Nuclear powered missile cruiser

[ace009]

Since the second world war, large battleships have become a relict their places taken by aircraft carriers and destroyers.

India has programs to develop both carriers and destroyers.

However, I would love to see a nuclear powered missile cruiser (larger than a destroyer) for IN. It will have enormous firepower, can carry troops and helos too. The very presence of it will be a deterrent to even a carrier battle group.

Currently, Russia is the only nation with a nuke powered cruiser -

Kirov class battlecruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do the members think of it?

 

[pack leader]

a waist off time and money
you want ABM build ABM destroyer
you want air force projection build more carriers

such ships are nothing but super expensive targets

 

[ace009]

Hmmm - Why do you say that? Even if they are built with stealth features?
They can stay out to sea for months, and can be a threat to any other warship out there.
They can carry 3-4 times for firepower than a ABM destroyer and at 20-25,000 tonnes, they can carry Ballistic missiles too, which Destroyers cannot.

Why do you think they are obsolete?

 

[Neil]

Hmmm - Why do you say that? Even if they are built with stealth features?
They can stay out to sea for months, and can be a threat to any other warship out there.
They can carry 3-4 times for firepower than a ABM destroyer and at 20-25,000 tonnes, they can carry Ballistic missiles too, which Destroyers cannot.

Why do you think they are obsolete?

ace cruisers are like a basket...an keeping eggs in 1 baskets is dangerous isn;t it...??if cruiser are hit we loose it completely...if with the same money we built 2 destroyers of say 12k tonnes each and if 1 is hit we can still retain enough firepower to fight back...correct me if m wrong...!!

 

[Param]

ace cruisers are like a basket...an keeping eggs in 1 baskets is dangerous isn;t it...??if cruiser are hit we loose it completely...if with the same money we built 2 destroyers of say 12k tonnes each and if 1 is hit we can still retain enough firepower to fight back...correct me if m wrong...!!

Besides what's the point having Ballistic missiles on a cruiser that's a ready made target?

 

[ace009]

Taking out a battle-cruiser 1000 miles out in the sea from a mainland is not that easy - right? You cannot use a land-based Anti-ship missile.
If armed with a S-200 and SA-8 Gecko type SAM systems, no aircraft can get within a strike range of the ship.
The only threat can be a SSBN or a SSN, but with modern ASuW capabilities and an accompanying hunter-killer submarine, that can be minimized.

The Cruiser might actually become the lead ship of a carrier battle group, with enormous firepower. 2-3 destroyers cannot match a cruiser carrying 4-6 ballistic missiles.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

a nuclear powered cruiser is a very good option for each of our carrier battle groups.they can carry a huge amount of firepower and can come handy for air-defence of carrier fleet if the navy and drdo tries to make a naval version of our bmd similar to aegis system.it can carry a huge missile load too and weigh similar to ins jalashwa.however it cannot provide the same amount of impact on a naval scenario as a carrier.this is especialy important since the chairman of atomic energy commision anil kakodkar has said that india has the capacity to produce nuclear engines for naval ships.

 

[ace009]

a nuclear powered cruiser is a very good option for each of our carrier battle groups.they can carry a huge amount of firepower and can come handy for air-defence of carrier fleet if the navy and drdo tries to make a naval version of our bmd similar to aegis system.it can carry a huge missile load too and weigh similar to ins jalashwa.however it cannot provide the same amount of impact on a naval scenario as a carrier.this is especialy important since the chairman of atomic energy commision anil kakodkar has said that india has the capacity to produce nuclear engines for naval ships.

True that a Cruiser cannot provide the same firepower as a carrier, but a 25,000 tonne cruiser (built for $700 million) armed with 6 ballistic missiles, 12-15 cruise missiles/ anti-ship and batteries of SAMs and torpedoes can deliver a larger bang for bucks than a 40,000 tonne carrier worth $2 billion (Gorshkov).

 

[debasree]

Since the second world war, large battleships have become a relict their places taken by aircraft carriers and destroyers.

