Project 1080 (Soviet Union)

Triton

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,701
Reaction score
2,888
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Soviet Navy Project 1080 ballistic missile cruiser. The intention was to create a land-attack capability similar to that offered by a US Navy aircraft carrier. Design work was begun in 1970 by Neva PKB.

General Characteristics

Displacement: 15,000 to 16,000 tons
Length: 215 meters (705 feet)
Beam: 26 meters (85 feet)
Draft: ?
Maximum speed: 30 to 32 knots
Endurance: 30 days
Crew: 450 to 500

Propulsion: Gas turbines?, 92,000 SHP, 2 shafts, 2 screw propellers

Armament:
* 200 Elbrus-M missiles (50 each in four cells)
* 64 3K95 Kinzhal surface-air-missile (8 launchers with 8 missiles)
* 2 x 2 76.2-mm AK-726 dual-purpose guns
* ? 30-mm Zak AK-630 guns
* 2 x 12 RBU-6000 Smerch-2 anti-submarine rockets
* 144 RGB-60 unguided depth charges

Embarked aircraft: 2 Kamov Ka-25 helicopters, NATO reporting name "Hormone"

Line drawing of one of the last design concepts of Project 1080 from Alternate Ships of the Imperial Russian and Soviet Navy (rough translation of the title) by Aleksey Nikolayevich Sokolov .

Post rewritten on 11/13/2009 with additional information.

Source: "Project 1080" page at
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atrinaflot.narod.ru%2Findex.htm&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate
 

Attachments

  • 1080.jpg
    1080.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 3,240
Triton said:
Project 1080 circa 1975 to 1980 from the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

Soviet Arsenal ship concept ? That midships feature looks like a "Workers Cooperative Missile Farm" or some such....

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 
Any word on the type of missile? Looks like 200 SS-N-9s which would ruin any carrier's day though how you could get that thing close enough to launch them is beyond me.
 
According to "snake65" at the Warship Projects Discussion Boards 3.0 the ship was a design by Nevsky PKB.

The ship was designed for Elbrus land attack missiles intended to replace Tochka-S missiles. Elbrus was designed by MIT and was 9.7x1.1 meters, 7600 kg and 1000 km range. Elbrus was aborted when MIT was switched to design Pioneer MRBM.
So, 1080 was in effect a land-attack arsenal ship. It's architecture by the way looks quite similar to 1941 intelligence gathering ship. It's possible, that the hull was started and later used for unique 1941.
Click to expand...
http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3080&mforum=warshipprojects

I thought it was a very interesting design because it resembles the US Navy and DARPA Arsenal Ship, so I decided to share it. The line drawing comes from the book whose cover image I have attached below. I was hoping that our Russian friends might have a copy of this book and might tell us more about this concept.

The Russian title roughly translates to Alternate Ships of the Imperial Russian and Soviet Navy by Aleksey Nikolayevich Sokolov.
 

Attachments

  • SovietNavyBook.jpg
    SovietNavyBook.jpg
    153 KB · Views: 949
I've often wondered if these could be used as bait. With that much firepower it would be a very high priority targeted in comparison to the construction cost. Just place it somewhere surrounded by light screening ships and attack submarines and watch the enemy's aircraft and ships break upon your little trap.

At the very least it would divert some of the attackers away from the Kirov and Kuznetsov class battle groups.
 
Having looked at the stated source of this, I am curious as to where it came from.

The drawing appears to use drawing conventions present in many of Norman Friedman's Illustrated histories for the USN. The architecture of the ship above and below the waterline seems to follow American styles and layouts and there are what looks like four Mark 29 NATO Sea Sparrow box launchers on the upper deck, one in each of the four corners of the ship.

This is not to say that this couldn't be a variant of Project 1080. What I'm saying is that the style in which it is drawn seems to suggest otherwise. If it is an Amercan design then is it a hitherto undicussed USN Arsenal Ship proposal?

Hoping someone has an answer for this one.................

Putting on my bulletproof clothes, now.........

Diving into the bunker......................
 
Wow, the line drawing identified at the Russian web site as an early Project 1080 design concept certianly resembles the US Navy SABMIS artist's conception. The SABMIS ship seems to have similar layout and dimensions to the Project 1080 ship. It is possible that the previously posted inboard profile may in fact be the SABMIS. Come to think of it, it also looks like a design for the arsenal ship and the style appears similar to drawings produced by the US Navy Bureau of Ships (BuShips).
 
I would say that the drawing from ATRINA is indeed SABMIS but mis-identified as a variant of Project 1080 by the originator of the page. It matches up too well.

RLBH, do you know if there is any other info out there on SABMIS concept?

Thanks in advance.

B)
 
Triton said:
Soviet Navy Project 1080 ballistic missile cruiser. The intention was to create a land-attack capability similar to that offered by a US Navy aircraft carrier. Design work was begun in 1970 by Neva PKB.

