much as I love reading through youtube comment battles, some facts should be straightened out.
Tomahawk BGM-109 are a Land Attack system, not air or sea. So the P-700 should be compared to the RGM/UGM-84D (ship/sub launched) Harpoon missile. In which case the P-700 is far superior, with double the range of the best models of Harpoon and far greater speeds. In addition the P-700 can attack in a "swarm" with one missile picking targets and telling the other to attack them.
OK, sovietbear-91, give me a link where it says that the P-700 Granit has a 4.5 mach speed. The maximum speed of the P-700 is between 1.6-2.5 mach, no where near your 4.5 mach crap. This missile, although is very powerful, the fact that is big & therefore has a limitation on the platforms from which it can operate, makes it not very practical. The only ships that can carry it r way too big 2 be able get close enough to a carrier to use this missile.
This ship was designed to take on a carrier battlegroup and win. Sadly there are only 2 of them in service. Easily the most powerful ship ever built, carries more ordinance than anything else.
@Ortheos2006 Our Iowa Class Battleships in reserve are more powerful, more heavliy armored, and can carry more ordinance than these cruisers. We just have to reactivate one.
@1STACCS All the Iowas are currently struck from the naval register and, with the exception of Iowa herself, are currently museum ships. Not only that, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to modernise and reactivate them. And as for the Kirovs, only one (Admiral Ushakov) was scrapped. As for the other three ships in the class, one (Pyotr Velikiy) is currently active, the second (Admiral Nakhimov) is undergoing modernisation, and the third (Admiral Lazarev) is held in reserve.
@Scioneer I just love the rusted hull. Nice choice of financial usage. Make junk ships of war and let your people starve in bread lines. Really great!
I'm NOT Russian. I'm of Lithuanian decent and I live in the US. I'm a fan of any bad ass ship, American, Russian, or anyone else's. You should claim Troll Kingdom as your nationality, You'd fit in perfectly at their website, IF you're not a member already, which I wouldn't be surprised. Yes, the Nimitz are quite powerful, as long as they have their aircraft. Without them, a Carrier is just a huge transport.
There's a massive difference between liking a ship, and liking a nation, ass.
Lithuania has its problems, thats why my grandparents moved from there and legally became citizens here.
I also like the Bismarck and the Yamato , doesn't mean I'm going to be hailing Hitler or signing up for a Kamakazi squad anytime soon. No offense to any citizens of modern day Germany or Japan since all that happened decades ago.
It was the Ticonderoga Class, UNTIL I actually got to visit an Iowa Class, which was the "Wiskey" in Norfolk. The Tico might be one of the most advanced ships we have, but it just isn't as awe inspiring as a Battleship. I got to see about three Ticos while in Norfolk, cool ships, just not as cool as that beast docked at the Nauticus Museum.
@Scioneer They can modernize an Iowa like Big Whisky. It would be a far better weapons platform than any Ticonderoga. A battleships sheer size can allow it to hold so many different types of weapons. Not to mention the armor benefits.
I used to play the pen and paper game Harpoon in the 80s-early 90s and this ship was one of the most feared. Ship-killing missiles and loads of air space interdiction missiles.
This type of ship is also known as the carrier killer, it carries the p700 granit missiles.when fired they operate as a swamp with one climbing above the rest and allocates targets to the rest based on importance and these already distroyed.if the leader is intercepted another takes over the role.Hard for the main enermy target to escape the swamp.
@SovietBear91 Your P-700 is no problem for CIWS. Just target practice as usual. Watch your ship blow up 20 minutes later from a sub-altitude missile or laser system on a destroyer.
@SovietBear91 The Kirovs (of which u only have 1 in active service) & the Oscar II subs, the only ships that can launch this missile, r too big to be able to sneak up on a carrier battle group without being detected from very long ranges, much longer than the P-700's 625km range. So P-700, even though is powerful enough 2 destroy a carrier, it just can't be used against a carrier, because the ships carrying it will never be able 2 get close enough 2 a carrier 2 launch it against the carrier.
@StiviGun1 the P-700 is the best anti-ship cruise missile in the world and has a top cruise speed of 2,5 mach, do you think a us battle group can do anything against 20 P700 wich fly with a speed over 2500 KM per hour. even nato pussy analyst says that P700 is the best
@SovietBear91 Yes, it's a very powerful missiles, but what I'm saying is that the only platforms from which it can be launched can't get close enough 2 launch them against a carrier. The carrier & its escort ships can detect a Kirov battlecruiser from more than 1000km away & they can send planes & Tomahawk cruise missiles 2 intercept it. A Ticonderoga cruiser can have 122 Tomahawks & there r usually 2 in a battle group. There r also destroyers than can carry up 2 90 missiles. Plus 2 submarines.
@SovietBear91 The Oscar II subs, the only subs that can carry & launch the P-700 Granit, also can't get close enough 2 launch the missile without being detected from long distances. The only ships that can launch the Granit r too big & too noisy to be able 2 sneak up on a carrier & launch use it against the carrier. I don;t think any of the ships that can carry or launch the Granit can get close enough for an attack. They have 2 get at least at 625 km away from the carrier in order 2 be able 2
@SovietBear91 launch the Granit against the carrier. How are they gonna do that if they can be detected from more than 1000km away. They will be engaged by planes & maybe dozens of Tomahawks long b4 they will get into the Granit's maximum firing range. & u also have a very limited number of platforms that can use this large & bulky missile. Only 1 surface ship is operational & only Oscar II subs r operational. It's not enough 2 present a threat to the USN carrier battle groups.
@MrCrazyfizik U r badly misinformed. The USN carrier fleet is fully operational with all its 11 carriers being continuously deployed on all the oceans of the world. & give me a link where it says that 5 of these "spacecraft" will be built? BTW, 'SPACECRAFT"? Have u hurt ur head or something? Only 4 Kirov battlecruisers have ever bee completed with 1 in active service, 3 of them waiting 4 repairs. So how can 5 of them enter service soon, if only 4 of them have ever been completed & there's no
Ooops! Thank you. The beginning of another message:)
Soon they will be 5, exactly 3 are deep modernization, and one rebuilt. + 1 in active service.