India has programs to develop both carriers and destroyers.

However, I would love to see a nuclear powered missile cruiser (larger than a destroyer) for IN. It will have enormous firepower, can carry troops and helos too. The very presence of it will be a deterrent to even a carrier battle group.

Currently, Russia is the only nation with a nuke powered cruiser -

Kirov class battlecruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do the members think of it?

the same job can be better done by a nuke sub ,and will be more stealthy,and with those money we can built 5-6 subs ,which will be more usefull for a second strike capabillity,

 

[ace009]

the same job can be better done by a nuke sub ,and will be more stealthy,and with those money we can built 5-6 subs ,which will be more usefull for a second strike capabillity,

I am sure you cannot build 5-6 SSBN for $700 million. The INS Arihant was developed and built for $2.5 billion. Each SSBN will cost India $700-800 million. Also, the Cruiser gives you visibility. Half the time, the presence of a vessel is more of a deterrent than the invisible attacks.
Not saying that SSBNs are not needed, but SSBNs are really for stealth attack. Cruisers (or other surface ships) are more for force projection.

 

[SATISH]

I would rather stick with an SSBN...no worries of air attack nor should i be one hell or a target for antiship missiles. I am SMART! And it is always hard to hit something that You ccant see.

 

[debasree]

I am sure you cannot build 5-6 SSBN for $700 million. The INS Arihant was developed and built for $2.5 billion. Each SSBN will cost India $700-800 million. Also, the Cruiser gives you visibility. Half the time, the presence of a vessel is more of a deterrent than the invisible attacks.
Not saying that SSBNs are not needed, but SSBNs are really for stealth attack. Cruisers (or other surface ships) are more for force projection.

p-ardon i really want to say that those money which is needed to built 6 destroyers can be use to built ssbn,and more over u have to give protection to all those ships every time they went to sea,and the hunters will become hunted very easily,those assets will become liabillity and white elephants.we dont nead those jumbos

 

[Armand2REP]

If armed with a S-200 and SA-8 Gecko type SAM systems, no aircraft can get within a strike range of the ship.

If your ship is armed with S-200 and Gecko SAMs, just about anything except a B-52 bomber can get within range. Those SAM systems are no match for modern threats, or even older threats. Kirov upgrades come with S-300 latest generation along with naval TOR-M1. It has over 500 SAMs on it with 12 channels of fire. but still a serious volley to sink it would be successful.

The only threat can be a SSBN or a SSN, but with modern ASuW capabilities and an accompanying hunter-killer submarine, that can be minimized.

The Cruiser might actually become the lead ship of a carrier battle group, with enormous firepower. 2-3 destroyers cannot match a cruiser carrying 4-6 ballistic missiles.

Why do you want this cruiser to be armed with SRBMs? Not only is it a waste of space, but your CGN will be a prime target for an air strike. If you get a submarine with any of the modern torpedoes like ADCAP, Spearfish, or Black Shark... they won't get anywhere near your ASW assets. If we are talking about Russian export clones, it is still trying to find a needle in a haystack with such limited ASW.

The Kirov class was designed to be escort ships for defunct Soviet CVNs. If other ships fell out of the CBG, it would still have an escort. The purpose of the only remaining in-service Kirov now is to plow the seas showing the Russian flag. It is one of the only sea worthy ships in RuNav that can actually make the journey without needing a tow. It does have good CIWS and decent AAW capabilities, but you can still get that out of a smaller DDG. The maintenance costs for Peter the Great are several times more than their next destroyer. Give me 3 FREMMS over 1 CGN any day.

 

[bengalraider]

So the Cruiser is back on DFI huh! nice to see the topic raised again just for reference i'm gonna a link an old thread i started about the utility of Cruisers in the IN i think you guys will like it.
http://defenceforumindia.com/indian-navy/6079-cruisers-discussion.html

 

[ace009]

Very interesting - can we merge the two topics and make them into one? Mods please?