Russia's Massive Nuclear-Powered Warship That Smokes 

Just started the video, thanks for the heads-up for the sponsorship 😅

Wait, is steam not the primary method of propulsion when using a nuclear reactor as a heat source?

@@triple7988 I think the nuclear energy get converted into electric first (so it's able to be used by on-ship equipment), and then gets converted into kinetic by the ships motors

Not sure I understand the point of retiring a ship like this during a war. Their plans might be pushed out a bit.

Not what I think. That's for sure. 4:37 I thought I've paid for the f....reaking YT Premium to get rid of the commercials. BUT NO! 🤮

Yeah, the USN has had the same capability since the 1950's except they just skipped the first stage and went straight to rocket launched, which is why it's name is ASROC (Anti-Submarine Rocket) though it could parachute a nuclear depth change as well. We've even modernized the system into the 21st century with our newest homing torpedo and have made it VLS capable. Maybe that's why the Soviets chose a torpedo launch? Not enough real estate left for another VLS or deck launcher box, so chose hull doors and torpedos.

The Soviets and now Ruskies have always loved fringe ideas because when they're the only one doing it, they can pretend they're the smartest and running cutting edge technology no one else can match. When in reality most of their (USSR/RU) "cutting edge" tech was stuff that'd already been thought about in the West but not chosen because we found an either better, simpler/easier, cheaper way to do it; or all of the above. Like the USSR/RU Rocket torpedo, and no not their torpedo-rocket-torpedo torpedo. They have a submarine launched supercavitating torpedo that burns Rocket fuel for propulsion and has a gas generator at the nose to create a gas bubble around it, essentially removing the water and making it a regular missile, just "under" water. If all the stats are to be believed (General rule is to assume the West is low lowballing their top specs to hide true capabilities, and Eastern-Bloc, China, and now Russia is overstating them) this allows it to travel as fast as 200-250 knots. Sounds pretty good, and is, but it's loud as hell and once launched all stealth goes out the window. Another example is Hypersonic missiles, Russia made such a MASSIVE deal about their "Hypersonic" Air Launched Ballistic Missile, the Kh-47M2 "Kinzhal". The joke for people that know about that stuff is almost EVERY Ballistic missile is Hypersonic by default due to how and where they're used/work. Even the OG, the V-2 "Rocket" (It's actually a single stage long range guided Ballistic Missile, but that's besides the point) is Hypersonic at its operating altitude. So hyping up a ballistic missle as some new "Hypersonic super weapon" is just giggle worthy chest thumping by RU that gets regurgitated by the media for their quota of fear mongering. (P.S. The US has been able to air launch Minuteman Ib's by para-yeeting them out the back of C-5 Galaxys since the 70's and that's a legit, intact, whole-ass ICBM, not just a TBM/MRBM. We just didn't expand it beyond the successful tests due to security concerns, needing more R&D, and Russia would've had a shit fit about it if we essentially made every heavy-lift transport plane a potential nuclear bomber. However the capability exists and if needed could be fully developed and carried out. Although as we've upgraded the entire ICBM stockpile to Minuteman III's, we'd need to find or develop a replacement for the Minuteman Ib we tested it with in the 70's) The newer (Then V-2) SCUD is "Hypersonic" as well, and yet we shot down 25% of them in the Persian Gulf War when the MIM-104 Patriot and its PAC-1 and PAC-2 missiles ability to due so was unrefined and mostly theoretical outside a few test. Since then hundreds of software updates and overall system improvements to things like the FCS, Radar, etc, has exponentially refined this ability. The improved PAC-2 Variants since then (Like GEM and GEM+) are even better, and the PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE are EVEN better with the PAC-3's tracking, guidance, and maneuverability being so good they went with a Kinetic Hit-to-Kill warhead to completely smash a Ballistic/Cruise missile by literally just crashing into it at Mach Classified. They also have what they call a "Lethality Enhancer" which is a small blast charge to radially expel 24 low speed Tungsten fragments around the missile near impact to increase its cross-section, enhancing kill probability. Without the huge frag warhead this allowed them to miniaturize the missiles so you can stuff 15 PAC-3 or 12 PAC-3 MSE to a pod as opposed to only the 4 PAC-1/2's. This also gave them the ability to add an active radar to the PAC-3 missiles which lets the missile go pitbull and guide itself once it's close enough to the target. BACK TO THE POINT: Multiple KH-47M2 "Kinzhal" missiles have already been intercepted by Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine war, using donated MIM-104 Patriot battery's armed with PAC-2 through PAC-3 MSE interceptors around Kyiv. So Russia's "New expensive super duper unstoppable missile" has already been easily intercepted multiple times by missiles the US has had for 10-20+ years. And the ability for the Patriot system to do so was once again considered "Certainly possible, but only theoretical". So once again, the Russian systems performance was revealed to be overstated, and the Western/US systems performance turned out to be greater then what's been officially/publicly released.

@@pyro1047 The P-8 can deploy rocket propelled torpedoes as well.

Meanwhile Americans: ya'll need torpedo tubes ?

The definition of words matter! You mean rocket DELIVERED torpedoes. I don't believe the USN has rocket propelled torpedoes, though there may have been a classified development I don't know about. Haven't heard about anything like an ASROC or (cancelled) Sea-Lance for the P8 either.

I don't think you're kidding, but 😂🤣 *_DAMN!_* THAT'S some funny 💩 right there!

@HE-pu3nt wins the entire Internet today! 😊

Add to that the fact that nowadays it spends it's time in drydock and being on fire occasionally, you can further lower it's average speed.

@@WilliamRWarrenJr sadly for the Northern Fleet, it is not a joke.

It's TRUE!! @@WilliamRWarrenJr

Just what you want when trying to land an aircraft on a short moving runway.

😂😂

The Russian aircraft carrier is its version of the distraction Carnifex. The smoke is to draw enemy fire away from its actual functional ships.

don't forget about its Reliable Outboard Motors (Tugboats).

not likely, it has new boilers installed that won't give so much smoke.

Orcs like dakka

I agree with everything else but range?

Every Major navy is actually developing such ships 13k+ displacement. And arming them to teeth for land attack duties.

bcs they design it for nuclear war in mind, so logistic may out of question

well yeah, if you build a killdozer as an atheist nation vs a christian bunch of cultists then you need it to look the part, or they might fuck about and find out.. or is it just coincidence that the nation with 99% religion loving leaders just happens to not get along with the biggest bunch of atheists they can't control, look what they did to Germany after Ignaz Semmelweis told the world of medicine to wash their hands, that was only 3 Bidens ago, they need their order and progress is scary.

those ramjet missiles are awesome. the only thing even cooler are the ramjet artillery shells in development... that apparently use solid fuel, which is bizarre.

Many thanks for this update ! 👍🤝🙂

Crikey- so that’s why even the Kusnetsov is classified as a cruiser? The flight deck does mess with perception - another example is that at the waterline, the USS Gerald Ford and the Queen Mary 2 have the same beam at 134 ft (mind you the Ford stretches out to 256ft at the flight deck while the QM2 is only 147ft)

@@patricia1333 Kiev-class was also classified as aircraft carrying cruiser.

Montreaux convention i believe, signed in France in the 30's, which forbids vessels above 15k tons crossing the Bosphorus straits, and no carriers what-so-ever.

"Moscow" was exposed alone for treason.

No the moskva had the old ak630 not even ak630 2m The kirov have the kashtan system wich is 10 times bettee in every aspect

@@ali-haider5788 But the moskova is 2 years newer than the kirov class, being 1977 for the kirov and the moskova being 1979

@@e.hellbrand9707 Don't try to reason with a vatnik.

yeah i heard F-35 is also promoted as a Submarine, such an Advance technologies

I'm of that age and once sailed with the Iowa. It was amazing how steady it was in heavy seas as we bobbed around like apples.

@@vapoet I was stationed on a frigate. One turret on the New Jersey weight more than our ship 🙂

@@vapoet I had the view of USS Iowa from the flight deck of USS Eisenhower, both tied to Pier 12 in Norfolk. I was amazed at the her length being nearly that of Ike.

American propaganda working overtime now that the money is drying up and Russia is winning. Russia's been using the worst equipment and losing the war for the past two years on social media, yet there they still are fucking Nazi Ukrainians, the US and all of NATO😂...I know I'd be pretty pissed too😘🖕

I once had the privilege of landing my CH-46D on the deck of the New Jersey off the coast of California during a RIMPAC exercise (probably RIMPAC 88 but I could be wrong). We had to orbit and wait while their main battery fired its last broadsides. Man what a sight! I forget what we were bringing them but they sure were grateful. They gave us a great box lunch to eat in the cockpit and patches for our flight jackets, which I still have. But to be honest the most heavily armed battleships ever built would not defeat modern cruise missiles with hard target penetrator warheads like the BROACH warhead. Those would cut through an Iowa class easily and do severe damage. Energetic materials have come a long way since WWII.

They mean that only the few rubles leftover after embezzlement by the oligarchs are left for battleships.

If we include the tonnage of those yachts Russia would be the biggest fleet by far.

@@theworkshopwhisperer.5902why tf would you include the yachts💀

US oligarchs have fleets of yachts, jets & even rockets too. They're both capitalists.

@@scotthill1600 it's a joke about how many super yachts have been made with Russian naval money.

I like your situational awareness.

The Russian surface ship reactors have problems in tropical waters where sea surface temperatures can exceed 30 degrees C (86 F). The oil fired superheaters allow the ship to create superheated dry steam for maximum power, something their reactors along cannot do. If you ever wondered why the Russians have never once sailed any of their big nuclear powered icebreakers to the Antarctic, this is the reason. Their reactors cannot operate safely on hot tropical water.

i think its had if they are not active

yep, OSA launchers were replaced by Kinzhal on Piotr Velikiy.

He does mention that it's CONAS later, which makes the original claim even more puzzling. Maybe it's because in virtually every bit of footage out there, it looks like its cruising speed 10 knots 😄

Same goes for American carriers, at least regarding using both reactors. Not sure if they can run diesels at the same time as the reactors tho

@@LitmusPapyrus There is no combining gear on the Nimitz, and the diesel emergency generators cannot drive the main shafts in any way. They are meant for backup electrical power for the ship.

Oh look we have another American armchair general here 🤓

@@Burningarrow7 Considering what he said was correct, was there a point to your comment besides "I don't like Americans"? Besides, it would be armchair admiral, not general. We are talking about ships here, after all. 🙄

The last couple of generations wouldn't join up anyway. They'd much rather be out there pushing DEI and protesting for the protection of terrorists. The last two or three generations (most of them) make me want to puke when I watch their antics in the real world.

Yeah this is what really does it, the crew, technology, maintenance and finances to operate large, nuclear warships is pretty intense and you're better off using the nuclear ships to carry entire airbases around the world, or powering hidden submarines for months on end rather than pushing some guns around on ships that run just fine on conventional fuel

My guess would be that the maintainance is non-existant.

That's one possible reason for having so many of them. Even of some fail, by chance some will work, and so it's not completely useless.

@zolikoff Or every time a weapon system broke, instead of repairing it they just added a new one.

Most likely that the systems did work when they were installed, but the constant lack of maintenance means that they don't operate properly anymore.

@@doggo_woo Honestly, even the idea of them working properly when they were first installed is probably being overly generous.

Agreed, she does look good. But as a radar target, she'd stand out like a light house.

I really have no confidence in their defense capabilities, because they simply aren;t tested enough. The US navy is constantly testing with one ship or another. And as we have seen, the Russian sailors are never trained well enough to maintain their ships.

not sure about single rocket, but 2 rockets + 1 drone could be enough I think

Shush~! (They'll hear you ...)@@vapoet

But you still have to deliver that rocket or drone ... not always easy. And the big ships can take a helluva thumping before going down.

Now try actually hitting it. Without hypersonics.

So are the American ones.

​@@nickinthelead7904 they are friggin nuclear powered.

My toddler came out as trans

@@ilikeleek4087He might be talking about all the planes. Even so, those are nothing compared to the kuznetsov

​@@ilikeleek4087 the vast majority of US ships run on gas/diesel

One depth charge, many dead fish float to surface!

​@@CorePathwayeasy food on table lol

Yet they need the NATO to bring Russia down while hiding behind Ukrainians. How embarrassing.😂

It's not manly enough to do things the easy way.

they just took a sub launched anti sub missile and put it on the ship, along with the launch tube.

@@xsu-is7vq I'm just surprised that it works, being designed to start off underwater.

The "V" specifically means heavier than air. The Zeppelins had some other designation. Airplane squadrons also use the V, as as VA, VF, and of course VM... The blimp squadrons used some other designation. But considering my track record in other comments on this video (0-2) I may be wrong.

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 I didn't know that V meant heavier than air for aircraft (thanks!)... hadn't even thought of that. (Also, VP, with P for patrol. My gramps flew in VP17, in P2V Neptunes (There's that V again!) But, I think (assume that) designations for aircraft and ships are unrelated, or maybe it's like the army's 'M' designation; The Abrams tank is the M1, and the Garand rifle was the M1. There is an M1 helmet, too. So many Ms... CV, intuitively, seems like it should mean 'Carrier, aViation', or just 'Aircraft Carrier', rather than the 'Cruiser' which it is (or orginally was) The 'V' in CV is down too 'CA' having already been in use as 'Cruiser, Armored', and the USN perhaps didn't want two different ship types with the same class abbreviation/designation. Cheers!

@@bholdr----0 I had assumed the Navy chose "V" because there were two claims to "A" for aviation -- heavier than air and lighter than air. But that was a long time ago and lighter than air may have seemed like it had a real future which today seems obviously wrong.

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 Yup, that's how I understand the 'V'... and: Lighter than air- you are right on about that too; It is, now, an obviously poor idea. BUT, there are some misanthropic (Quixotic?) startups trying to bring rigid airships back... While the only use case that I can see (other than advertising, a la the Goodyear blimp) is as an ultra-expensive cruise ship in the air. (Which, tbh, seems like it would be pretty cool.) Cheers.

@@bholdr----0 I just looked up "us navy blimps" and the Wikipedia article says they were used by "ZP-14" -- there's the answer! Must be for Zeppelin? But the blimps were K-1 etc of the K class. The rigid airships were ZR-1 etc. I wonder if there ever were plans for a CZ lighter than air carrier.

You're correct about 3:39. We didn't word it properly.

Finally, agreed about having a single, hugely expensive, visible, and doubtfully reliable nor capable vessel(one big target against a saturation attack by modern stealth weapons) compared to many more smaller and cheaper vessels which in combination are just as effective. EW triangulation is just one example against this principle. We saw their warships operating alone around SE Asia, and we always operated in a task unit of at least 2. Simply a carryover of the Cold War, and Russia still trying to flex. Badly.

​@@NotWhatYouThinkAmerican propaganda working overtime now that the money is drying up and Russia is winning. Russia's been using the worst equipment and losing the war for the past two years on social media, yet there they still are fucking Nazi Ukrainians, the US and all of NATO😂...I know I'd be pretty pissed too😘🖕

@@NoName-ds5uqthis Kirov class design is a typical product of the soviet era : "is it big? Make the next one f* big!". All of these designs have been developed with the "one final blow" on mind, and not designed for sustained wars. But even for this partizan style of war, the Sovietunion did not have enough money - and russia today has much less than the Soviets had. Russia is 1.5% of the world economy (before 2022) - it is a negligible, annoying cohabitant who needs to be shown his place.

There are 195 recognized countries on this planet, most of them are probably pretty damn poor in comparison to the USA or Europe. To contribute just 1.5% to the world economy is amazingly bad. @@spxram4793

Russia doesn’t have a nuclear aircraft carrier

Russia does not have any nuclear-power carriers but they do have similar powered submarines. Remember Kursk with all crews lost, russian warships r dangerous to the enemies as well to their own crews. 😂😅😊

Russia* speak english properly

​​@@sebastian-FX357Z1Yet they captured tons of NATO weapons and tanks successfully.😂 It's all over the news.

As if it was allowed to get close to an American CVN. (300miles "close")

Now you see that the fear was wasted; if they launched something at you the missile would have blown up in it's own launch tube and taken out the ship - parts of the system would have been sold for cases of vodka.

@@Kr0N05🤦🏼‍♂️

@@YYukova While a facepalm is a warranted response to that claim during the heyday of the USSR, we're talking about the Russian Federation here. All I'll say is 'remember the Moskva...'

@@Kr0N05 dope propaganda you're spreading 😂get your sources straight

Pressurised water reactors make superheated steam as their primary circuit is at extreme pressures allowing the steam created in the turbine circuit to be significantly above 100C I dont know if the russians use pwr or boiling water reactors which run at lower pressure, but apparently make enough heat for a power plant

😉😏

Yes, it could be an environment disaster!!

No, just as a larger target.

@@vapoet And an easy target for western subs at that. 😂🤣😅🤣😂

​@@Never2late4UA Virginia-class could probably remove this thing from service within days of a war breaking out. Mk. 48 torpedoes are nothing to laugh at.

​@@Never2late4UUSA is a weak don't compare that with Russia

​@@Never2late4U Yet the west built the same sitting ducks that had to be escorted by 5 ships

No "no smoking" signs near the compartments where the ordnance is stored😉

Come on, Admiral Nakhimov is soon leaving docks with state of the art weapons including hypersonic. Then Peter the Great will be docked for the same upgrade.

@@TheRVSN Leaving the dock under its own power, or do they need a tugboat to move it?

@@brucetucker4847 Ask the shipyard.

​@@TheRVSNconsidering they've delayed her return to service 3 times now I question if those upgrades for the Veliky will be worth it. What's the point in upgrading your old ship with modern weapons if by the time it returns to service those weapons are easy to stop?

​@@TheRVSNOh yeah and they've announced Pyotr Veliky is going to be retired from service. Looks like it'll just be Nakhimov.

That's why they have over 700 personal on board for the maintenance plus the ship is very big and have good working condition

not confirmed for now, we'll see how it goes

upgraded from coal to bunker c?

its true!

The Moskva's two sisters visited Norfolk and San Diego respectively in 1989 and they were open for tours. A noteworthy feature was the complete absence of any damage control equipment, even fire extinguishers, anywhere visitors were allowed. If you have ever been on a US Navy or Japan Maritime Self Defense Force ship you know the passageways are lined with fire hoses, applicators, axes, power tools, de-watering pumps, wooden shoring, plugs, clamps to sea leaky pipes, low light cameras and oxygen breathing apparatus. Every compartment has battery powered battle lanterns and sound powered phones that work just fine when the power is out. None of these were visible on Moskva's sisters. Damage Control Russian Navy style appears to be abandoning ship and letting it sink.

TRUE@@philsalvatore3902

you do know they are really low on large cargo ships do you? If war would break out in Taiwan usa could do nothing.

don't forget our N C O's

And all while failing their last 6 audits, failing to account for 60% of their assets, failing to account for almost half a trillion $ each year, of graft and fraud, stealing from the American people, for fake wars, expending our troops for graft and profiteering. USA! USA!

Just like how you sustained in Vietnam and Afghanistan

American propaganda working overtime now that the money is drying up and Russia is winning. Russia's been using the worst equipment and losing the war for the past two years on social media, yet there they still are fucking Nazi Ukrainians, the US and all of NATO😂...I know I'd be pretty pissed too😘🖕

The Kuznetzov task group at this point is 50% tugboats, 10% involuntary submarines, and 40% propaganda potential (notice there are no actual warships)

but now they can say: it can sink anytime.

😂😂😂😂

The shipwreck might be able to sustain a hit from older SAM which use blast-fragmentation warhead. The later SM-2 and SM-6 have enlarged warhead, while the SM-3 uses a direct-hit kinetic warhead. Those would easily destroy the shipwreck in air.

Yeah, it's not even close. Though it's funny, I was looking at a webpage GlobalFirePower, and they list the top navies by "strength" as follows: 1. China 2. Russia 3. North Korea 4. U.S.A. 5. Sweden Isn't that cute? Bless their little regarded (sub g for t) hearts. Now, let's look at displacement in tonnage. 1. United States - 3,509,640 2. Russia - 1,033,480 3. China - 1,032,225 4. Japan - 470,900 5. United Kingdom - 353,020 Add up 2-5 = 2,889,625 and it's still well short of the U.S. Don't know how current those numbers are, if they account for the destroyed Russian ships, or how many of China's fishing boat navy is above water, or their nuclear sub caught by their own sub-trap. If you just count the tonnage of nuclear submarines for the U.S. alone, it's not far off the other's total navy displacement. And, I don't think we even need to mention nuclear aircraft carriers, that can actually launch fully loaded fighters, that also don't need ski-jumps and tugboats. Then when you account for technology, maintenance, and crew competency, it only gets much much worse for the others. Then to go further, the U.S. actually has true allies who like each other (not despicable evil frenemies), who make up the majority of the top 20 navies, and they extensively train together in large scale exercises and can integrate their systems well. It doesn't stop at the navy comparisons, either. F around and find out!

The sophistocation of the technology doesn't matter one whit if your crew isn't alert enough to engage the systems. I am quite certain the Moskva would not have been sunk if it was being operated by a sufficiently well trained crew.

@@panpiper I agree... The tech is there, the leadership and crew were not... Though, apparently, the Moskva's defensive systems were very poorly maintained, but that also comes down to the crew and the maintainers. The hardware was there. I wonder if the Pytor Veliky (sp?) is any better in that regard... it's perhaps a 'the chain is only as strong as the weakest link' thing, eh? (The channel 'Sub Brief' had a good vid on the subject, including the abysmal readiness reports about the Moskva's defensive systems- and crew training).

@@panpiper В теории, на практике -- нет. Проблема была у Москвы в одном радаре, а также отсутствии прикрытия. Ну и да, содействие Р-8/Е-3 для попадания в цель.