13 submarines Type 949A (Oskar-2), 2 submarine-type 949 (Oscar-1) and one submarine 949A rebuilt to replace a lost Kursk. Although the data can of course vary
@MrCrazyfizik Yeah, well we'll have to see when exactly r those 3 Kirovs gonna receive their full modernization & when is another one being rebuilt. BTW, being rebuilt from what? Only FOUR of them have ever been built?
As 4 those Oscar subs, 13 have been completed, but some of them have been scrapped for their metal. Currently, only 10 of them exist, 5 being in active service, 5 being in reserve. I think u're trapped in the past. U're figures apply 4 when Soviet Union existed, not 4 today.
So, in this year decided to introduce in the active use of all ships of Class Orlan and the building of additional ones. Also decided to develop new aircraft carriers. All these ships will primarily increase the Pacific Fleet and the Baltic Fleet.
@MrCrazyfizik Like I said, give me a link to support your claims. There's no money for acquisition of the ships u mentioned, at least not a in a near future. Those aircraft carriers won't be built until in 2 years, u know. They plan o build 6 more aircraft carriers in the next decade. We'll have to see if they will manage to do that. The aircraft carriers r expensive.
@MrCrazyfizik the Kirov battlecruisers or the Oscar subs. A combined arms attack force comprising surface ships, subs & bombers equipped with Kh-22 missiles might do the job. But even like this, the attacking force could sustain serious losses. The truth is a carrier can be destroyed, but it's very hard to do that U need serious firepower for that. It's certainly is much more difficult than they showed in the movie Sum of all Fears, anyway.
@MrCrazyfizik news about restarting their production? And the 949 subs. Only 13 have ever been completed, not 16, of which only 5 are now in active service. Go get your facts straight.
@MrCrazyfizik Yuri Andropov/Piotr Velikiy is the in active service today with the Russian navy. It's not in overhaul. The other 3 r awaiting for modernization and repairs. So where is the 5th one? Like I said, go get your facts straight. Or provide a viable link 2 support ur claims. Where do u get ur info from?
@MrCrazyfizik P-700 is an anti-submarine rocket? Man, u really r original. I naver heard anything of what u say before. The P-700 Granit is a anti-ship cruise missile, it's not used in anti-sub role. & what is the "P-750 Meteor"? There's no such thing. Go make proper research on the topic and then come and talk to me again.
P-750 - a ship long-range missiles with a range of 2500 km. But it is not currently being accepted for service as contrary to the terms of the treaty on reducing strategic nuclear offensive arms.
@MrCrazyfizik P-750... I think u are referring to the RK-55... That is the equivalent of the US GLCM, the Gryphon. And yes, they are forbidden by the the disarmament treaties.
Nevertheless, P-700 Granit fully satisfies the requirements to combat enemy aircraft carriers because of its operational radius of action is comparable to the operational radius of deck aircraft. These are different approaches to the management of naval warfare. In the United States to make the grade aircraft carrying the group, but in Russia are focused on antiship and antisubmarine group. These are different ways to achieve the goal, nothing more.
@MrCrazyfizik Yes, the Americans have different approaches in doing things. Their doctrine relies on power projection & that's why they need a fleet of supercarriers. As 4 the Granit, yes, it's very capable of destroying a supercarrier, but the ships that this missiles it's designed 2 be launched from r too big & very easy 2 detect by sonar or radar, so it's very hard 4 them 2 get into the Granit's range & attack a carrier without being detected. The carries is also protected by cruisers,
@MrCrazyfizik destroyers & frigates. It's very hard 4 the Oscar class subs or the Kirov battlecruisers to get into the P-700's range in order 2 be able 2 launch it against the carrier. Furthermore, the Granit is not invulnerable. It can be engaged by the SM-2 or the evolved sea sparrow missile. U would have 2 launch a lot of these missiles in order 2 successfully attack the carrier. The best tactic 2 destroy a carrier with all its escorts, is a combined arms attack that would involve no only
Because of its geographical position, the Americans are forced to focus on aircraft carriers, because they need to bring their troops across the ocean. Russian is not being forced to do, so they fleet serves as deterrence.
The objectives of the Baltic Fleet is to protect St. Petersburg from the sea. The objectives of the Pacific Fleet is to protect the Far East cities with the sea. The Northern Fleet serves as strategic forces. Black Sea Fleet serves as the protection of the South.
@MrCrazyfizik Yes. It seems like your goal was never to project power over seas like the Americans do. U relied on ground troops to project power in your region. But that's another topic. As 4 your navy, it probably is strong enough 2 protect you from an America attack, but I don't think it's strong enough to take on the US navy in an offensive manner. I other words, ur navy is not strong enough 2 give u the capability 2 launch a naval attack on the United States. The US navy doesn't offer this
@MrCrazyfizik capability either, but it offers the capability of power projection close to your region. It offers enough capability for the Americans to be able to access the Middle East's resources. & that's what the Americans always wanted. A military that would give them power projection capability in order to have access to the world's resources. & their navy is built exactly for fulfilling this role.
In those links referred to two ships (up to 3 ships)
Also, there is one unfinished ship, and rumors about the completion of its construction and laying of a new ship. Rumors can take note of, but you can ignore.
@MrCrazyfizik I know that 4 Kirovs have been completed & 1 was never finished. Maybe it was kept somewhere until money for its completion would've been available, I don't know. But it'll certainly take some time to finish its construction now. Much more than it would've taken during the Soviet Union times.
In addition, the official military budget has doubled. And do not forget the fact that the construction and production of weapons in Russia is cheaper than in the U.S.
@MrCrazyfizik I don't trust Russian news. They is not viable sources of information. Russian news channels are merely propaganda instruments, nothing more.
Now, u say that Russian weapons r cheaper than the Americans ones. This was only valid during the Soviet Union times because of the centralized economy system. This is no longer viable today. The claim that the Russian weapons are cheaper than the Americans ones is a merely a myth.