General Characteristics

Displacement: 15,000 to 16,000 tons
Length: 215 meters (705 feet)
Beam: 26 meters (85 feet)
Draft: ?
Maximum speed: 30 to 32 knots
Endurance: 30 days
Crew: 450 to 500

Propulsion: Gas turbines?, 92,000 SHP, 2 shafts, 2 screw propellers

Armament:
* 200 Elbrus-M missiles (50 each in four cells)
* 64 3K95 Kinzhal surface-air-missile (8 launchers with 8 missiles)
* 2 x 2 76.2-mm AK-726 dual-purpose guns
* ? 30-mm Zak AK-630 guns
* 2 x 12 RBU-6000 Smerch-2 anti-submarine rockets
* 144 RGB-60 unguided depth charges

Embarked aircraft: 2 Kamov Ka-25 helicopters, NATO reporting name "Hormone"

Line drawing of one of the last design concepts of Project 1080 from Alternate Ships of the Imperial Russian and Soviet Navy (rough translation of the title) by Aleksey Nikolayevich Sokolov .

Post rewritten on 11/13/2009 with additional information.

Source: "Project 1080" page at
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translat...arod.ru/index.htm&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate
Click to expand...
Me here, I think that it could be somewhat viable with some refurbishing. Swap out Elbruses for Iskanders, AK-630s for AK-630M2/Kashtans, and AK-726 for A-190/AK-176 guns, and it should be a pretty decent missile truck
 
acegeek9992 said:
Me here, I think that it could be somewhat viable with some refurbishing. Swap out Elbruses for Iskanders, AK-630s for AK-630M2/Kashtans, and AK-726 for A-190/AK-176 guns, and it should be a pretty decent missile truck
Click to expand...
The Russians are currently learning some hard but visually spectacular lessons about ammunition storage, I don't think this design makes the cut.
 
World B4 said:
The Russians are currently learning some hard but visually spectacular lessons about ammunition storage, I don't think this design makes the cut.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would. In the Soviet-era Russian tank designs you are probably referring to, there is no place to vent explosive gasses except through the crew compartment. For the VLS launchers, Russian designers likely learned some lessons from the loss of the BPK Otvazhny. Some of these lessons are visible on the Soviet era ships that had VLS systems in that there are doors and caps to vent through to the atmosphere.
 
M. A. Rozon said:
Perhaps it would. In the Soviet-era Russian tank designs you are probably referring to, there is no place to vent explosive gasses except through the crew compartment. For the VLS launchers, Russian designers likely learned some lessons from the loss of the BPK Otvazhny. Some of these lessons are visible on the Soviet era ships that had VLS systems in that there are doors and caps to vent through to the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
I’m saying that loading all those tubes is time consuming and must be done in port, a long range strike with uavs, usvs, missiles, or some combination of such at the tail end of the process would be less akin to a turret toss and more akin to a major ammunition dump explosion. The secondary detonation would disintegrate most of the ship, anything around it would eat a Beirut style shock wave, and the various components of the bridge, bow, stern, and any ammunition within that aren’t simply gone will be propelled at speed into whatever was directly in front and behind of it… no wreck to dive to, no bodies to bury at sea. Just a burning harbor, hundreds of tbis, a humiliating video on twitter, and a lesson about building a really tempting target
 
World B4 said:
I’m saying that loading all those tubes is time consuming and must be done in port, a long range strike with uavs, usvs, missiles, or some combination of such at the tail end of the process would be less akin to a turret toss and more akin to a major ammunition dump explosion. The secondary detonation would disintegrate most of the ship, anything around it would eat a Beirut style shock wave, and the various components of the bridge, bow, stern, and any ammunition within that aren’t simply gone will be propelled at speed into whatever was directly in front and behind of it… no wreck to dive to, no bodies to bury at sea. Just a burning harbor, hundreds of tbis, a humiliating video on twitter, and a lesson about building a really tempting target
Click to expand...
In reply, I would say that, at least for the first deployment of the ship, loading would likely have taken place before the beginning of hostilities, unless a potential enemy opts for a pre-emptive strike. A tricky business at best. After that, I see the relevance of what you're saying.

All navies warships unable to replenish on the move must contend with this issue. Air defence and missile defence of ports has become a more relevant issue in the face of such attack.
 
World B4 said:
I’m saying that loading all those tubes is time consuming and must be done in port, a long range strike with uavs, usvs, missiles, or some combination of such at the tail end of the process would be less akin to a turret toss and more akin to a major ammunition dump explosion. The secondary detonation would disintegrate most of the ship, anything around it would eat a Beirut style shock wave, and the various components of the bridge, bow, stern, and any ammunition within that aren’t simply gone will be propelled at speed into whatever was directly in front and behind of it… no wreck to dive to, no bodies to bury at sea. Just a burning harbor, hundreds of tbis, a humiliating video on twitter, and a lesson about building a really tempting target
Click to expand...
So you declare any VLS system to be a deathtrap? :) Including American Mk-41 VLS? :)

In reality, modern warheads are usually made insensitive enough to survive hits without detonating, and missile cells could be separated from each other, so the destruction of one missile would not affect others.
 
Dilandu said:
So you declare any VLS system to be a deathtrap? :) Including American Mk-41 VLS? :)

In reality, modern warheads are usually made insensitive enough to survive hits without detonating, and missile cells could be separated from each other, so the destruction of one missile would not affect others.
Click to expand...
Also, there's the example of the American Mk57 PVLS, where there's a strong armor bulkhead on the inside of the set of cells and a much thinner piece of steel on the outside. Which tends to blow any damaged cells outwards not into the ship.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom