This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
For several years, there have been jnany reports that the Soviets were u‘lding their first nuclear-powered surface warship, a cruiser, in Lenin- 8rad. These reports were confirmed by rhe recent appearance in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea of an extremely !rnpressive nuclear-powered cruiser Undergoing sea trials. Unlike other re- ^ent Soviet ships whose names have een displayed on the stern, this ship not yet display a name. It is bought, however, to bear the traditional name of Kirov, which was last Used for a heavy cruiser.
Ship Characteristics: Based on a preliminary analysis, the dimensional characteristics of the Kirov are estimated to be:
^ength (Design Waterline)
755 ft. (230 m.)
®eam (Design Waterline)
^ ?5 ft. (23 m.)
Draft
24.5 ft. (7.5 m.)
Displacement (Full Load)
23,100 It. (23,400 t.)
The Kirov is larger than the U. S. Navy’s largest nuclear-powered Cfuiser, the 16,500-ton Long Beach (CGNj.y). It is also larger than the '7.600-ton U. S. nuclear-powered Strike Cruiser, which was proposed as a platform for the Aegis weapon sys- tern in 1974-76. Interestingly, had che Strike Cruiser gone forward to construction, it would also have entered service in 1980-81.
Compared to the American cruisers, the Kirov is a longer, deeper, and wider ship. She appears to have one more deck than the American ships, which gives her much more internal volume than would be expected in a ship of this size, based on past Soviet design practice. With two new very large, vertical launch surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missile systems located in the forward part of the ship, a capability for carrying several helicopters aft, and numerous other weapons and sensors, it is doubtful that the Kirov's draft is much less than an estimated 7.5 meters; in fact, it may be more. Based on the observation of 80 10-man life rafts, the Kirov is currently estimated to have a complement of 800 men—which is less than the Long Beach's 1,228. Many details of the Kirov’s propulsion plant are still unknown. The ship’s installed power and the use of the conventional steam plant with which she is also fitted—i.e., can it provide propulsive power or is it used only for auxiliary power?—have not been determined. In keeping with the Soviets’ emphasis on speed in military vehicles, the Kirov probably has much more installed power than would be found in a similar American ship and is capable of speeds of 34 knots or more.
The Kirov, the first of at least two Soviet nuclear-powered cruisers, constitutes a major departure from the past practice of the Soviet Navy. The appearance of the nuclear-powered
Kirov with vertical launch missile systems and a helicopter hangar located in the hull indicates an increasing emphasis on high-value, technologically sophisticated surface warships with improved sustainability and survivability. Also of significance is the fact that, at a time when few navies have the resources for large surface warships, the Soviet Union is building such new classes of large ships as the Kirov, the 14,000-ton Ivan Rogov amphibious landing ship, the 40,000-ton Berezina replenishment ship, and the 38,000-ton Kiev aircraft carrier for VTOL aircraft and helicopters. Furthermore, it is thought that a larger aircraft carrier will be built in the fu-
General Arrangements and Appearance: The Kirov is an impressive ship; when seen at a distance, she is reminiscent of the battleships and battle cruisers of the past. Only at a close range is the substitution of vertical launch missile systems for gun turrets apparent.
The Kirov has a short, raised forecastle which protects a large, twin-tube ASW missile launcher. Also forward, just aft of the missile launcher, is a large deck hatch. There are three similar hatches aft. These hatches may be provided for the strikedown of stores and equipment. The long, forward main deck covers what appear to be two large vertical launch missile systems (VLSs) for surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and
ana
the
surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs). Aft of the forward main deck is a short deckhouse which houses two short- range SAM systems, port and starboard, above the main deck. Further aft is a large superstructure which appears to contain a wardroom, some officers’ quarters, and various electronic spaces. This forward superstructure also includes a large bridge and what appears to be a small separate flag bridge.
Aft of the forward superstructure is a large MACK (mast and stack), which supports a large early warning radar, numerous electronic warfare systems, and two large exhausts. Immediately aft of the MACK are what appear to be two access covers for nuclear reactor recoring, then another relatively large deckhouse which also supports another large early warning radar and numerous other sensors. Aft, the ship has two gun mounts, a helicopter elevator, and a landing pad. There is a large covered well in the transom for a variable depth sonar.
The Kirov, like all recent Soviet warships, is capable of underway alongside replenishment. There are two king post-type cargo transfer stations and two refueling stations located on the main deck, port side. The forward king post can be, folded down and may also have a weapon transfer capability. There are also two refueling stations located on the ship’s starboard side. There is a crane on each side of the ship on the weather deck for alongside or pierside replenishment and a track system, first seen on the Kiev, on which wheeled dollies can transfer stores and ammunition around the main deck. A covered trunk also runs along the outside length of the hull, port and starboard. Its purpose is not yet known. It could be a degaussing cable or transfer piping for aviation fuel.
An estimate of the Kirov's major internal arrangements is shown in Fig ure 1. As is readily apparent, much o the ship’s internal volume is dedicate to missile-launching systems magazines. By comparison to Kirov, previous Soviet ships tended t0 carry fewer missiles, which were O'1^ mounted above the main deck on ship,” rather than “in the ship* order to minimize their volume demanding impact on ship size. , Like most Soviet ships, the ^'ot^ propulsion machinery appears to more closely spaced together than American practice. American ship with two or more shafts tend to have widely separated propulsion machinery rooms in order to enhance surviva
(<
v
tl
1,
S
f
t
c
a
i
t
l
1
bli
the
I
ity. There appears to be space m stern of the Kirov for a large hang® abreast of, and perhaps forward of, r elevator. The possible location of £ wardroom and officers’ berthing m t ^ superstructure suggests that Kirov's command and control spate
SS-N-14
SAM Vertical Launch System
SSM Vertical Launch System
100-mm. Guns
Helicopter Pad
Elevator
30-mm. CIWS
30-mm. CIWS
RBU-1000
SA-N-4
Torpedo Tubes
SA-N-4
30-mm. CIWS
Torpedo Tubes\ N
RBU-1000
30-mm. CIWS
I
i
(CIC) may be located below deck in the which would enhance the sur- v'vability of the ship.
Port holes along the second and third decks of the Kirov indicate the °cation of most living areas. The Soviet Navy is the last still to provide Portholes in combatant ships, and their existence suggests a lack of air conditioning. These portholes, as well as the location of large shuttered open- lngs for torpedo tubes just above the third deck, port and starboard, iden- t|fy the third deck as the damage control deck.
Electronics and Weapons: The Kirov is the most impressively armed surface Warship in the world. She has a vast array of sensors and weapons for all tfodes of antiair warfare (AAW), antisubmarine warfare (ASW), and antisurge warfare (SSW).
The Kirov has two three- h'mensional/two-dimensional, back- to-back, early warning radars for air target acquisition. She also has three navigation radars.
The Kirov’s bow wave suggests the use of a bow dome which is thought to house a sonar. A very loud, high- pitched ping was heard about every 30 seconds for a period of about 7-10 seconds while standing on the bridge of another ship when the Kirov was about 800 to 1,000 meters away. This is an indication of a very powerful, low- frequency sonar. The ship also has a large towed sonar device.
The Kirov is equipped with numerous electronic warfare and electrooptical systems, especially by comparison to American ships. Part of this numerical difference reflects the Soviets’ tendency to use relatively large, simple, single-purpose electronic systems as compared to the more individually capable, multipurpose systems favored by Americans. It also reflects the Soviets’ tendency to provide electro-optical, infrared, and laser backups for their fire control systems.
Analysis of the Kirov's sensors indicates that the ship’s designers, in keeping with past Soviet practice, paid particular attention to minimizing the problems of electromagnetic incompatibility and interference. Particularly evident is the use of cable and wave-guiding shielding, physical isolation of systems, and judicious antenna placements.
The Kirov has an AAW weapon suite which includes a vertical launch surface-to-air missile system located in the forward deck area. Based on the number and unsymmetrical arrangement of the launch ports, there are 12 launchers. This new SAM system seems to be controlled by two radars, which are located, fore and aft, atop the deckhouses.
In addition to the new SAM system, the Kirov also has two SA-N-4 SAM
for the
launchers for close-in defense, each with a separate fire control system. The SA-N-4 is generally similar to the NATO Sea Sparrow missile system.
The Kirov has a twin tube, reloadable SS-N-14 ASW missile launcher located forward. The SS-N-14 is controlled by two fire control systems. Similar to the Moskva and Kiev, the Kirov also appears to have what are thought to be 21-inch torpedo tube mounts located within the ship on the third deck, port and starboard, behind shutters. The Kirov also has three ASw/torpedo countermeasure rocket launchers.
The Kirov has what appears to be an SSM capability in a large vertical launch system located just forward of the bridge. Considering the number of covers that can be seen, it is estimated that the ship carries 20 surface-to- surface cruise missiles. The space provided for each missile suggests the use of very large missiles with large warheads and very long range. To obtain the necessary over-the-horizon targeting data for these missiles, the Kirov could use a helicopter or a maritime reconnaissance aircraft. These missiles may have been located in the hull to improve the ship’s survivability. If the internal weapons were armored in some fashion, a penetrating warhead might cause only one missile to detonate, as the armor could very likely defeat secondary fragments. Locating the missiles in the hull also minimizes their vulnerability to air burst weapons by taking advantage of the inherent protection of * the Kirov's hull structure. Thus, a large ship such as the Kirov may be able to absorb numerous hits before she became unseaworthy or lost her combat mission capability.
The Kirov—like the Kiev-ciass aircraft carrier and other recently constructed Soviet warships—has a very capable close-in defense capability against antiship missiles and aircraft. She has eight 30-mm. Gatling guns, two on each quarter, with each battery controlled by a separate fire control system. The ship also has two auto- - matic, rapid-fire 100-mm. gun mounts for air and surface defense. Like most Soviet weapon systems, the 100-mm. guns and 30-mm. Gatling guns have several operational modes, including electro-optical systems to back up the fire control radar systems.
The ship has a landing deck and flushdeck aircraft elevator aft, similar to the one in the U. S. Virginia (CGN-38)-class cruiser. It would appear that a large hangar could be fitted between the main and third decks abreast of and, perhaps, forward of the elevator. If so, the Kirov could carry three to five "Hormone”-sized helicopters equipped for ASW or surveillance missions.
Again, like most new Soviet warships, the Kirov has a capable combat system which provides an in-depth capability for all modes of warfare, with several types of complementary
and often redundant sensors an weapons that provide the Kirov wi ^ sensor and weapon coverage throng 360°, and alternate, backup systems and modes of operation in the event casualties, electromagnetic interfet ence, or electronic countermeasures.
The Kirov’s long offensive and e fensive reaches are certainly impreS sive. The penetration of numerous layers of defense will be required in order to successfully attack the ship-
Hull Form: Interestingly, the has propeller guards which are locate well forward of the stern. This sug gests that the shafts are located unusu ally far forward and, since the ship has a wide stern, unusually far outboar ■ This is inconsistent with convention* American naval engineering practice for a twin-screw ship and suggeSts that the Kirov may have unusua Y large propellers, which would be f^ quired to absorb the power require for speeds of 34 or more knots.
Propulsion: In 1961, the U. S. N*1V1 commissioned its first nuclear powered surface warship, the Beach. This ship has been followed Y eight smaller nuclear-powered crUlS^ ers. Five large nuclear-powered airt'r ^
carriers have also been commission6 or are being built. By comparison ^ American advances in this area,
Soviets built a nuclear-powered ict"
breaker, the Lenin, as early as Id
Artika-class icebreakers, they did not bu*ld any nuclear-powered surface ships.
Evidence that the Kirov is nuclear Powered includes what appear to be two access covers for recoring, one just behind the other, amidships. They are located over what may be a reactor r°om for two reactors on the centerline
the ship. Other evidence includes the lack of any exhaust gases while taking about 24 knots. It is interest's to note that the reactor access c°vers appear to be located immediately adjacent to one another. By comparison, it has been American P tact ice to provide two widely separated reactor rooms to improve survivability, as is obvious from the top- stde arrangements of American nuclear-powered cruisers. Because the Kirov is fitted with large vertical launch missile systems forward and because of the extensive weapon and sensor suite located along the weather deck aft, provision of two separated reactor spaces would have almost certainly required lengthening the ship 'n order to provide sufficient space for aH of these systems. Interestingly, except for the “Kashin”-class gas turbine-powered destroyer, other recent, conventionally powered Soviet warships have also had a single stack and a more compact machinery arrangement than is American practice.