Enterprises producing weapons, universities and research centers, either fully owned or controlled by them, both in principle and all the heavy industry. The big problem is that, after the collapse of the Union, part of the business was overseas and it took a long time to establish their counterparts in Russia. Also, extraction of raw materials costs many times lower.
@MrCrazyfizik There were no counterparts established in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia's economy had shrank after the Soviet Union dismembered. In a capitalist economy, where the weapons producing companies' main goal is to make money, there can't be very advanced but in the same time cheap armaments. This is just propaganda from ur own government 2 fool the you, the tax payers. Just like they tried 2 do with the PAK FA. Putin made the very laughable claim that PAK FA
@MrCrazyfizik costs 2-3 times less than the F-22. The real figure is much higher. The PAK FA costs abt 100mil$ per unit and the F-22 costs 150$ per unit. So, like I said, the claims that the Russian armaments are just as advanced as the American ones, but in the same time cheaper, it's just a myth. It only applied for the Soviet Union time, not for now.
@MrCrazyfizik So your selling your weapons systems at higher prices than the prices that u buy them 4 your selves. I wonder what ur customers would have 2 say abt this... No man, the export versions r usually downgraded versions, or at least they were during the Soviet Union times, so the price is smaller. The only time when the export versions r more expensive the the domestic ones is when, & this happened a lot during the '90s, the weapons systems intended 4 ur own military r less capable &
@MrCrazyfizik less advanced than the export versions. Other than that, the price 4 the export versions is at least the same with the one that u acquire the weapons systems for.
Western news are no less, and even more a propaganda tool than a Russian news. At least I have something to compare. So how many times had the opportunity to interact with German, American, Chinese, Indian and Japanese engineers, scientists and specialists.
Sorry, I incorrectly constructed sentence. I wanted to say that I have repeatedly talked with German, American, Chinese, Indian and Japanese engineers, scientists and specialists. Many of my colleagues (who know English better than me) often go on business trips to Britain, Germany, China and India. So I have something to compare. Sorry for my bad English. :)
With regard to pricing. In some regions of the Russian Federation, the local population is provided with gas and electricity in general free. Yes, and students from India, Iran, China and Turkey with me studying for a reason. Moreover, with me and taught students from Germany and the UK. Periodically, a delegation from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Queen Mary. I can give many examples of that seen with my own eyes.
@MrCrazyfizik And what exactly do u wish to prove with this? That u have better universities & research centers and institutes? The US has the best brains working for them because they have more money to pay them. U barely afford 2 pay ur own researchers & engineers. The fact that Iranians, Chinese, Turks come to ur country 2 study means that u have goo institutes & universities, not that u have more economic power. & BTW, in Romania, there r a lot of Arabs & Indians coming 2 learn medicine.
@MrCrazyfizik Does that mean that I should brag that we have the best medicine schools in the world? The Indians, Arabs & Chinese come 2 European countries & In Russia 2 study because they have no universities in their own countries or because their universities are very poor. So this doesn't mean anything.
This is due to the fact that most high-tech enterprises is federal government enterprises, or are part of the state corporations or state-controlled.
But you can not be one in the position. Traditionally, the production of microelectronics and automobiles is more expensive. At the same time, electro-vacuum devices (such as TWT), power electronics, measurement technology, and space technology is cheaper. This is due to uneven levels of development of different industries.
@MrCrazyfizik Yeah, that's why the systems used 2 built weapons & the weapons systems r cheaper in Russia. Because they r built by state controlled companies. Not because you have smarter scientists. & what do u think the countries that invest in yr research institutes do with their developments & discoveries? Giving them 2 u? No, they r using them 4 their own goals. They use yr country 2 develop advanced technology cheaper which they don't even share with u. & u know who r the only ones that
@MrCrazyfizik earn anything by these arrangements? Your corrupt politicians. They make money by renting the country's research labs & institutes 2 foreigners who are developing new technologies cheaper that they will use in their own best interest, not urs. Yeah, that's very smart...
There are other examples. Establishment of a research center in SGTU with HP. Creating a Samsung research center in one of the Saratov Institute. An attempt to create a joint production with Lockheed Saratov Aviation Plant. Hence, only two conclusions: 1) low cost of research and production 2) high scientific and technical potential.
@MrCrazyfizik Yes, low research and production costs but the scientific achievements r made by the scientists that the countries that invest in ur research institutes r sending in Russia. The reason why they invest in Russia's research centers is because it's cheaper than it is in their own countries, not because u have the smartest scientists in the world. I think u r confused. & I can see why, with all the government propaganda going on in ur country.
For example: Russian SWR meter for Russian companies is 5 times cheaper than a similar probe of the company HP-Agilent.Sekret simple. Prices for domestic high-tech products and raw materials is established government agencies. At the same time, an export version sold at market prices. Export option is always different from the standard.
@MrCrazyfizik If things would be the way u say they r, no other country would buy weapons from u. Who do u think like the be screwed by Russia? The customers expect fair prices. Things are not the way u r trying 2 bullshit here. If the weapons systems intended 4 domestic use r cheaper than the export versions, then that is 4 one reason only: that the systems intended 4 domestic use r much less capable than those intended for exports. Simple as that.
If 2-e is uniquely true for Chinese and Indians who actively purchase our products and try to learn our technology. So for Western corporations is equally true, and 1 and 2, otherwise they would not have invested so much money ;)
It has over 300 SAM (from S400 to Tor) and multiple CIWS so you're right, I doubt two CBGs working together could bring down one Kirov class with it's support warships
Good think IQ has nothing to do with knowledge of warships. What I meant was the all-big-gun style battleships. Sorry for ruining your whole ego-stroking thing.
Kirov carries 20 P-700, that have range of about 670 km. which is more then the F-18 range broken in half. Is a ship made for destroying entire aricraft carrier groups.
igor7702 6 days ago
@StiviGun1 It's not the most silent of the submarines but still MUCH more stealthier than a Kirov (for obvious reasons ^_^).
JulianGardna 2 weeks ago
I like the kirov ship, but FUCK THAT MUSIC MAN!
cvasdfgafdg 1 month ago
Kirov reporting for duty!
Ouija121085 1 month ago
i hopely this ship not we made to war
and i love freedom
otaisik 5 months ago
Szomorú,de mint, mondtam ez a hajó szép. És nem kell hadtörténeti és egyéb következtéseket levonni mert, a HMS Hood is hasonlóan szép volt. Azért az osztrák magyar Szent Istvánról figyelemre méltó modellek készülnek. Most is. Modellezésre mind érdemesek. Készíts modellt bármelyik amerikai "anyahajóról"! Megérii-e?
ferencszabodr 5 months ago
A másik, a himnusz, az (szovjet-orosz, orosz-szovjet) felett futó video is érdekes. Ez a hajó szép. Nem véletlen Azt mondják ami szép, az jó is lehet. Illik a látványhoz a Karib tenger kalózai zenéje és (a sz-o, sz) himnusz is.
ferencszabodr 6 months ago
Amazing firepower
c10h15n68 8 months ago
The Kirov is a fine ship but I still wouldn't call her a nuclear powered cruiser for the fore mentioned reasons.
edtrine 9 months ago
The bows on these ships look like katana swords.
Wanderer359 9 months ago
They do have one limitation. In order to use their full speed they have to use a combination of nuclear and fuel oil. Not nuclear alone which would limit their range at maximum speed. For this reason I wouldn't call the Kirov's a true nuclear powered cruiser. The USS Long Beach was a nuclear power cruiser. It could operate at maximum speed on nuclear power alone. See Janes Fighting Ships for further information.
edtrine 10 months ago
@edtrine uss long beach is know a pile of metal in a scrape yard !!
TheKifinas 9 months ago
@TheKifinas True But the Long Beach was also alot older then the Kirov. She was one of the first nuclear powered surface ships buildt.
edtrine 9 months ago
@edtrine look the kirov is better this is the only disadvantage it has got . kirov won't need to hurry !!
TheKifinas 9 months ago
@TheKifinas The Kirov is a fine ship but for the eariler reasons I would not call her a nuclear powered cruiser. Shes a hybrid a best.
edtrine 9 months ago
@TheKifinas The Kirov is a fine ship but for the eariler reasons I would not call her a nuclear powered cruiser. Shes a hybrid a best. As for the Long Beach she is a combat vet. She saw action off Veitnam when her missiles shot down some Migs. Has the Kirov seen combat action?
edtrine 9 months ago
@edtrine it hasn't got in action yet on need ~!!
TheKifinas 9 months ago
@TheKifinas Hopefuly we never find out which navy is better as a lot of good people on both sides wouldn't live long enough to regret it.
edtrine 9 months ago 8
@TheKifinas True But the Long Beach was also alot older then the Kirov. She was one of the first nuclear powered surface ships buildt. I still wouldn't call the Kirov a true nuclear powered cruiser due to her need to use oil to run at full power.
edtrine 9 months ago
Although their length is almost the same.
Artas1984 10 months ago
what a beautiful battleship!!! it looks really cool!
vkaplich 11 months ago
@vkaplich Indeed she does, although she's better defined as a Battlecruiser
(which is less focused on armour, but has the same kind of Firepower as a Battleship).
If only my county's Royal Navy had a few of these on her fleet strength ; )
TSR1989RN 10 months ago
Dam good looking warships.
clive3262 1 year ago
Ship definitely is Russian. Music definitely is foreign. I guess, some patriots are rotten a bit...
yuowatcher 1 year ago
Another Kirov is scheduled to return to service in 2012 after a long overhaul. It will be deployed to the pacific fleet.
bombarderoazul 1 year ago
which one is bigger? Peter the Great or Yamato?
condorher 1 year ago
@condorher yamato weights about 71000 tonnes an kirov class weights about 28000 tonnes
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@condorher By length, the Kirov is longer by 10-20 meters...
SVB222 9 months ago
@SVB222 yamato 263 m long and kirov class battle cruisers are only 252 m long. yamato is bigger, wider and heavier. yamato is the biggest battle ship ever built only us navy carriers are bigger
SovietBear91 9 months ago
@SovietBear91 sej4as eto samij boljschok nadwodnij ne avianesuschij,atomnij krejser,atomnij emu soljarka s ma3utom ne nuzni, a jamato eto ww2 eto uze ne korablj,a metalolom!
007schaman 7 months ago
@007schaman dude use russian, german or englisch. i hate this russian with german letters!
SovietBear91 7 months ago
Soviet Bear! I really want to know what music you've put in this video. It's one helluva ship, it was because of this ship that the US refurbished some of their WW2 Battleships
MrTomte09 1 year ago
@MrTomte09 Pirates Of The Caribbean Theme
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 Really? what movie?
MrTomte09 1 year ago
@MrTomte09 i dont know if it is from the first second or the third search for the theme on youtube
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 no its gladiator.
mer3abec 1 year ago
@mer3abec that is the fucking Pirates Of The Caribbean Theme
SovietBear91 11 months ago 5
@MrTomte09
the Kirov was an amazing development and a brilliant return to the concept of a heavily armed and armored surface combatant. She was designed to kill US aircraft carriers with her 20 supersonic P-700 Granit missiles. It would have been a difficult mission to accomplish but I'm sure the 4 ship Kirov class would have accounted for at least two Nimitz class carriers before being sent to the bottom. Imagine a Russia with twenty of these bad ass ships!
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz
Protected by a Kiev class carrier with its airwing and some Sovremeny class destroyers plus some Akula class attack submarines then I think that they would have sinked more than 2 US carriers before being destroyed.
JulianGardna 2 months ago
@JulianGardna
2 carrier battle groups have too many escorts and subs protecting them for that to happen with the force you describe. However IMHO 2 Kirov's supported by 2 Kuznetsov class aircraft carriers, 4 Sovremeny class DDs, 2 Slava Class cruisers could sink one Nimitz carrier and four or five escorts (4 Arleigh Burke class destroyers and one Ticonderoga class cruiser?). before all the Russian surface ships are destroyed. that would be one BIG battle! The subs would do each other in.
