Talk:Kirov-class battlecruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article name[edit]

I think this article really should be moved to 'Kirov class battlecruiser' as it seems to be more of a discussion of the class as a whole, and then a new article created for the individual vessels. Thoughts? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:14, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

This article, Kirov class battlecruiser, acurately describes the class as a whole.
Soviet battlecruiser Kirov accurately describes the Kirov.
While both entries could be improved, they both accomplish the desired purpose. --Jsolinsky 19:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You should look at the datestamps. I made that comment and then later separated out the two articles. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:54, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

In the first part of the article, it seems unlikely that the Iowa class battleship was returned to service to combat the Kirov class ship. During the end of the cold war, it was general knowledge that a "ship on ship" battle should never occur (a fact that was first shown during the Battle of the Coral Sea WWII). Missiles, subs, and/or aircraft would be the most likely methods of defeating the Kirov. The Iowa's 16" guns would be a last resort/defense. The Iowa class was returned to service for naval gunfire support (it did fire TOMAHAWK missiles from box launchers ABL, but this was an auxillary task since VLS and TTL is the primary method for TOMAHAWK).

The Iowas were indeed returned to service in response to the introduction of the Kirov, but it was more a matter of prestiege than combat effectiveness; the U.S. Navy didn't want to let the Soviets have a warship that was bigger and more powerful than anything it had, so it brought back the Iowas with secondary missile armament added.

Sorry, I still don't buy it. The Kirov was smaller than the supercarriers, so national pride seems served by the Nimitz, which was several years earlier and much larger. Maury 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Displaced tonnage is all well and good, but I'd be willing to bet that a battery of 16 inch rifles still makes a more up-front impression. Some folks just don't mentally connect "Aircraft Carrier" with "Raw Unprocessed Whupass" while "Battlecruiser" and "Battleship" can both carry that connotation, whether or not it's deserved in relation to the Aircraft Carrier or not.--Raguleader 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I can speculate all sorts of reasons myself, but that doesn't help. I find the claim difficult to believe, and without a ref I consider it to be suspect. Maury 13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough. If someone can find a legit source making the claim, it can be used for the article.--Raguleader 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The Iowas were reactivated for one reason only, to get as many Tomahawks to sea as possible. Until the VLS Ticos came about the biggest number any ship could carry was eight, and the majority of the reserve units that were reactivated around the same time were incapable of mounting any at all. The Iowas could carry 32. --Chrthiel (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion & Bellona, et al as sources[edit]

The article contains quotations footnoted to Bellona regarding comments by Kuroyedov and possible political issues surrounding the PETR VELIKIY. These comments contained in a Bellona article cite Novaya Gazeta as the source for the "political" discussion. This discussion also references the former commanding officer of PETR VELIKIY as the nephew of Admiral Kasatonov. Novaya Gazeta provides no source citations and is not inherently an authoritative source for naval reporting. Further, the Bellona article clearly lacks professional review since it purports to show a picture of the SLAVA Class cruiser annotated as a KIROV Class nuclear cruiser.Федоров (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reporting from not known to be authoritative when compared with data from Yu.V. Apalkov who has direct access to Russian Navy source data. Discussion of additional possible names for the fifth never laid down hull is not substantiated by either fact or Russian naval practice.Moryak (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pennant numbers[edit]

If I have deciphered this Chinese website correctly, the ships have carried the following pennant numbers

  • Kirov/Ushakov: 076 (1980), 181 (1981), 065 (1981), 076 (1982), 052 (1985), 085 (1985), 065 (1988), 092 (1990), 059 (1990), 090 (1993)
  • Frunz/Lazarev: 190 (1984), 050 (1985), 750 (1985), 028 (1986), 014 (1987), 010 (1991), 015 (1994)
  • Kalinin/Nakhimov: 180 (1988), 064 (1989), 085 (1990), 080 (1994)
  • Yuri Andropov/Pyotr Velikiy: 183 and possibly 099

All very confusing. Was this constant redesignation of warships normal Soviet practice? Bastie 10:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some other navies change pennant numbers too. By the way, the picture in the page is of Frunze (aka Lazarev), not Kirov. --Mikoyan21 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, these aren't pennant numbers -- these are tactical numbers, and they refer not to the ship as such, but reflect ship's position in a current operational structure of the fleet. So, when this structure changes, so does the number. --Khathi 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Orlan class, not Kirov class[edit]