Unlike American nuclear-powered cruisers, the Kirov has very large exhausts and has been observed blowing tubes. It must, therefore, be concluded that the Kirov also has some sort of a conventional steam plant. A steam plant could offer several advantages. It would permit the Soviets to provide the redundancy they like, since the ship would have both reactors and boilers for power. Assuming that the ship can cruise on conventional power alone, it could also reduce the workload on the nuclear reactor technicians. A conventional steam plant could also provide the boost power needed for high speeds without the Soviets having to develop a new, more powerful reactor.
In general, the Soviets have tended to provide more power per ton and more speed for their ships than has been American practice. With a 70,000 kW plant and a 30-knot speed, the Kirov would be inconsistent with past practice. Also, the Kirov is a relatively fine ship with a low' displacement-to-length ratio. From a naval architectural standpoint, a low displacement-to-length ratio and an indication of very large propellers are indicative of an intent to provide high speed. Therefore, it is possible that the Kirov has much more than 70,000 kW and is capable of speeds of 34 knots or more. If true, the w'ay the Soviets achieve the necessary power density (kW/cu.m.), as well as the method by which they use this pow'er, remains to be determined.
Weight and Stability. Previous analyses of Soviet warships suggest that Soviet design practices are consistent with the naval engineering design practices used by the United States and other NATO countries, especially Italy. Thus, assuming a trial speed of 34 knots or more, the Kirov should have a prismatic coefficient (Cp) of 0.62 to 0.64. Based on the estimated hull form, the midship section coefficient (Cx) should be about 0.84 to 0.88. This would make the ship’s block coefficient (CB, where CB = Cp • Cx) about 0.52 to 0.56. Based on these data, a length between perpendiculars (LBP) of 755 feet, a beam (B) of 75 feet, an estimated draft (t) of 23.5 to 27.5 feet, and the density of salt water, the full load-molded displacement (A) can be calculated as follows: A = LBP X B X t X CB +
35 cu.ft./long ton
This calculation indicates an estimated full-load displacement, including appendages, between 21,000 and 26,000 long tons. An independent detailed weight estimate was also made for the Kirov based on the Long Beach and the Strike Cruiser. Based on this estimate, the Kirov’s full-load displacement is about 23,100 long tons, including an allowance for fuel oil and armor protection.
For any ship there is an empirical relationship between a ship’s roll period, beam, and its intact stability (CM), where:
Roll period = (Constant) (Beam) h- gm""5
At a displacement of 23,100 long tons, the Kirov would have adequate stability with a GM of about 5 feet and a roll period of about 16 seconds. In order that the Kirov have adequate stability and a roll period of about 16 seconds, the location of the ship’s vertical center of gravity can be raised only slightly from that which was calculated. Therefore, it would be difficult to explain a full-load displacement substantially larger than 23,100 long tons, unless the value of all the
Kirov’s weight groups has been underestimated. Conversely, a lower displacement than that estimated could be explained by lower armor, propulsion machinery, and fuel oil weights.
The actual roll period of the Kirov near her full-load displacement was observed to be about 16 seconds. This roll period suggests a GM of 4.5 to 5.25 feet in the full-load condition and indicates that the Kirov’s intact stability is adequate. For comparative purposes, the Long Beach has a roll period of 18 seconds and a metracen- tric height of 3.5 feet.
Assessments of other Soviet ships have indicated that they have adequate - intact and damaged stability characteristics without fuel oil or compensating salt water ballast aboard. Since the Kirov appears to have a conventional steam plant, she probably carries a large load of fuel oil. Therefore, the ship’s intact stability characteristics in a “burned out” condition were analyzed. It was found that to adequately resist about 100-knot beam winds—which is a common internationally design criteria for warships—the Kirov must have at least 4 feet of metacentric height.
The Kirov is a formidable addition to the Soviet Navy’s growing capability to conduct worldwide operations at sea. Her technological sophistication and innovative combination of capabilities—and the cost that these
represent—are unmistakable indica tions of the Soviets’ attitude towar seapower and their growing ability t0 project that power.
Authors' Note: The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Messrs■ M. M. Shen, V. W. Pu/eo, )■ Schell, and N. T. Yannarell of the Naval Sea Systems Command. an Messrs. H. A. Meier and J. C. Roach0/ Spectrum Associates Inc.. Falls Chute < Virginia, in the preparation of this artie e.