1138thz 2 months ago
@1138thz they never would attack Nimitz carriers with kirovs. they would use attack subs, destroyers and naval aviation. your nimitz carrier battlegroup would have no chance against hundred super sonic missiles like the Sunburn. how you want intercept lets say 50 missiles which are 5-10m above the water and have a speed of mach 3. that is impossibru! i like how you american fanboys say that soviets could do nothing against your mighty Nimitz. soviets would sunk this ducks in 5 minutes.
SovietBear91 2 months ago
@SovietBear91
Do you have an inferiority complex? Forget your fantasies, The RU hasn't enough of a Navy to be taken seriously now and the last time Russia won a fleet action was 150 years ago (The Battle Of Sinop) But in the 1980's the Soviet fleet would have made you proud by sinking a carrier or two before all its major combat ships were sent to the bottom. The only place your scenario would work today is the Black Sea and we don't send Carriers into your lake.
1138thz 2 months ago
@1138thz i think you have a complex. i talked about USSR`s navy and not about russian navy. soviet naval aviation was the strongest in the 70`s and 80`s just describe me how us navy should stop 20 missiles launched by kirov, 40 missiles launched by Tu-16 and Tu-95 and other 20 missiles launched by subs. just check Sunburn, P-700, and ss-n-16 stallion. this beast can go up to mach 3. why USSR does not had big carriers, because carriers are only good against 3rd world countrys like iraq.
SovietBear91 2 months ago
@SovietBear91
The dumbest thing about your analyses is the idiotic notion that Kirov Tu-16 and Tu-95 are going to sneak up on a CVBG to get in range without being detected. But its all academic now Russia is a nation that cant even build its own large ships anymore and couldn't afford to buy them if she did. Have a nice time living in your distorted little fantasy world Ivan.
But, none of that can take away the fact that the Kirov's were and are great ships
1138thz 2 months ago
@1138thz fagg im sure they will get them on radar but they will fire the mssiles about 300km away. just check it gay boy.
SovietBear91 2 months ago
@1138thz why would russia build huge navy if russia have small sea borders, you trool all over the place but you fail to understan that.
hellagesoon 2 months ago
@1138thz
The Kirovs ad the other smaller russian ships have an enormous number of excellent SAMs: I think that 1 russian carrier would be enough to supply air cover.
JulianGardna 2 months ago
You must agree that this ship is beautiful, and there is nothing like it anywhere in the world.
bombarderoazul 1 year ago
Lol Pirates of the Caribbean music XD
MOVEZIG 1 year ago
Ok, so as much as I love reading through youtube comment battles, some facts should be straightened out.
Tomahawk BGM-109 are a Land Attack system, not air or sea. So the P-700 should be compared to the RGM/UGM-84D (ship/sub launched) Harpoon missile. In which case the P-700 is far superior, with double the range of the best models of Harpoon and far greater speeds. In addition the P-700 can attack in a "swarm" with one missile picking targets and telling the other to attack them.
RobRoy1587 1 year ago
OK, sovietbear-91, give me a link where it says that the P-700 Granit has a 4.5 mach speed. The maximum speed of the P-700 is between 1.6-2.5 mach, no where near your 4.5 mach crap. This missile, although is very powerful, the fact that is big & therefore has a limitation on the platforms from which it can operate, makes it not very practical. The only ships that can carry it r way too big 2 be able get close enough to a carrier to use this missile.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 The Oscar class submarines are built to launch these huge missiles.
JulianGardna 2 weeks ago
@JulianGardna Yes, and that is too big to be able to get close enough to launch the P-700 missile.
StiviGun1 2 weeks ago
really nice ship
paulabo123 1 year ago
This ship was designed to take on a carrier battlegroup and win. Sadly there are only 2 of them in service. Easily the most powerful ship ever built, carries more ordinance than anything else.
Ortheos2006 1 year ago
@Ortheos2006 Our Iowa Class Battleships in reserve are more powerful, more heavliy armored, and can carry more ordinance than these cruisers. We just have to reactivate one.
All the Kirovs except one have been scrapped.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS All the Iowas are currently struck from the naval register and, with the exception of Iowa herself, are currently museum ships. Not only that, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to modernise and reactivate them. And as for the Kirovs, only one (Admiral Ushakov) was scrapped. As for the other three ships in the class, one (Pyotr Velikiy) is currently active, the second (Admiral Nakhimov) is undergoing modernisation, and the third (Admiral Lazarev) is held in reserve.
blooddonator 1 year ago
Beautiful Ship
Scioneer 1 year ago
@Scioneer I just love the rusted hull. Nice choice of financial usage. Make junk ships of war and let your people starve in bread lines. Really great!
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
I'm NOT Russian. I'm of Lithuanian decent and I live in the US. I'm a fan of any bad ass ship, American, Russian, or anyone else's. You should claim Troll Kingdom as your nationality, You'd fit in perfectly at their website, IF you're not a member already, which I wouldn't be surprised. Yes, the Nimitz are quite powerful, as long as they have their aircraft. Without them, a Carrier is just a huge transport.
Scioneer 1 year ago
@Scioneer Would you like to go back to Lithuania?
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
I said "Of Lithuanian decent". I was born here. Nice try troll.
Scioneer 1 year ago
@Scioneer Well, why don't you go back? If you like them so much, go back there. Enjoy the breadlines.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
There's a massive difference between liking a ship, and liking a nation, ass.
Lithuania has its problems, thats why my grandparents moved from there and legally became citizens here.
I also like the Bismarck and the Yamato , doesn't mean I'm going to be hailing Hitler or signing up for a Kamakazi squad anytime soon. No offense to any citizens of modern day Germany or Japan since all that happened decades ago.
Scioneer 1 year ago
@Scioneer lol,Ok well stated little brother.
Truce on this one. If I sense Communism, though, out you go-It can happen for you.
So, What is your favorite ship?
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
USS Wisconsin.
It was the Ticonderoga Class, UNTIL I actually got to visit an Iowa Class, which was the "Wiskey" in Norfolk. The Tico might be one of the most advanced ships we have, but it just isn't as awe inspiring as a Battleship. I got to see about three Ticos while in Norfolk, cool ships, just not as cool as that beast docked at the Nauticus Museum.