This ship class is called the Orlan class, not Kirov class. NATO perhaps thought it was Kirov because the lead ship of the class was called the Kirov? I oppose en-Wikipedia's habit in naming articles about Soviet Union's ship classes after their NATO callsigns etc. even though they have their original, official class names as well! I understand that many of us have originally heard of Soviet military hardware via NATO sources, calling them Typhoon, Kirov, Akula, Fulcrum and so on, but is there any reason keep on calling them with those names? Also, the en-Wikipedia is the biggest language version of Wikipedia and considered the reference for others. It should be neutral about these issues, not representing some USA-centered NATO view of things exhibiting NATO military slang. 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The names referred to above as "class names" are in fact NOT. These are Russian Navy assigned overall covername for individual ship designs. There is nothing wrong with using the NATO assigned names, particularly now that the Russian Navy announces the name of the lead unit of class. Using the name of first-of-class as the class name is standard and dominant world practice and not just a USA-centered NATO view. Previous NATO practice, creating class names from whole cloth in the absence of of any such being known in the Soviet era, could legitimately be called into question but at that time no one came up with a better scheme.Moryak (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

- For the sake of neutrality both names should be there - Coolgeek96 —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Flag in info box?[edit]

So, does the big flag in the infobox for ship classes generally refer to whichever navy was the primary user of the ships in question, or just the first one to deploy them? I'm just wondering if there's some standard for why it would be the Soviet flag that is displayed here and not the Russian flag (If we normally show the flag of whoever deployed the ships first, or whoever deployed the most ships of the class, I guess using the Soviet flag would make sense).--Raguleader 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point there. I really think it should be the Russian flag. Maybe we should follow the pattern of other USSR/CIS ships and go with that. I don't have time to do some reasearch now, but I'll look back later. Jeremy Wang 01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


It is argued that Kirov is not a battle cruiser because it lacks the characteristic heavy armor of battlecruisers. That makes absolutly no sense as the defining characteristics of a battlecruiser is that it is not as armored as a battleship. Battle cruisers are in general not smaller than battleships (e.g. compare Hood and Bismarck - Hood was actually longer and equally large). The original idea behind the battlecruiser concept was to built a ship which is more powerful than a cruiser in order to hunt cruisers and much faster than a battleship in order to escape the slower and more heavier armored battleships. The Russians refer to these ships as cruisers simply because their operational function is more similar to those of a cruiser simply because the battleship against battleship and battlecruiser against battlecruiser fights of world war two are long gone.

The most funny things about it is that Kirovs ARE armored. ;) While this isn't a true belt armor of dreadnaught days, and is never referred as such in any sources, at least one of them (Prof. Capt. Kuzin's monograph, and he was one of the ship's designers) says that magazines and such are protected so they can withstand battering by HE charges up to 200 Kg, which is about the mass of warheads of most Western cruise missiles. --Khathi 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The hallmark of WWII battlecruisers was the relatively thin armour compared to dreadnaught battleships. That was the price for speed. A battlecruiser is hence a very large cruiser with heavy (traditionally battleship caliber) weapons. This description fits the Kirov-class perfectly. (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The point about the Kirovs being battlecruisers because of armor, be it there or not, is moot, since - as was noted - its only one of three primary characteristics. After all cruisers in the WW1 and WW2-eras were armored as well, still modern warships are referred to as cruisers, even if they lack that characteristic. More significantly the primary aspect of a battlecruiser is, that it equals a battleships armament but with reduced protection and increased speed. Last time I checked the Kirovs did not sport any big-gun armament, let alone anything equaling that of any kind of battleship. Their speed is high, but not significantly higher than that of the last fast battleships such as Iowa, which, given continued development of battleship design, would have been the norm of the battleship type. Since no missile-battleship ever came to be and the term 'battleship", which always served as the guideline for defining the contrasting battlecruiser, effectively died out post-WW2, it is pointless and misleading to call the Kirov or any other modern warship design a battlecruiser. The term and concept of "battlecruisers" ceased to have any significance as early as the 1930s , as far as contemporary designs were concerned. Any characterisation of the Alaska-class as battlecruisers, for instance, was not contemporary and the characterisation as such of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau by the RN was a drastic exception not shared by the nation that actually built and used them. The Kirovs are guided missile cruisers and just that. Designating them "battlecruisers" does not add any information about their characteristics. Firepower and size alone are scalable aspects, which do little to change specific type-designations, otherwise we would have to redesignate pretty much any current DDG and FFG as light cruiser/battlecruiser/ship of the line etc. (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Kirov is more powerful than destroyers and frigates. Also, now, big guns are stuff of the olden days. There is no point in inserting a very heavy gun in there just to get it blown up by a CM. The claim of these ships to be battlecruisers is pretty well spoken, and anyway, no ship could go (except hydrofoils and some [maybe] new subs) faster than 40 kts. With all its modern armament, this really ought to be called a guided missile battlecruiser. Any cruiser nowadays is way smaller than these. Jeremy Wang 01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Google maps[edit]

