Kynda class cruisers ( sorry not really an aviation question)

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 545

I notice that the kynda class cruisers were operational till the end of 1990

what was the purpose of keeping an old ship like that operational till then ? when all equivalent enemy ships were armed with Harpoons which was superior to shaddock in all except range ?

The only purposes I could think of was

1-Kynda would be used as "single shot " ships will launch all their 8 missiles way outside the range of Harpoon and then hopefully try to run like hell for homeport or would soak up Harpoons intended for more modern ships

2-They could be used in ASUW role against those surface ships NOT armed with Harpoon or other ASM, so they cannot return fire

3-They will use their legacy shaddocks in a land attack role ?

4-They were reserves that carried Nuke armed Shaddocks which could in a salvo wipe out a flotilla of ships if successful or perish trying to do so

any thoughts ? ideas ?

Original post

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 137

P-35 has a range of 250 km straight. It was enough for the 80ies. And it could use a nuclear warhead. Kyndas never were alone, so they had not to scoot after fire their Pityorkas.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 545

^ 250 km striaght meaning w/o OTH guidance ?
but the flight profile of P-35 was such that it was very easy to intercept for lets says sea sparrow SAM ?

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 137

BTW, the Kyndas had eight ready missiles and eight reload missiles.
Sea Sparrow was really effective against missiles. The early Sea Sparrow with Mk115 director was man steered and not able to shoot down missiles. The more modern Mk91 director may be theoretical able to do it, but I am sure it was not really effective against missiles. The flight path of P-35 was unfavorable for Sea Sparrow and better suited for Terrier and Tartar. The P-35 flew with 1.3 mach, the reaction time was very short for Sea Sparrow. P-35 flew around 100m above sea for the last miles to the ship. It was removed in 2003. There were enough replacements for P-35 around in the Soviet/Russian Navy much earlier and why it was not replaced? It seems it was still effective.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 545

BTW, the Kyndas had eight ready missiles and eight reload missiles.

but I've read they could not reload at sea
Sea Sparrow was really effective against missiles.

Did you mean NOT very effective
The early Sea Sparrow with Mk115 director was man steered and not able to shoot down missiles. The more modern Mk91 director may be theoretical able to do it, but I am sure it was not really effective against missiles
.
When do you think the more modern Mk91 director was common ? in the late 80s

The flight path of P-35 was unfavorable for Sea Sparrow and better suited for Terrier and Tartar. The P-35 flew with 1.3 mach, the reaction time was very short for Sea Sparrow. P-35 flew around 100m above sea for the last miles to the ship. It was removed in 2003. There were enough replacements for P-35 around in the Soviet/Russian Navy much earlier and why it was not replaced? It seems it was still effective.

So sea sparrow was essentially point defence ? could an average 80s DD or FFG with 1 sea sparrow launcher with 2 directors shoot down 6 -8 P-35s ? if not then it seems like each kynda can knock out two DD or FFG !

BTW thank you so much for answering my questions I really appreciate the valuable info esp about the P-35

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 137

Sorry, I mean Sea Sparrow was NOT really effective against missiles.

I thing, from mid 70ies the most ships had Mk91 directors. Sea Sparrows was a point defence system against aircrafts. It could not really shoots down P-35. But in the 70ies there were some sort of soft defence available like chaff and ECM. I don't know how prone P-35 was to chaff or ECM.

Profile picture for user Rockall

Member for

8 years

Posts: 85

What a curious question.

Admiral Golovko was the Black Sea Flagship, long after it was a viable combat asset. The Command Function and Afloat HQ for the Admiral was what kept this 'in service' for so long.
There were only four of them and while they kept their crews operational while they were at sea I doubt that they would have been considered 'first-rate' combatants by the Soviet Navy commanders of the time.

Ten had been planned but they were too top-heavy and the Kresta which followed them was a much better handling ship. The Kyndas were built, they worked, so they were kept in use, no big mystery here.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 545

kyndas could launch all their 8 missiles in a single salvo , even by 1980s would this not be a significant threat to 2nd rate surface ships i.e those w/o standard SAM or AEGIS system ?