Calling all Soviet Kresta-class (беркут) Project 1134 & Kara-class Project 1134B fans

[Neptune]

Hi Michael,
I actually did, a Kara, from LEGO in 1:100 long time ago. I always loved the amount and variety of weapons these ships caried. Allowed to make a lot of different stuff in subassemblies.

[Max Braun]

Hi ozpirate,
Yes, I've got these books still.
And something else. Namely the Set of Drawing Sheets in 1/200 Scale for modelers of Kara-Class "Petropavlovsk".
Cover attached.
As to your failure to order books through the upper mention site do try it again.
Moreover there is another (spare) E-Mail Adress indicated in the Site's "Guest-Book" you can use as well.

[350z]

I'm still around, Folks! Here you go, last of mohicans - Kerch.

[Sauragnmon]

You know, I had an interesting thought the other day, of a Kara II - take a Kara Class... refit the aft SA-N-3 with Modern, Slava style S-300F launchers. Replace SA-N-4 with SA-N-9 launchers. Perhaps load SS-N-19 launchers on the forward deck, though it might preclude the use of SS-N-22 in place of SS-N-14 missiles. Torpedo tubes replaced with fixed tubes in location, allowing use of SS-N-15 missiles for ASW mission. Guns to be replaced with AK-130 turrets.

I think it's rather doable, though it would be somewhat demanding on equipment sets. Thoughts?

[Neptune]

The turrets would be a little heavy for that position. The S300F has been tested on Azov before it entered service. She carried 6-cell launchers, but the equipment looked the same as on the Kirovs, rectangular hatches, not like on Slava. They were placed on the aft upper deck, where the aft SA-N-3 launcher is normally placed.
The SA-N-9 is certainly possible, although it requires another guidance radar and one or two launchers would be a bit stupid, so place should be found to put extra cells, possibly forward somewhere, or instead of the 76mm turrets on both sides. Kashtans could also be used somewhere, maybe in place of the 76mm turrets. The forward deck also offers some space, if you're not going to put Granits there, you could use if for additional AAW equipment. The size and open design of this ship certainly allows for modifications.
As for the SS-N-14 launchers, you could also fit in some Yakhont/Brahmos launchers there, big missile in something that looks like an oversized Harpoon launcher. Normal fit is 16 missiles, 8 could also be possible, they are also VLS launchable, so again you could put them forward, lots of them as they are a lot more compact than Granits. Of course in that case you'd "lose" the space on the sides of the bridge.

[Sauragnmon]

Neptune, in response:

S-300F - I know Azov used the launchers that Kirov would later feature - you yourself pointed out how much of a pain to reload they are, thus I suggested the Slava style launchers for a more servicable design.

Turrets - possibly reinforcing the deck in the area to support heavier turrets is a thought. Or taking the turrets out, putting the SA-N-9 launchers in there, two launchers in each turret position, moving the RBU-6000 to broadside positions there, and putting one AK-130 up front, ahead of the missile deck, similar to Chabanenko.

SA-N-9 - I was thinking one radar either side of the bridge, Kuznetsov style positioning. With Moskits in the SS-N-14 positions, I thought Band Stand center front on the bridge would give it full operations. I did think the forward SA-N-9 deck would be a good idea for placement of additional launcher blocks.

Kashtan - not a bad idea, though ideally more than two mountings on the hull would also be ideal.

SS-N-14 - Yakhont is an idea as well, I didn't think of that. Could semi-enclose the area and have the launchers simply as hatch-like covers, with louvres to vent the exhaust from the missile launches while retaining lower RCS on the area. The enclosed design would also allow potentially more missiles in the location.

[350z]

I like the idea, guys.

There you go, refitted BBs Panteleymon and 12 Apostoles. Why not?

[Neptune]

Well, the Slava type launcher has basically the same reloading principle... Separate hatch etc. The only difference on Kirov and Azov is that they put a rectangular cover over it.

350Z, Don't know what I'm looking at. I guess pretty close to heracy to other people, but it sure would be powerful. Not sure how they'll launch those Ballistic missiles though. Or are they a new oversized super torpedo?

[Sauragnmon]

Hmm, alright - I thought there might have been a quicker reload design to the Slava launchers, but I guess they can be left as is then.

Besides, Heresy, That? Nah, Heresy is my Tirpitzski or the Iga and Owari that I have planned. Those are heresy.

[350z]

350Z, Don't know what I'm looking at. I guess pretty close to heracy to other people, but it sure would be powerful. Not sure how they'll launch those Ballistic missiles though. Or are they a new oversized super torpedo?

What are you talking about Roel??? It's me, Andrey. Do you still remember me? http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
The idea behind my joke was that it not worth to refit old junk. Karas were good ships for it's time. Now ... well, it's XXI century.
By the way SS-N-20 looked really good on Potyomkin.

[Sauragnmon]

Andrey, I'm not actually suggesting Refitting the Old hulls, so much as cutting on research costs by starting with an already existing hull form, which has been proven with its seakeeping, and fitting new systems and alterations to it. You'd cut R&D overhead in doing so, because you're working from existing concepts.

To refits:

AK-630 Deck - remove AK-630x4, replace with Kashtan x2.

Gun Deck - flesh out and fill over weather deck area, mount 2x A-130. Flat-back the superstructure to expand and enclose the bridge area. Forward hatches, exhaust ventilation louvres to reduce RCS. Estimate 2x9 batteries of tubes for Yakhont/Oniks missiles in area, flush to deck, full to sides, elevated up to the area.

Forward Deck - shorten rise forward extension to support use of SA-N-9 launchers, move RBU-6000 launchers aft, accomodate third A-130 mount forward. Remove blast deflectors to minimize RCS effect of superstructure - deflectors extraneous with cold launch SA-N-9 missiles.

RBU-6000 - two launchers aft as original, two launchers fore, mounted above new SSM battery.

Torpedo tubes - expand deck over launchers, put in hatches, redesign as fixed tubes for improved ASW effectiveness.

Radar - New modern radar sets, as per Pyotr Velikiy and Slava, including Palm Frond and Top Pair/Steer sets.


Go far enough, you're looking at a design that has long departed from the original Kara class, made a fair ammount of improvements even over Azov, and moves into the new era.

[350z]

Sauragnmon, I know what you're talking about. As a matter of fact Russia was planning to do something like this to the second surviving Kara on a Black sea. But looks like idea was abandon. Indeed Kara had nice hull but nowadays shipbuilders are focused on stealth type boats. Also I beleive that cruiser will instincts as a class really soon just like battleships some time ago. Regards.

[Sauragnmon]

Well, to Stealth, there's two edges a Kara has on, say, a Ticon - Lower Profile, and she could be sealed up - half of my rebuild would reduce the RCS by a chunk by sealing up the outer deck areas and reducing the radar reflective area.

Equally to note, Iowa in all her massive size, had a RCS the size of a Ticon. Saying something?

Cruisers taking a hit like that, would be prophetic more of the beancounters than the loss of necessity. A Cruiser can serve as better support, and just carries more to the fight. Even then, Battleships are only dead because people forget the newer, more current paradigm that exists, and the ammount of new changes to the paradigm in the last 10 years. Sure, Iowa was in service in the 90's, but she was Old, Long in the Tooth, and even then, half of her equipment was still in the 40's. Modern equipment would change that paradigm in spades.

[Neptune]

Sure I remember you Andrey, just didn't know if your real name was known on the board.

Saura, it's often much easier to design a new hull to fit new equipment rather than redesign an old hull. You have to take in account that a hull has a designed draft, that means you have a designed weight. Whatever weight you take out of the ship, you have to put back. Occasionally, with large rebuilds, the volumes aren't fitting with those weights. Adding sloped sides to achieve stealth is quite a lot of extra steel, hence relatively lots of weight. That is also why I doubted the change of 76mm to 130mm, I think the turrets of the Ak-130 are much larger and much heavier. Stability is another issue, you'd want to keep the thing stable, adding lots of weight on top will definitaly cause less stability (which isn't a disaster if your starting stability is ok, but if the ship is already instable, it might become worrysome).
That is why it's better to gather your weapons and equipment and build a hull around it. You have your weights and volumes, then you can decide which draft you want and you can start picking your optimal length, beam and hull shape to fit.
The Russians did a lot of redesigning in the Black Sea fleet, but that often ust incorporated one system, just to test that system.

[Will J]

So will did you ever follow up with a Kresta Build? If not get back to me. What scale would you build?

To be honest I haven't made a model just for me for....god I don't know how long. Thats what happens when you mix business with pleasure . But now at least I'm settling into a big resin casting contract with a wargames company so I can start to separate hobby modelling from business modelling. I have some pretty nice plans for Peter the Great, Kiev and a basic RC Slava that I might build just to get back into the techniques. But the advatage of doing it in business is that I can just give a part I need 300 of to one of the casters and say "can you whip up some of these for me?" Or I can do it myself on weekends or evenings. Basically, it is nice to have the machinery and resources at hand to make really nice models......even if I don't get to make many for myself....

Will.

[Sauragnmon]

OK, got another question for the Soviet Navy fans out there... about the Kerch.

I'm looking things over, and I'm left to wonder - what's the big planar array in place of her Top Sail radar? It looks like a Top Plate on drugs, and I can't seem to see it on any other cruiser. Is it some form of upgrade? Is it possibly a development to replace Top Pair on other ships in the LR 3D Air Search field?

I'm just curious about that, and thoughts of upgrading a Kara continue in my head.

[carr]

..

[Sauragnmon]

Interesting. In reading, having found the name thanks to you Bill, the Flat Screen seems to have actually Lower performance over the Top Sail - this leads me to wonder if that's not sound reasoning why the Top Pair set remains in service on the other major combatants. Might be the combination of Top Sail and Big Net that give the more effective performance maybe. What source I could find, the Flat Screen doesn't do much better than Top Plate.

[carr]

..

[Sauragnmon]

*thunk*

Dangit, I Know your name's Bob too - I was having one of those days, and I know too many Bill's so if I'm not careful I hit the B and my hands just type Bill by habit. Sorry about that Bob.