ex-Kirov was pierside when this image was taken. ex-Kirov was the only unit with two gun mounts aft. This image depicts another Kirov class, possibly Peter Velikiy as the other two are Pacific ships. This one, near Fokino, Primorsky Krai, looks pretty stripped down may be ex-Frunze since it's in the Pacific and the forward launchers look covered or removed and appears to be an inactive area, maybe a mothball fleet. This one near Bolshoy Kamen is a 4th Kirov class, the second ship in the Pacific, possibly ex-Kalinin. --Dual Freq (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Well there is a very weird situation in google earth. The first ship is Kirov its correct, can be identified by its two rear guns and twin SS-N-14 launcher. Second ship is not Petr Velikiy its the Kalinin. It can be identified from its green Helipad, and brown P-700 launchers. Petr Velikiy has its missile tubes painted to gray and has its SA-N-4 launchers hidden (or removed). It can be found at Severomorsk base at coordinates 69 05' 06.31"N, 33 25' 27.95"E.(I don't know how to send google earth images, if someone knows editing this part is welcomed) The image you claim to be Frunze is really Frunze, there is a picture of that area, showing Frunze and command ship SSV-33(the huge ship at the south of Frunze) exactly at same positions. The ship you claimed to be Kalinin is possibly Frunze also, moved while google earth was taking shots. Becouse it has 8 AK-630 positions, Kalinin has 6x CADS-1 in place of these. If its not frunze, that means there are 5 kirovs around =)
Regards, Andraxxus.


The issue of the Fokino Kirov CGN is easily solved by the simple fact that only ONE Kirov, the Admiral Lazarev (ex-Frunze), was ever transferred to the Pacific. Only four Kirovs were built.Moryak (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bump on hull[edit]

What is the bump that runs the length of the ship on the hull?

Does anyone have an idea what the stripe or bump is that runs nearly the length of the ship on the hull above the waterline? --Dual Freq (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If I'm looking at the same thing you are (bends up and over the pennant number 085), it's a degaussing cable. Used for minimizing the ship's magnetic signature or something. (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


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 ←« 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 (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. (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 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Radar reduction?[edit]

I recall talking to a serviceman who stated that the Kirov had features to reduce its radar signature (presumably to the level of or below other ships in the fleet). On at least one sensor it could be identified via the fact that the wake was visible before the ship was. Does anyone else have sources on this? --Hrimpurstala (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"I only work in outer space"[edit]

The second paragraph ends with "The appearance of the Kirov class played a role in the recommissioning of the Iowa class battleships." This is potentially interesting, but the rest of the article makes no more mention if it; the article would benefit from explaining what reaction the Kirov-classic battlecruisers provoked in the West, and how this contributed to the recommissioning of the Iowa class battleships. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed very interesting, and somebody needs to give some details. I, however, have no sources with which to give some information. I saw some more on this topic to the top of the page. Jeremy Wang 04:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirplanePro (talkcontribs)

