Talk:Kirov-class battlecruiser

Battlecruisers
It's ridiculous to call them battlecruisers, since battlecruiser class was extinct after Washington Treaty, and no new ships were officially classified this way in any navy (nor Scharnhorst, nor Dunkerque, nor even Alaskas were called this way). If we want to be precise, we should call them "heavy missile cruisers", according to Russian classification (although they are no heavy cruisers). (Not "large" cruisers, like in article, because they are Т�?желые атомные ракетные крей�?ера - tyazholy means "heavy") Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your looking to far into it. Every class of warship has to evolve, and the Battlecruiser has evolved into what the Kirov is. Just like how Cruisers do not resemble the Cruisers of ww1 or ww2, they are still classified as cruisers. This is the same as Battlecruisers, just the Soviets are the only ones cool/smart enough to build them. They ARE battlecruisers and you have to get over it, at least people are not calling them battleships because they are the same size as a ww1 one...imagine that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.171.88 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A ships' classification is a product of its' role and design characteristics. The Kirovs are cruisers, plain and simple.  It's got nothing to do with the Soviets being cool and/or smart enough to build them(that has to be the most ludicrous argument I've heard so far).  They provide the same role that modern cruisers do, providing large command facilities, along with significant AA, ASW and ASuW capabilities.  If anything, the Soviets built them, and they classified them as heavy missile cruisers.  Using USN classification, they would simply be CGNs, nuclear powered guided missile cruisers, akin to the USS Long Beach.  The only reason the "battlecruiser" terminology was ever used was because of their size.  If they were close to 10,000 tons displacement like a Ticonderoga, then the whole argument would be moot.  --Dukefan73 (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Kirov-class is much larger and heavily armed that contemporary cruisers, but they do not have the heavy armour of a battleship, hence they are battlecruisers. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would debate the Kirovs being "much" larger and "more heavily armed" than contemporary cruisers, plus the armor part:
 * On size, they fall below the 30,000-tonne standard (light) displacement level for WW2-era ships commonly classed as "battlecruisers," such as the Scharnhorst and Alaska classes. And since WW2 no ship class has SHRUNK in size; cruisers have arguably kept the same size, though partly through use of switching to destroyer-type hulls. But everything else, from frigates to carriers and everything else, have definitely gotten more massive, so it'd be hard to argue that 'battlecruisers' shrank down from 30 to 24 kT just to fit this one ship class.
 * On armament, a Kirov is actually LESS well-armed than a Ticonderoga. The modern VLS gives a Tico up to a whopping 122 surface-to-surface and anti-ship missles, namely the Tomahawk, which can deliver a 450kg warhead to a range of 2,500 km, four times the range of the Kirov's P-700 Granit missiles, of which it only gets 20; so the Tico gets more than 6 times the number of cruise missiles with 4x the range.
 * Battlecruisers were NOT unarmored; the Kirovs, for all intents and purposes, are not armored warships. They have the bare minimum of "protection" common to smaller warships: anti-splinter netting, and an armored turret around its main guns. The only real difference is that they have a lightly-armored reactor compartment. Since such armor would do nothing to keep them afloat, they cannot be considered "armored." Battlecruisers had a full armor scheme designed to protect the ship at large from not just gunfire, (armored belt) but bombs/missiles, (armored decks and superstructure) and torpedos; (anti-torpedo bulkheads) the difference was that they weren't as VIGOROUSLY protected against these threats as battleships were, (primarily in the gunfire department) but still had design armor protections against these threats, which the Kirovs utterly lack.
 * Overall, I find it hard to justify labeling the Kirov class as battlecruisers without also qualifying the Ticonderoga class as well. As Dukefan73 noted, they were expressely designed expressly for the cruiser role; they are chiefly armed with anti-air point-defense missiles and ASW weapons. The only argument they have is that they displace more than other cruisers, and that's a lousy argument at best; a Zumwalt class destroyer will displace ~15,000 tonnes, yet that won't make it a cruiser. And likewise, the CG(X) program called for a ship MORE massive than the Kirovs, and with 512 missiles, yet they weren't called battlecruisers. The Kirov's mass is merely because they combined a cruiser with a command ship. Nottheking (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In truth the classifications just change. Destroyer originally meant a ship that destroyed torpedo boats with gunfire. This is no longer a goal of any ship design, yet ships are still called destroyers. In fact, they are now as large, and fill much the same role, as cruisers once did. Modern ships cannot be shoehorned into a WWII classification, any more than WWII navies tried to shoehorn their classifications into a Victorian or a Napoleonic era scheme. HMS Vanguard (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Classifications might change on a whim, but they remain tied to the ship's design and purpose. The Kirov class happens to follow the same sort of design profile as all other cruisers have from WW2 onwards, and in particular any other guided-missile cruiser, that being to provide anti-air coverage as the first mission, followed by ASW and ship-attack capabilities. (though curiously, it appears it doesn't really have the land-attack capability the Tomahawk missiles afford US navy cruisers) Hence, to say that one classification has curiously changed meaning to be exactly that of another classification, on the basis of a single ship class, is kind of hard to justify. Nottheking (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling these ships battlecruisers makes no sense at all. Battlecruisers are as extinct as the dinosaurs and I can't see anyone asking we call every big reptile a dinosaur just because it's big. These ships don't have heavy armor, large caliber guns and do not fulfill any of the roles that the battlecruisers were meant to fulfill. They are built for completely different purposes, designed according to completely different criteria, and classified as heavy missile cruisers which is not only the official designation but also the best description of their role and purpose. You might as well call them battleships or sloops and it would be just as logical. These ships are twice as large as other soviet or american cruisers. The Nimitz class aircraft carrier is 3-4 times as large as other carriers and 10 times as large as the smallest one, yet no one is suggesting calling it anything but an aircraft carrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.200.172 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we shouldn't use the terms frigate or corvette either since modern frigates and corvettes are not powered by sail. As HMS Vanguard said, ship classifications change over time. A 19th century rifle and a 21st century rifle are very different but they're still both rifles. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