Scioneer 1 year ago
@Scioneer They can modernize an Iowa like Big Whisky. It would be a far better weapons platform than any Ticonderoga. A battleships sheer size can allow it to hold so many different types of weapons. Not to mention the armor benefits.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS moron this ships were planed in early 80s but gorbatshow this fucking cocksucker destroyed a super power
SovietBear91 1 year ago
I used to play the pen and paper game Harpoon in the 80s-early 90s and this ship was one of the most feared. Ship-killing missiles and loads of air space interdiction missiles.
Textrybal 2 years ago
This type of ship is also known as the carrier killer, it carries the p700 granit missiles.when fired they operate as a swamp with one climbing above the rest and allocates targets to the rest based on importance and these already distroyed.if the leader is intercepted another takes over the role.Hard for the main enermy target to escape the swamp.
bonedoc73 2 years ago
Peter the Great 1, K-141 Kursk 0
Tatarka1000 2 years ago
@Tatarka1000 they where 5 but after the fucking perestroyka there are only 2 in service
SovietBear91 2 years ago
i want one i want one no i want 2 i love it i want to marry it its beautiful
reddawn1995 2 years ago
@reddawn1995 You might want a tetanus shot first, to combat blood poisoning from the rust!
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS your so alled super carriers are no problem for one P-700 and the kirovs have 20 of them
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 Your P-700 is no problem for CIWS. Just target practice as usual. Watch your ship blow up 20 minutes later from a sub-altitude missile or laser system on a destroyer.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS you are a moron you know nothing about the P-700 so fuck you idiot
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@1STACCS I will know when I see your rusted ship blow up over the horizon! lol
That is if you don't blow your own ship up.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 The Kirovs (of which u only have 1 in active service) & the Oscar II subs, the only ships that can launch this missile, r too big to be able to sneak up on a carrier battle group without being detected from very long ranges, much longer than the P-700's 625km range. So P-700, even though is powerful enough 2 destroy a carrier, it just can't be used against a carrier, because the ships carrying it will never be able 2 get close enough 2 a carrier 2 launch it against the carrier.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 the P-700 is the best anti-ship cruise missile in the world and has a top cruise speed of 2,5 mach, do you think a us battle group can do anything against 20 P700 wich fly with a speed over 2500 KM per hour. even nato pussy analyst says that P700 is the best
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 Yes, it's a very powerful missiles, but what I'm saying is that the only platforms from which it can be launched can't get close enough 2 launch them against a carrier. The carrier & its escort ships can detect a Kirov battlecruiser from more than 1000km away & they can send planes & Tomahawk cruise missiles 2 intercept it. A Ticonderoga cruiser can have 122 Tomahawks & there r usually 2 in a battle group. There r also destroyers than can carry up 2 90 missiles. Plus 2 submarines.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 The Oscar II subs, the only subs that can carry & launch the P-700 Granit, also can't get close enough 2 launch the missile without being detected from long distances. The only ships that can launch the Granit r too big & too noisy to be able 2 sneak up on a carrier & launch use it against the carrier. I don;t think any of the ships that can carry or launch the Granit can get close enough for an attack. They have 2 get at least at 625 km away from the carrier in order 2 be able 2
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 launch the Granit against the carrier. How are they gonna do that if they can be detected from more than 1000km away. They will be engaged by planes & maybe dozens of Tomahawks long b4 they will get into the Granit's maximum firing range. & u also have a very limited number of platforms that can use this large & bulky missile. Only 1 surface ship is operational & only Oscar II subs r operational. It's not enough 2 present a threat to the USN carrier battle groups.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 Tomahawks as an anti air weapon, dude what shit do you smoke
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 I didn't sad Tomahawk is an anti-air weapon. Don't u know how 2 read?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 please teach me how to read
SovietBear91 1 year ago
@SovietBear91 Hahaha! You've replied to yourself man? What the fuck is wrong with you?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Soon these spacecraft will be five, or more precisely 3 of them end up deep modernization and another rebuilt.
949 submarines, about 16, so that parity, compared with 12 aircraft carriers, of which only 4 active, maintained
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik U r badly misinformed. The USN carrier fleet is fully operational with all its 11 carriers being continuously deployed on all the oceans of the world. & give me a link where it says that 5 of these "spacecraft" will be built? BTW, 'SPACECRAFT"? Have u hurt ur head or something? Only 4 Kirov battlecruisers have ever bee completed with 1 in active service, 3 of them waiting 4 repairs. So how can 5 of them enter service soon, if only 4 of them have ever been completed & there's no
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Ooops! Thank you. The beginning of another message:)
Soon they will be 5, exactly 3 are deep modernization, and one rebuilt. + 1 in active service.
13 submarines Type 949A (Oskar-2), 2 submarine-type 949 (Oscar-1) and one submarine 949A rebuilt to replace a lost Kursk. Although the data can of course vary
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik Yeah, well we'll have to see when exactly r those 3 Kirovs gonna receive their full modernization & when is another one being rebuilt. BTW, being rebuilt from what? Only FOUR of them have ever been built?