This claim does not make very much sense. Iowa has no relevant capabilities for countering a Kirov. If no citation can be found, this sentence should be removed. HMS Vanguard (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure a 16-inch shell hit would thoroughly ruin a Kirov's day. :P But I see your point. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Not too sure if you're serious, but plenty of people are, so I hope you don't mind if I respond to this seriously. Kirov is designed to fire missiles at enemy ships (US fleet carriers, mainly, but would work just as well against a WWII battleship) at very long range. Iowa is designed to fight heavily armoured targets at [what is now] short range. The confusion seems to have come about from the use of the term "battlecruiser", ie. people thought that the Kirov class was heavily armoured in the old style, but this isn't true. The Iowa would not be able to get close enough to attack a Kirov, would be essentially helpless against the Kirov's own weapons, and would be no more effective against it if it did get into range than any destroyer armed with Harpoons. HMS Vanguard (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I admit, I was being a bit facetious, but no worries! Discussion is how we learn things. :) To respond to your point, the over-the-horizon guidance problem for anti-ship missiles has never really been satisfactorialy solved; however pure missile spam (which the Kirovs definitily have) can get around that. Of course, then we get into the "can battleship armour defeat an anti-ship missile" argument, which is a whole 'nother kettle of carp. And the Iowas are packing Harpoon and Tomahawk too... I suppose in the end the question is, "can the Iowa get into gun range". If it can, it likely wins handily (and at a cheaper cost per shot than missiles, too), but the problem is getting there - which I cheerfully admit is "bloody unlikely" against the kind of task force the Kirov would be at the middle of, not even counting the neo-BC itself. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Missiles aren't made with beyond the horizon ranges just for fun, but because that is their intended use. Nor is whether missiles can penetrate battleship armour a hypothetical: the answer is yes, even for lighter and slower examples than a P-700. Iowa did have Harpoons and Tomahawks, but then, so do 7,000t destroyers. The whole notion is akin to the US responding to the launch of HMS Dreadnought by reactivating the USS Monitor. The distinction is somewhat confused because the technology fundamentally changed, rather than just being 'bigger and better' versions of the old, but the disparity in capabilities is actually much larger. HMS Vanguard (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is hypothetical, because you link to something that isn't a cruise missile; it's an armor-piercing bomb, with a guidance system slapped on. It's not a missile any more than a JDAM is; both are cases of guided 'smart' bombs, that control their falling. They lack any form of power, but given their hardened, armor-piercing noses and heavy warheads, they're probably more potent than cruise missiles. Plus, we already saw bombs could sink battleships. However, it's still a fair wager (read: could be verified) that a battleship's armor/protection scheme would afford it protection against cruise missiles; sure, enough (or a lucky shot) would get through, but the same rule aplied to battleship guns. Though in some cases British battlecruisers had a nasty habit of exploding when shot, proper battleships merely were 'damaged'. So no, the recomissioning of the Iowas wasn't an anachronism; they posessed technology that had been improperly deemed 'out of style'; their armor made them less vulnerable to the cruise missiles that had recently caused the British much grief, and its guns had a distinct advantage over carrier planes in that their shells couldn't be shot down. Nottheking (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The Iowa Class battleships were re-commissioned (at great cost) for the Vietnam War because of their 16-in. guns which could shell targets significantly inland without endangering pilots. Since the Kirov class nuclear-powered cruisers were not built for nor used in the Vietnam War it appears illogical to connect them with the U.S. re-commissioning the Iowa class battleships. My suggestion is to eliminate any mention of the Iowa class battleships in this article on Kirov class nuclear cruisers.Федоров (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. Only one Iowa class BB was recommissioned, briefly, for Vietnam. It was in the early 1980s that all four Iowas were recommissioned, and the Kirov class was one of the reasons - albiet not a specific one, more along the lines of one of the factors leading to the decision to have a 600 Ship Navy of which the Iowas were to be a part. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I remember a story, yes that was a factor, some people were doing a war-gaming exercise (perhaps associated with Naval War College in Newport RI), and as exercise got to the point of receiving authorization to open fire; range between a Kirov and a battleship was the battle ship was within the minimum range of the SSN-19, and also within 16-inch gun range. Also battleships were brought bask as cost to upgrade then was near the same as build a new OHP/FFG-7 ship- yet much more capability; and battle resistance. Once in operation, operating costs for the BB was MUCH higher (manpower and fuel). It was something recognizable to President Reagan and all, so it did make a difference. Should remain, citation exist. Wonder how the battleship armor would do versus the SSN-19? Also, when brought back, the control system for the 5 inch guns could not handle a highly super-sonic target (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC).
Perhaps your memory has gotten a bit fuzzy. There is no, repeat no, remote correlation between the range of the 16-inch guns (20.5 nautical miles) and the SS-N-19 missiles (296-336 nautical miles). If the contest were between these guns and these missiles, the Kirov CGN would splash the Iowa BBs long before the battleships could get anywhere close to the Kirov.Moryak (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The Iowas were brought back (in the 1980ies) for two reasons. Command facilities and their ability to carry a large amount of Tomahawks. The guns were just a bonus. It's no surprise that their retirement coincides with the widepsread introduction of VLS to the USN. Chrthiel (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Misinformation about ships range[edit]

In the article it says: "Propulsion: 2-shaft CONAS, 2× KN-3 nuclear propulsion with 2× GT3A-688 steam turbines 140,000 shp[1] Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h) Range: 1,000 nautical miles (2,000 km) at 30 knots (56 km/h) (combined propulsion), Essentially unlimited with nuclear power at 20 knots (37 km/h)"

in the FAS org it says: "The ship's propulsion system is based on a combination of nuclear power and steam turbine, with two [four according to some sources] nuclear reactors and two auxiliary boilers. The propulsion system provides a full speed of 31 knots. When operating on the auxiliary boilers the ship's speed is 14 knots and the ship has an endurance of 60 days. The selection of the machinery was determined by the role of the cruiser and its assigned missions. The automated main nuclear machinery comprises two reactors (to produce steam for operation), two main geared-turbine units developing 70,000 hp each (to ensure full cruiser speed of at least 30 knots) and two stand-by steam boilers of 115 t/h capacity. The stand-by steam boilers provide for development of 17 knots with nuclear reactors shut-off and ensure an operation range of up to 1,000 miles with shipborne fuel."

(correct me if I am wrong) This means, ship uses Nuclear reactors to boil water and produce steam that drives steam turbines. With nuclear power, ships range is unlimited at its full speed. In case of emergency, two steam boilers are fitted, they provide 17 knots speed and 1000 nm range without the use of nuclear reactors.