SA-N-9 being listed in weapon list
The SA-N-9 was planned to have been installed on the bow and stern of all the units after the initial unit (Kirov), but none were installed except for the stern installation on Pyotr Velikiy.

Case in point, the image from the article claiming to show the SA-N-9 launchers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecruiser#/media/File:ARKR_Kalinin_bow_highlighted.jpg

On Frunze, Kalinin and Pyotr Velikiy you only have the empty square panels where these launchers would have been installed. On the tower above the SA-N-6 launchers, you can see an empty circular panel where the search and tracking radar for the front SA-N-9 launchers would have been installed.

In the image description, these bow empty panels are marked as SA-N-9 launchers while they're obviously empty.

So, the class weapon list and the image description should be modified to indicate that these were planned to be installed, but never were except for the stern units on Pyotr Velikiy.

The following image shows the empty rear launcher panels (the elongated raised panels on both edges of the helicopter deck) - this is valid for both Frunze and Kalinin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecruiser#/media/File:ARKR_Kalinin_flight_deck_with_Ka-25_and_Ka-27.jpg

The Pyotr Velikiy image show how these rear SA-N-9 launchers look when they are installed:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--X60jnouY--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/zuq0q5gc5ejbtxywoeey.jpg

Kirov-class "intended to operate alongside nuclear-powered aircraft carriers"?
Other prima facie evidence of a logical disconnect is a simple look at the construction history of the Kirov class. It was designed and built more than long before there was plan to build a nuclear-powered carrier and long before such an effort was actually attempted - but disassembled on the building ways.Moryak (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The current sources for this claim are a pair of editorials that (as per the reliable sourcing guidelines) are not suitable sources for objective statements. Unless a more reliable source that corroborates this claim can be found, it should be removed from the article.

(As a side note, the Russian-language version of the article does not make this claim, which would indicate that none of the people who would have access to any Russian-language documents - official or otherwise - that would verify this claim have made the claim, which would seem to strengthen the case of the claim being [speculation or] hearsay.)

Edit (Oct 3/2022): Further investigation seems to indicate that this claim originated as cold war-era speculation by western sources who were not aware of the true purpose of the ships (i.e. large ASW/ASuW ships to act as flagships in the defence of the Soviet "bastion" in the Barents Sea and arctic region) and that this speculation has since been repeated frequently enough that it is often believed to be true, despite seeming to have no actual basis in fact. I'll need to do some more research and find better sources on the subject before I can refute this claim properly.

MK Regular (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Still you fail to explain why The Diplomat is not a suitable source and why it's not suitable source "for objective statements". As I explained you it has been used many times on this website. Blueginger2 (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You argue about bastions and nuclear-powered ships but it makes little sense as Russia was constructing nuclear-powered aircraft carriers too. Please, explain me what are your sources? Blueginger2 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What source could refute the use of cruiser in the open ocean anyway? Blueginger2 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons for disputing The Diplomat may be solely biased beliefs but one can't quote simply preferred journals. Blueginger2 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The National Interest was cited numerious times on this website. If we start deleting all citations by NI we can remove half of citations on the website as well. Blueginger2 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was reading articles on National Interest the other day and they even included scientific citations. Blueginger2 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming I quote National Interest, my citations will get deleted? Lol Blueginger2 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Imagine arbitrary deciding what journals are not credible and deleting citations. Blueginger2 (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, National Interest in not trustworthy because its content is too well cited? Blueginger2 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Blueginger, the issue is NOT whether either the Diplomat or The National Interest are reputable sources. The issue is whether various authors’ speculations and opinions are authoritative statements of fact. All opinions and speculations should be noted as such.Moryak (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Cruiser class
Why is at preceeding classes Stalingrad class if those ships weren't constructed? Blueginger2 (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't it? BilCat (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Combined nuclear and steam propulsion into Kirov-class battlecruiser
Article is too short and the only ship that uses this propulsion system is Kirov-class battlecruiser Vitaium (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)