Captain Kehoe has served in three aircraft car riers and on board three destroyers, most re cently commanding the USS John R- ^efl (DD-753). Ashore, he has had duty in nude*1 weapons, the Polaris missile program, and ,n structing in project management. He is n0VV serving at the Naval Ship Engineering Center- Washington, D. C. A frequent contributor ^ the Proceedings, Captain Kehoe coauthor*-' “U. S. Observations of the Kiev” (Juty ^ Proceedings).
Kenneth S. Brower is President of Spectrum As sociates Incorporated, Falls Church, Virgin**1 Over the last nine years he has supported c Naval Sea Systems Command’s Compara£,v Naval Architecture Program contributing numerous assessments of U. S. and foreign vv* ships and weapon systems. Mr. Brower has SP^ cialized in the feasibility design of warships an has recently supported the development of cl U. S. Navy's DDGX and FFX designs, as as the NATO Frigate Replacement for ^
1990s.
i
Here is a book that will not only enable you to reconstruct sea battles with great historical accuracy, but also to take charge of the fleets and shape the destiny of nations. All of the most important periods of interest to naval wargamers are covered with a detailed set of rules for each period as well as background information on everything you might need to carry out the battles, such as making model ships and a guide to other references on the subject.
A Naval Institute Press Book
List price: $13.95
Member’s price: S11 -16
1980/160 pages/illustrated/appendices
(Please use order form in Books of Interest section.)
**ass-Down-The-Line-Notes
c
The 1981 Winter Convention on Aerospace and Electronic Systems will held 3-5 February in Los Angeles at the Sheraton-Universal Hotel and the U. S. ^faval Reserve Center. Winning on Distant Battlefields—The Contribution of Electronic Systems will be the theme; attendance of industry and defense leaders 'throughout the nation is expected. For m°te information contact Tony Cantafio,
Rincon si, p.o. box 6000, Culver
1(y. CA. 90230.
The 12th Annual Pittsburgh Confer- e°ce on Modeling and Simulation,
sponsored by the School of Engineering- university of Pittsburgh, will be held on 3b April-1 May 1981. A Call for Papers is 10 process with a 31 January 1981 deadline for abstracts. Emphasis for the 1981 conference will be microprocessors and 'heir applications, as well as energy, so- c>al, economic and global modeling, and simulation. Write to: William G. Vogt or Carlin H. Mickle, Modeling and Simula- tlon Conference, 348 Benedum Engineering Hall, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 15261.
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics will hold its annual meeting and technical display entitled “Frontiers of Achievement: AIAA’s 50th Anniversary” on 12-14 May 1981 at the Convention Center in Long Beach, CA. For more information, contact: Lawrence Craner, Jr., Director-Technical Displays, A1AA, 1290 Avenue of the Americas. New York, NY. 10104.
All alumni of the NROTC unit at the University of Texas at Austin, please contact Richard K. Downs, Alumni Officer, at NROTC/NESEP Alumni Assn., University of Texas RAS Bldg., Austin, TX. 78712.
Author of the first 50 years of Prestwick Airport would like to contact former members of the USN/USAAF who ferried through Prestwick during 194246. Contact: Tom J. Macfadyen, 58, Kil- donan Dr., Helensburgh, Dunbartonshire, Scotland.
Anyone who served aboard a World War 11-type destroyer escort (hull numbers 5-800) between February 1943 and October 1973, please write: DESA, P. O. Box 68, Oviedo, FL. 32765.
Reunions
USS Oklahoma Association, Inc., 30 April-3 May 1981, Annapolis, MD. Contact: Clarence Q. Knight, 7831 Aberdeen Rd.. Bethesda. MD. 20014.
The U. S. Naval Test Pilot School 33rd Annual Reunion and symposium, will be held on 2 May 1981 at the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, MD.
USS Blackhawk and attached DesRons 5 and 29 (1922-46), 8-10 May 1981, Royal Quality Inn, San Diego, CA. Contact: Harold A. Marticke, 437 Elm Ave., Chula Vista, CA. 92010.
VB-17 (1943-1945), in conjunction with Association of Naval Aviation Inc.’s convention, 14 May 1981, Dallas, TX. Contact: Cdr. James A. Chinn, USNR (Ret.), 2558 Blaze Trail, Diamond Bar, CA. 91765.