I think the article should be edited like: "Propulsion: 2-shaft CONAS, 2× KN-3 nuclear reactors(300MW each), 2× GT3A-688 steam turbines, 2x auxiliary boilers, 140,000 shp[1] Speed: 30 knots+ (56+ km/h) Range: unlimited with nuclear power, 1000nmi on auxiliary boilers at 17 knots (30 km/h)"

Suggestions?? (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Both seem wrong. Believe the reactor is the primary power source- it converts water to steam. the boilers are only able to super-heat the steam to a higher temperature and provide an higher speed (greater power from better thermal efficiency). If the reactors were out, they are dead in the water. There is one max speed with just the reactors, and a higher speed possible with the boiler also in use. World War Two (WWII) designed boilers had a M shaped furnace- 2nd side controlled the superheat- which was needed for a higher power/speed. Normal operations might not use the superheat at all. 1950s era designed boilers changed to a D shaped boiler and better protection to the tubes for super-heating, and remove ability to control amount of superheat from the operator. (see Water-tube boiler (section for D-type boiler). I am saying unlimited range at 20Knots, (max power from reactors) range for faster than 20 knots is "1000 miles" (or more range at say 24 knots). Realize the stupid element of design as I describe it (dead with out reactors, but there are 2). . (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Largest and most powerful non-aircraft carrier surface warship in the world today[edit]

The statement in this title has come under some question. If there is an erstwhile editor that does not agree with the title statement, please provide proof that it is incorrect. Otherwise, the attempt to insert "possibly" has no meaning.Федоров (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Obviously, there are editors who would rather play tit-for-tat edit changes than engage in a discussion. I have repeatedly edited in that the Kirov Class cruise is the "most powerful" class of naval combatants other than aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines. I base my edit on the huge number and variety of very capable weapons carried by these ships. Those who would change this edit are challenged to state which world warships, other than the classes mentioned above, are "more powerful" than the Kirov Class cruisers. I await your responses and rationales. If no persuasive responses are forthcoming I request the oversight editors to restore the "most powerful" qualifier.Федоров (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for not thinking to look near the top of the article, in the middle of older posts, for a discussion of this topic. The general rule on WP is to post new topics at the bottom of the talk page. I'm not trying to jump your case, but that is why I missed your earilier comments.
Per WP's Verifiability policy. all claims are subject to using reliable sources. If the Kirovs are indeed considered the "most powerful surface combatants today", then you should have no problem providing a reliable source which actually states that. Until then, please leave the statement out. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not the originator of and did not begin this is it or is it not the "most powerful" surface ship other than aircraft carriers exchange. When I originally read this article it said "most powerful". Presumably, the original drafter did provide a source. I have merely tried to reset some more recent attempts to delete that modifier. As to your comment regarding citing authoritative sources, I would have to honestly say that the strict application of that criteria would significantly downsize many articles. In all too many cases contributors consider any citable source to be "authoritative". Given that there exists no shortage of individual opinions far from all citable sources are "authoritative". Also, I do not see many players among the "oversight editors" that appear seemingly qualified to rule on the inputs of others in the naval or specifically Russian naval realm. All wikipedia players and their individual profiles are "self defined" and cannot be considered any more real than those of the many persons who have created "Facebook" or other networking site personae.Федоров (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, every edit page states that content must be "verifiable". Given the characteristics of the Kirov Class cruiser, I again challenge anyone to show how the Kirov Class is not verifiably the "most powerful" current surface warship class other than aircraft carriers.Федоров (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have it a little backwards. Statements need to be verified, therefore it's up to you - or anybody else - to verify that the Kirov class is the "most powerful" surface warship class other than aircraft carriers. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Regardless of its comparative stats to other vessels, if you can't verify with a source that it is the "most powerful", then that statement has to be left out, not left in if not verified as not. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipolicy is that the provider of the claim is responsible for referencing said claim. It is not for the objectors to prove that the claim is unsupported. See WP:CITE. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