As 4 those Oscar subs, 13 have been completed, but some of them have been scrapped for their metal. Currently, only 10 of them exist, 5 being in active service, 5 being in reserve. I think u're trapped in the past. U're figures apply 4 when Soviet Union existed, not 4 today.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
So, in this year decided to introduce in the active use of all ships of Class Orlan and the building of additional ones. Also decided to develop new aircraft carriers. All these ships will primarily increase the Pacific Fleet and the Baltic Fleet.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik Like I said, give me a link to support your claims. There's no money for acquisition of the ships u mentioned, at least not a in a near future. Those aircraft carriers won't be built until in 2 years, u know. They plan o build 6 more aircraft carriers in the next decade. We'll have to see if they will manage to do that. The aircraft carriers r expensive.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik the Kirov battlecruisers or the Oscar subs. A combined arms attack force comprising surface ships, subs & bombers equipped with Kh-22 missiles might do the job. But even like this, the attacking force could sustain serious losses. The truth is a carrier can be destroyed, but it's very hard to do that U need serious firepower for that. It's certainly is much more difficult than they showed in the movie Sum of all Fears, anyway.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik news about restarting their production? And the 949 subs. Only 13 have ever been completed, not 16, of which only 5 are now in active service. Go get your facts straight.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
In modernization:
The heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Kirov" ("Admiral Ushakov")
The heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Frunze" (" Admiral Lazarev ")
The heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Kalinin" ("Admiral Nakhimov")
In active:
The heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Yuri Andropov" ("Peter the Great")
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik Yuri Andropov/Piotr Velikiy is the in active service today with the Russian navy. It's not in overhaul. The other 3 r awaiting for modernization and repairs. So where is the 5th one? Like I said, go get your facts straight. Or provide a viable link 2 support ur claims. Where do u get ur info from?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
About P-700 "Granit"
P-700 granite, today is the long-range anti-submarine rocket after P-750 "Meteor" (2500 km).
The closest analogue is a Harpoon, the range is only 280 km
Nuff said
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik P-700 is an anti-submarine rocket? Man, u really r original. I naver heard anything of what u say before. The P-700 Granit is a anti-ship cruise missile, it's not used in anti-sub role. & what is the "P-750 Meteor"? There's no such thing. Go make proper research on the topic and then come and talk to me again.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Oops. Sorry. I am very tired after work and I can mix in words and expressions in a foreign language. Course antiship role.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
P-750 - a ship long-range missiles with a range of 2500 km. But it is not currently being accepted for service as contrary to the terms of the treaty on reducing strategic nuclear offensive arms.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik P-750... I think u are referring to the RK-55... That is the equivalent of the US GLCM, the Gryphon. And yes, they are forbidden by the the disarmament treaties.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Nevertheless, P-700 Granit fully satisfies the requirements to combat enemy aircraft carriers because of its operational radius of action is comparable to the operational radius of deck aircraft. These are different approaches to the management of naval warfare. In the United States to make the grade aircraft carrying the group, but in Russia are focused on antiship and antisubmarine group. These are different ways to achieve the goal, nothing more.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik Yes, the Americans have different approaches in doing things. Their doctrine relies on power projection & that's why they need a fleet of supercarriers. As 4 the Granit, yes, it's very capable of destroying a supercarrier, but the ships that this missiles it's designed 2 be launched from r too big & very easy 2 detect by sonar or radar, so it's very hard 4 them 2 get into the Granit's range & attack a carrier without being detected. The carries is also protected by cruisers,
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik destroyers & frigates. It's very hard 4 the Oscar class subs or the Kirov battlecruisers to get into the P-700's range in order 2 be able 2 launch it against the carrier. Furthermore, the Granit is not invulnerable. It can be engaged by the SM-2 or the evolved sea sparrow missile. U would have 2 launch a lot of these missiles in order 2 successfully attack the carrier. The best tactic 2 destroy a carrier with all its escorts, is a combined arms attack that would involve no only
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Because of its geographical position, the Americans are forced to focus on aircraft carriers, because they need to bring their troops across the ocean. Russian is not being forced to do, so they fleet serves as deterrence.
The objectives of the Baltic Fleet is to protect St. Petersburg from the sea. The objectives of the Pacific Fleet is to protect the Far East cities with the sea. The Northern Fleet serves as strategic forces. Black Sea Fleet serves as the protection of the South.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik Yes. It seems like your goal was never to project power over seas like the Americans do. U relied on ground troops to project power in your region. But that's another topic. As 4 your navy, it probably is strong enough 2 protect you from an America attack, but I don't think it's strong enough to take on the US navy in an offensive manner. I other words, ur navy is not strong enough 2 give u the capability 2 launch a naval attack on the United States. The US navy doesn't offer this
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik capability either, but it offers the capability of power projection close to your region. It offers enough capability for the Americans to be able to access the Middle East's resources. & that's what the Americans always wanted. A military that would give them power projection capability in order to have access to the world's resources. & their navy is built exactly for fulfilling this role.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Two links in RIA-news
In those links referred to two ships (up to 3 ships)
Also, there is one unfinished ship, and rumors about the completion of its construction and laying of a new ship. Rumors can take note of, but you can ignore.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik I know that 4 Kirovs have been completed & 1 was never finished. Maybe it was kept somewhere until money for its completion would've been available, I don't know. But it'll certainly take some time to finish its construction now. Much more than it would've taken during the Soviet Union times.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
rian.ru
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
News from 24/07/2010 and 19/09/09
In addition, the official military budget has doubled. And do not forget the fact that the construction and production of weapons in Russia is cheaper than in the U.S.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik I don't trust Russian news. They is not viable sources of information. Russian news channels are merely propaganda instruments, nothing more.
Now, u say that Russian weapons r cheaper than the Americans ones. This was only valid during the Soviet Union times because of the centralized economy system. This is no longer viable today. The claim that the Russian weapons are cheaper than the Americans ones is a merely a myth.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Enterprises producing weapons, universities and research centers, either fully owned or controlled by them, both in principle and all the heavy industry. The big problem is that, after the collapse of the Union, part of the business was overseas and it took a long time to establish their counterparts in Russia. Also, extraction of raw materials costs many times lower.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik There were no counterparts established in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia's economy had shrank after the Soviet Union dismembered. In a capitalist economy, where the weapons producing companies' main goal is to make money, there can't be very advanced but in the same time cheap armaments. This is just propaganda from ur own government 2 fool the you, the tax payers. Just like they tried 2 do with the PAK FA. Putin made the very laughable claim that PAK FA
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik costs 2-3 times less than the F-22. The real figure is much higher. The PAK FA costs abt 100mil$ per unit and the F-22 costs 150$ per unit. So, like I said, the claims that the Russian armaments are just as advanced as the American ones, but in the same time cheaper, it's just a myth. It only applied for the Soviet Union time, not for now.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
So, for the domestic market price is lower than the cost of exports. You do not know pricing policy in Russia.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik So your selling your weapons systems at higher prices than the prices that u buy them 4 your selves. I wonder what ur customers would have 2 say abt this... No man, the export versions r usually downgraded versions, or at least they were during the Soviet Union times, so the price is smaller. The only time when the export versions r more expensive the the domestic ones is when, & this happened a lot during the '90s, the weapons systems intended 4 ur own military r less capable &
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik less advanced than the export versions. Other than that, the price 4 the export versions is at least the same with the one that u acquire the weapons systems for.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Western news are no less, and even more a propaganda tool than a Russian news. At least I have something to compare. So how many times had the opportunity to interact with German, American, Chinese, Indian and Japanese engineers, scientists and specialists.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik I don't understand your question here... That's what it was meant to be, right? A question. How many times, what? Speak clearly.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Sorry, I incorrectly constructed sentence. I wanted to say that I have repeatedly talked with German, American, Chinese, Indian and Japanese engineers, scientists and specialists. Many of my colleagues (who know English better than me) often go on business trips to Britain, Germany, China and India. So I have something to compare. Sorry for my bad English. :)
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
With regard to pricing. In some regions of the Russian Federation, the local population is provided with gas and electricity in general free. Yes, and students from India, Iran, China and Turkey with me studying for a reason. Moreover, with me and taught students from Germany and the UK. Periodically, a delegation from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Queen Mary. I can give many examples of that seen with my own eyes.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik And what exactly do u wish to prove with this? That u have better universities & research centers and institutes? The US has the best brains working for them because they have more money to pay them. U barely afford 2 pay ur own researchers & engineers. The fact that Iranians, Chinese, Turks come to ur country 2 study means that u have goo institutes & universities, not that u have more economic power. & BTW, in Romania, there r a lot of Arabs & Indians coming 2 learn medicine.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik Does that mean that I should brag that we have the best medicine schools in the world? The Indians, Arabs & Chinese come 2 European countries & In Russia 2 study because they have no universities in their own countries or because their universities are very poor. So this doesn't mean anything.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
This is due to the fact that most high-tech enterprises is federal government enterprises, or are part of the state corporations or state-controlled.
But you can not be one in the position. Traditionally, the production of microelectronics and automobiles is more expensive. At the same time, electro-vacuum devices (such as TWT), power electronics, measurement technology, and space technology is cheaper. This is due to uneven levels of development of different industries.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik Yeah, that's why the systems used 2 built weapons & the weapons systems r cheaper in Russia. Because they r built by state controlled companies. Not because you have smarter scientists. & what do u think the countries that invest in yr research institutes do with their developments & discoveries? Giving them 2 u? No, they r using them 4 their own goals. They use yr country 2 develop advanced technology cheaper which they don't even share with u. & u know who r the only ones that
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik earn anything by these arrangements? Your corrupt politicians. They make money by renting the country's research labs & institutes 2 foreigners who are developing new technologies cheaper that they will use in their own best interest, not urs. Yeah, that's very smart...
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
There are other examples. Establishment of a research center in SGTU with HP. Creating a Samsung research center in one of the Saratov Institute. An attempt to create a joint production with Lockheed Saratov Aviation Plant. Hence, only two conclusions: 1) low cost of research and production 2) high scientific and technical potential.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik Yes, low research and production costs but the scientific achievements r made by the scientists that the countries that invest in ur research institutes r sending in Russia. The reason why they invest in Russia's research centers is because it's cheaper than it is in their own countries, not because u have the smartest scientists in the world. I think u r confused. & I can see why, with all the government propaganda going on in ur country.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
Have you ideas about prices?
For example: Russian SWR meter for Russian companies is 5 times cheaper than a similar probe of the company HP-Agilent.Sekret simple. Prices for domestic high-tech products and raw materials is established government agencies. At the same time, an export version sold at market prices. Export option is always different from the standard.
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@MrCrazyfizik If things would be the way u say they r, no other country would buy weapons from u. Who do u think like the be screwed by Russia? The customers expect fair prices. Things are not the way u r trying 2 bullshit here. If the weapons systems intended 4 domestic use r cheaper than the export versions, then that is 4 one reason only: that the systems intended 4 domestic use r much less capable than those intended for exports. Simple as that.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
If 2-e is uniquely true for Chinese and Indians who actively purchase our products and try to learn our technology. So for Western corporations is equally true, and 1 and 2, otherwise they would not have invested so much money ;)
MrCrazyfizik 1 year ago
@1STACCS lol man ill do that
reddawn1995 1 year ago
These sure are nice looking ships .
SM527 2 years ago
Nicely done! Music fits well with good old Peter the Great!
topoljM 2 years ago
Great Russian Power
norbertobreda 2 years ago
Ah...if there's anything the age of aviation brought about that I really wish it hadn't, it was the demise of gigantic warships.
Preator 2 years ago
dude its not a battleship its a nuklear cruiser im sure this beast can shoot a lot of attacking missiles and planes
SovietBear91 2 years ago
@SovietBear91 I'm quite aware of that, thank you.
Preator 2 years ago
It has over 300 SAM (from S400 to Tor) and multiple CIWS so you're right, I doubt two CBGs working together could bring down one Kirov class with it's support warships
adrastea99 1 year ago
@Preator The age of aviation gave birth to Supercarriers. The US Nimitz Class Ships are the largest and most powerful warships ever to sail the seas.
Makes me question your IQ.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
Good think IQ has nothing to do with knowledge of warships. What I meant was the all-big-gun style battleships. Sorry for ruining your whole ego-stroking thing.
Preator 1 year ago
nettes video meine suka 5* aber wusste garnit das du auch solche musik kennst muss ich doch andere musik nehmen in meinen Submarine video^^
PringlesSourCreamxD 2 years ago
@PringlesSourCreamxD suka ich kenn nicht nur ghetto-mucke
SovietBear91 2 years ago
Another very good video. But in the title it should be 'Battle Cruiser'...you forgot the 'i'. :)
isamarine 2 years ago
thanks dude i fixed it
SovietBear91 2 years ago