| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Why is Russia Bringing Back the Kirovs? |
| 2009-11-14 |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #6 I don't know, Sarge. On paper at least,the Kirov is a powerful ship, with plenty of anti-surface and anti-air missiles, as well as other weapon systems. I don't know how she is as far as anti-submarine weapons and sensors. Any single ship, however, is vulnerable. It takes a group of ships and submarines organized for mutual protection, and linked together sharing data on targets to be really potent these days. Learning to organize a battle group like that is not something you learn overnight. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-11-14 21:57 |
| #5 Because our navy doesn't have enough easy target to sink? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2009-11-14 20:19 |
| #4 Money they spend on a Kirov is probably better than another no-interest-payments-for-ninety-years Kilo to Iran or Venezuela. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-11-14 16:13 |
| #3 I don't know.... lots of double hulled 500K ton oil tankers that could be refitted for all sorts of interesting stuff ... and dead cheap at anchor. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-11-14 15:58 |
| #2 Might be a combination of wishful thinking and making work for the shipyards. These ships can't be in very good condition. Their reactors need to be refueled (at least) and they're going to need a lot of work. We've followed It's an interesting idea for us, however: we have a couple of big ships in the boneyard that might be rehabbed to provide us with a package for anti-missile defense. Cost would be huge but there is nothing like 40,000 tons of ship under you. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-11-14 13:42 |
| #1 Simple. They've taken their measure of our president. And unlike 52% of our electorate, they have assessed him as not being up for the job. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-11-14 13:33 |