While I personally agree with this statement, it isn't verifiable. To demand others prove a negative is unreasonable. As it is essentially a value judgement, I think the statement should be removed. The capabilities of the ship are stated, and stand or fall on their own merit. HMS Vanguard (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur. It depends on how one defines "most powerful". It is just the number of types of weapons? What about quantity of each weapons type (rounds), range, explosive yield, etc.? All these factors in the modern era make it difficult to be precise, especially when nuclear warheads are included. - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What happens when somebody chooses to delete something and the footnote goes with the deletion? Федоров clearly stated that he was merely attempting to return what someone else had chosen previously to delete/alter. The deleted/reinserted statement on "most powerful" appears on the face of it to be correct. In the Wiki world which member of the "correctness police" would be responsible to go all the way back through the long history of edits to this article to find the original comment which may have had a footnote? Then there is the issue of citation - as noted just because you can footnote a citation does not mean that that citation is correct. I have seen many seemingly "authoritative" sites which have significant problems with correct facts. I thought that Федоров's logic in referencing the article's own data as proof of "most powerful" was compelling.Moryak (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, this one. The "most powerful in the world" statement first appeared at 08:15, 5 May 2008, in this diff, created by an unregistered IP editor, and without any reference whatsoever. Also, I don't believe having the article referencing itself to "prove" a subjective judgement serves Wikipedia or its readers. Saying that Kirov is the largest surface combatant is easily provable or disprovable as an objective fact. Saying it's the most powerful is fraught with difficulty due to, as BilCat pointed out, the very defintion of "most powerful" will vary from editor to editor and reader to reader - and, in fact, the term itself, used in this fashion (as opposed to, for instance, describing the output of its powerplant) could, IMHO, very easily be argued to be, if not POV, a less encyclopedic phrasing than, say, "most heavily armed" (which still runs into the "varying defnitions of 'most heavily'" problem). - The Bushranger (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
largest and most powerful non-aircraft carrier warships in the world

It is clearly not the most powerful. The most powerful were the Musashi and Yamato. Nothing built since have been more powerful. As for "today", there are still Iowa-class battleships extant in the world, even if they are not in service. (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Please pay attention to the wording. The statement "most powerful" applies to non-aircraft carrier surface ships currently operational in the world today. However, if you want to compare the fire power of the Kirov Class CGN with that of the Musashi, Yamato, and Iowa please tell me how those ships were more powerful that the Kirov Class each with 352 modern missiles.Moryak (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What source do you get the 352 number from? I think you might be confusing the armament list, as different vessels in the class fitted different missiles; none had ALL of those listed. The most, I believe, was 288 for the Admiral Nakhimov. (formerly called theKalinin) And of those, all but 20 of those missiles are lightweight anti-air missiles, all carrying <25 kg warheads; 172 of them short-range missiles incapable of going farther than 15 km. So its grand total anti-ship/land attack missile armament... Is the 20 P-700 (SS-N-19) battery it has. Granted, those missiles have better range (550-625 km) compared to 1930s battleship guns, (~42km) but then again, a Tomahawk has a range of 2,500 km, and a Ticonderoga class cruiser can carry up to 122 of 'em, over six times as many. So by that logic, the Ticonderoga cruiser is far more powerful. Nottheking (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no denying the main anti-ship battery is the most potent in the world. No Ticonderoga carries that many Tomahwaks, the anti ship Tomahawk is long retired, and even when it was in service, it was easy to shoot down comapred to a Granit. -Shamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Tomahawk" - clеver boy[edit]

    • And . . . what is the remotely relevant reason for discussing TOMAHAWKs in an article on a Russian cruiser ???? Федоров (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been several variants of the BGM-109 Tomahawk employing various types of warheads. AGM-109H/L Medium Range Air to Surface Missile (MRASM) - a shorter range, turbojet powered ASM with bomblet munitions; never entered service BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Nuclear (TLAM-A) with a W80 nuclear warhead BGM-109C Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Conventional (TLAM-C) with a unitary warhead BGM-109D Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Dispenser (TLAM-D) with submunitions BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM)- with a W84 nuclear warhead; withdrawn from service 1987 RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile (TASM) - radar guided anti-shipping variant RGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM Block IV) - improved version of the TLAM-C


Name: RGM/UGM-109B Range: 460 km Speed: 880 km/h

Name: P-700 (SS-N-19) Maximum Speed: Mach* 1.6-2.5 Range: 550 - 625 km

  • Mach=1100-1200 km/h

Oops... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL Basket Feudalist 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Kirov class cruiser, not battlecruiser (move article)[edit]

Kirov is a heavy, nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser, not a battleship. I refer to this discussion to support the move to the more appropriate article designation of Kirov class heavy cruiser. Recon.Army (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Kirov class battlecruiser. Favonian (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiserKirov class battlecruiser – This got moved last month, apparently without any attempt to go through a move request, and while moving it back would be the easiest option here I do concede a point that the article's subject matter is misnamed - the Russians call these ships "heavy missile cruisers", not battlecruisers, and they only go by that name in the west because Janes All the World's Combat Ships listed these vessels as "battlecruisers" in their 198x edition. Despite that, per Wikipedia's naming conventions, I submit that the page should be returned to its original location at Kirov class battlecruiser because that is the name that everyone associated the ships with, regardless of how they are actually classified. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support renaming per my position above. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Per Common name. Also, the country name isn't usually used in class article titles unless the title is used in another country, so the article needs to be renamed either way. - BilCat (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I moved the original article to Kirov class heavy cruiser. Simply Kirov isnt a battlecruiser. Why should we bend to media designation rather than fact? For example, the article Nimitz class aircraft carrier isnt named Nimitz class supercarrier as the media would call it. Recon.Army (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Kirov class heavy rocket cruiser is the Russian designation for Kirov. Recon.Army (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The Russian wikipedia calls it "Крейсера проекта 1144" (Cruiser project 1144), but that's also irrelevant (anyone want to move Typhoon class submarine to Underwater rocket boat project 941 "Akula"?). Here at the English Wikipedia we call article titles by the English name. WP:COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.". So, just because it isn't actually a battlecruiser doesn't mean that can't be its title, if that's what it commonly gets called, which it does. Shem (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:NC-SHIPS states that articles should be titled as simply as possible, so Kirov class cruiser (1977) would probably be the best option, as it is not overly precise and avoids the whole "battlecruiser" mess. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • And a title like that would have precedent – see Alaska class cruiser. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I could live with that, but it does generate a little friction with the most commonly known name since the google test shows that the ships are widely held to be battlecruisers despite not being battlecruisers. I do not think that this would be a particularly big deal if the page ends up at Kirov class cruiser, its just something I thought I would bring up. Also, I would move that when we finally settle on where to put this page we move protect the new name so as avoid a repeat of the name game. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I concur with Tom on all points. My issue with Kirov class heavy cruiser is that I'm not sure any English language sources ever call it that. - BilCat (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
          • It wouldn't thrill me, but I could live with it. ;p I presume there's never been another Kirov class it might conflict with? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
            • There is a WWII-era class of heavy cruisers (hence why this would be dabbed) - I really don't have much preference for battlecruiser or cruiser—I can see arguments for both—I was suggesting a possible compromise between "battlecruiser" and "heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser". Parsecboy (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
              • I've never seen these ships called heavy cruisers in English-language works. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                • So what about Kirov class missile cruiser? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • Renaming to Kirov class missile cruiser would be a problem because other cruisers still in existence also carry missiles, ergo if we move this article here we could potentially end up with a situation whereby other cruiser class (like the Ticonderogas) would end up moved from there current location to pages titled X class missile cruiser for consistency. In the case of the Ticonderogas specifically, the class page redirects from the more appropriately named Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser to Ticonderoga class cruiser, which until recently was the also the story with the Kirov class article, which was located at the battlecruiser page, despite the fact that in this format both are technically not at there correctly designated title. I'd rather avoid a situation where renaming this article sparks a new wave of page moves on grounds that the format requested is being used here, which is why I would prefer a title that simplified the Kirov class classification as much as possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


  • I would favour Kirov class missile cruiser or Kirov class guided missile cruisers, as its probably the simplest title that fully disambiguates from other targets - Kirov class cruiser is the World War II ship, which probably counts as a Heavy Cruiser, so ruling out that title. Missile Cruiser also matches well with Raketnyy Kreyser. As no-one other than the Soviets/Russians have (as far as I know) built any Kirov classes, the word Russian in the title probably isn't needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
My use of "missile cruiser" was in preference to "rocket cruiser", which would be technically more accurate, but which I honestly find a bit odd. TomStar is quite right, "missile cruiser" could cause more headaches elsewhere; that being so, "rocket cruiser" might avoid the issue. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll concede that "rocket cruiser" does dodge the issue somewhat, but if we move the article to Kirov class rocket cruiser people are going wonder what the heck a rocket cruiser is. Strictly speaking, missiles are a kind of rocket, but in the west a "rocket cruiser" may be construed as something as a cross between an SSBN and a battleship. To be fair to Russian translations of the title, if we were going to opt for that format it would be easiest to simply move the page to Orlan class cruiser, seeing as how the ships went by the designation 1144 Orlan class for construction purposes. As before though, this bumps up against WP:COMMONNAME, since Soviet/Russian ships are more widely known to by their NATO reporting name in the west. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"Rocket" is a mistranslation of the Russian "Ракета", which means "rocket, missile, firework, fast hydrofoil". In Russian USS Long Beach (CGN-9) is a "атомный ракетный крейсер" ("atomic rocket cruiser" or more correctly, nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser). Furthermore, why shy away from "battlecruiser"? The term was reinvented for the Kirovs, but then again the term corvette was reinvented for the Flower-class corvette, and more recently for vessels up to frigate size. The term frigate once meant a sailing vessel carring all its guns on a single continuous deck. Destroyers used to be torpedo-boat destroyers of about 200 - 500 tons, not cruiser-sized beasts like Type 45. Warship types change meaning, and the use of "battlecruiser" for the Kirovs is consistent with general use in English. Any other circumlocution fails WP:COMMONNAME. Do a search of wikipedia, and you'll find that's what Wikipedia calls them everywhere else too. I would suggest that a short paragraph on the use of the word "battlecruiser" within the article is by far the best way to address this issue. Shem (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I completely concur with Shem's analysis, on all points. In English, "battlecruiser" is the most appropriate description of the ship type. No other English term really fits, and certainly not a more common one. "Cruiser", even "heavy cruiser", just isn't an apt description of the ships in English. That's whay the term "battlecruiser" was resurrected, even if it doesn't quite fit the histtroical definition. - BilCat (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue against battlecruiser, but enough people have... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to results of google books.

-- Takabeg (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - Kirov class battlecruiser. Or any of the other suggestions above, really. The current title actually made me laugh when I saw it. This is just a permutation of the same perennial problem encountered on many EnWiki Cold War WP:MILHIST articles. In a nutshell, to some Russian editors these ships, planes, subs and missiles are sacrosanct sources of national pride and thus we have no right to "rename" them with our devious Western ways. Ridiculous pride-driven kerfuffles abound on talk pages; see the above "biggest, most powerful ship in the world" argument above. There's also at least one big argument somewhere every few months on why NATO reporting names are Western imperialism in action and should be removed entirely or made diminutive, despite the fact that maybe .01% of our readership can recognize the Russian names. Bottom line: this is enWiki, WP:COMMONNAME is in effect, and the WikiProject Military History naming conventions are both clear and supported by consensus. If editors find this unacceptable, please check out It's already a gilded POV shrine to Soviet Bloc everything. I also object strenuously to the suggestion of moving the article to "rocket" anything, since it fires missiles and not rockets. Yes, I realize the translation issues. See above. Our mission here is to make the information easily accessible to our readership. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support No brainer. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I had much the same reaction as BravoFoxtrot: "Is he serious?" TBH, I don't care much either way; as it is, it's plain silly TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Kirov class battlecruiser. Benea (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Against To go with an incorrect typing would be to say that the designers and owners of these ships do not know what they are doing. The Russian Navy is 315 years old in 2011 and it does know what it is doing and what types of ships it designs and operates. What NATO calls the Kirov class the Russians type as "Heavy Nuclear-powered Missiles Cruisers" abbreviated TARKR in Russian.Федоров (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you prefer the title in Russian, rather than English? Shem (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request move 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Xoloz (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Kirov-class battlecruiserKirov-class cruiser (1974) – The WWII era kirov class is renamed with year to avoid ambiguity.So it should be renamed as kirov-class cruiser.Since usually scholars won't treat it as battlecruiser. --Relisted. Xoloz (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viril2000 (talkcontribs) 11:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Per the discussion above, the class is considered as battlecruisers in English-language reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've moved Kirov-class cruiser (1935) back to Kirov-class cruiser. The year is unnecessary disambiguation at this point, but it can always be moved later if this article is moved to Kirov-class cruiser (1977). - BilCat (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Comment: The only place that "battlecruiser" for the contemporary ships is used in the English language is in English/British sources. Other English-language sources refer to them as "nuclear-powered missile cruisers" which is closer to the nomenclature used by the design, construction, owning country. Let's just drop "battlecruiser" from the article title and if there are ship enthusiast hardliners the "battlecruiser" moniker can be explained in the text.Федоров (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    Which reliable "Other English-language sources refer to them as "nuclear-powered missile cruisers" are these? - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:SNOWBALL. We've already debated this to death - see (just) above. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Shem (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - usually called battlecruisers in English-language sources, per the above discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Jane's still calls them battlecruisers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this move request is missing the request template, so will not be listed, as it is supposed to be, at WP:RM. Please add the request template to fix the procedural problems this move request currently has. -- (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    So fix it. I haven't added it because I don't think it's needed, as no evidence has been added t h at differs from what was presented and rejected in the previous discussion, so consensus is unlikely to change. But if you believe it's needed, then do it. - BilCat (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    I think he was asking the nominator to do so, so I'm not sure the personal reason for not having done so was necessary. --Izno (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps he was asking the nominator to do. However, I knew that the nom attempted to do so already, here on the article page, but the process is complicated for a relative newbie. To my knowledge anyone can complete the process, and I could have, but was explaining why I didn't didn't think it was necessary. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kirov-class battlecruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked, Failed. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

SA-N-9 being listed in weapon list[edit]

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:

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.

The Pyotr Velikiy image show how these rear SA-N-9 launchers look when they are installed:,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/zuq0q5gc5ejbtxywoeey.jpg