Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Share
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 862
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:16 pm

    A1RMAN wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:

    My guess, they will go with UKSK / Redut combo.

    I wouldn't be shocked if K would be modernized earlier than we'll see Redut. Laughing

    Oh, ha ha fucking ha.... Redut short & medium range is operational - if they are still having problems, its confined to the long range missiles.
    avatar
    A1RMAN

    Posts : 57
    Points : 59
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  A1RMAN on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:51 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    A1RMAN wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:

    My guess, they will go with UKSK / Redut combo.

    I wouldn't be shocked if K would be modernized earlier than we'll see Redut. Laughing

    Oh, ha ha fucking ha....  Redut short & medium range is operational - if they are still having problems, its confined to the long range missiles.

    Operational where?
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 641
    Points : 639
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  hoom on Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:48 pm

    By the book, Kuz even today shouldnt be able to enter Black Sea.
    By the book the status of K as a Capital ship not an Aircraft Carrier has been confirmed when Turkey previously allowed K to transit. (does anyone know whether its transited more than only the one time on the way out?)
    If alterations removed its official primary anti-ship role then it wouldn't sure.

    Side point: Subs are only allowed in if built outside heading to permanent base but didn't one of the new Kilos go out to shoot Kalibrs?
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Benya on Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:12 am

    Repair of heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov could cost 40 billion rubles

    A source in the defense-industrial complex disclosed the TASS details related to the repair of the aircraft carrying cruiser project 11435 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov." "In September Zvyozdochka will sign a contract with the fleet for the second stage of repairs with the modernization of Admiral Kuznetsov," he said.


    Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of project 11435 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" at the wall of the branch "35 SRZ" of JSC "TsS Zvezdochka", 09.03.2016 (c) fotografersha.livejournal.com



    "The transaction price has already been agreed upon - it is almost 40 billion rubles. The works will begin in the same month at the 35th shipyard in Roslyakovo near Murmansk, "the source added, adding that it is planned to complete them in the fourth quarter of 2020. TASS does not have an official confirmation of this information.


    As reported by "Kommersant", the ship "Admiral Kuznetsov" took part in the operation on the territory of Syria. The cruiser in the squadron entered the conflict zone. About 400 sorties were fired from the ship's deck. In RBC, it was estimated that the cost of the aircraft carrier's participation in the operation reached 10 billion rubles.

    Source: Arrow http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2564727.html (in russian, translated to english with Google Translator)



    That's a lot of money, but I don't know that how important this repair really is...
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 711
    Points : 715
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:44 pm

    When this is the only carrier they will have for another decade, the price justifies the means in this case
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3378
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  kvs on Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:59 pm

    To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.


    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 533
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:34 pm

    kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.



    It is third-quoter of the price of a new Ford class super carrier.

    The refurbishment of the Kuznetsov cost 35 fighter jet, the construction of the Ford cost 110-120 fighter jet.


    Last edited by Singular_Transform on Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5609
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:23 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.



    It is third-quoter of the price of a new Ford class super carrier.

    The refurbishment of the Kuznetsov cost 35 fighter jet, the construction of the Ford cost 1100-120 fighter jet.

    General overhaul of Reno 4 costs 120 USD... new Reno Megane costs 18.000... Suspect
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 533
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:50 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.



    It is third-quoter of the price of a new Ford class super carrier.

    The refurbishment of the Kuznetsov cost 35 fighter jet, the construction of the Ford cost 1100-120 fighter jet.

    General overhaul of Reno 4 costs 120 USD... new Reno Megane costs 18.000... Suspect
    sorry 40 vs 120.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 259
    Points : 261
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Modernization Details

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:51 am

    So, they won't expand the hangar bay by removing the Granit missile launchers which will be instead modified for Kalibrs- at this stage, there's more to be gained by doing so- i.e. save time, money, & increase the power projection potential, since after the refit she'll carry more Ash/LACMs, 12x3 per tube=36 total, a 24 increase, & 12 more than P.Velikiy CGN! https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Pyotr-Velikiy.jpg
    Just like the modernized Oscars. http://www.janes.com/article/60518/russia-initiates-multiyear-plan-to-modernise-oscar-ii-ssgns
    Also, the Su-33 will be retained in the air wing, at least for the time being. Any guesses for reason(s) why? Before, they planned to retire them.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 862
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:00 am

    kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.


    Further in the piece was this gem:

    "The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise."

    4 years and "several" billion... now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 641
    Points : 639
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  hoom on Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:39 am

    Upgrading to Kalibr is surprising given the persistence of the suggestion that the missiles would be replaced with bigger hangar.
    But I kinda like it better.

    It's one thing to rework the design to remove them, add more planes & associated stores when building a new ship like China is doing, it would probably be a huge effort to physically rework/relocate stuff to enable it on an existing ship.
    A full Kalibr/Poliment-Redut/Pantsir rework will have renewed status of K representing serious firepower on its own even without its aircraft. (at least assuming they ever get Poliment-Redut to work properly)
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5609
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:01 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.


    Further in the piece was this gem:

    "The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise."

    4 years and "several" billion...  now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....

    GW is few TIMES bigger vessel, with dozens of facilities Kuz never did and never will have that require overhaul, and overhaul is being performed in country where worker gets paid on average 20 times more than in Russia. Apples and oranges.

    Dont be silly seriously and compare such things.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 862
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:42 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:So, they won't expand the hangar bay by removing the Granit missile launchers which will be instead modified for Kalibrs- at this stage, there's more to be gained by doing so- i.e. save time, money, & increase the power projection potential, since after the refit she'll carry more Ash/LACMs, 12x3 per tube=36 total, a 24 increase, & 12 more than P.Velikiy CGN! https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Pyotr-Velikiy.jpg
    Just like the modernized Oscars. http://www.janes.com/article/60518/russia-initiates-multiyear-plan-to-modernise-oscar-ii-ssgns
    Also, the Su-33 will be retained in the air wing, at least for the time being. Any guesses for reason(s) why? Before, they planned to retire them.

    The Orlans/Kirovs have 20x Granits arranged as 4 x 5 grid, and the Nahkimov is trading them for 10x UKSK modules, arranged as 2 row of 5. ie for each pair of Granits, the Nahkimov gets 8x Oniks/Kalibre

    The Kuznetsov has 12x Granits arranged as 2 x 6 grid, so going by the Nahkimov upgrade, this suggests the K will received 6x UKSK, arranged as 1 row of 6.  That means 48 Oniks/Kalibre, not 36.

    (BTW the modernised Antei/Oscars "only" get 3x Oniks/Kalibre for each Granit launch tube as the conversion apparently keeps the existing tube and inserts a liner for carrying the Oniks/Kalibres).

    After the upgrade the K will have a VERY potent anti-ship/sub strike capability, even without factoring in her air wing.  She will be more than capable of defending herself against enemy surface/submarine units should it ever be required. She will truly deserve the designation as a heavy air-craft carrying missile cruiser.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 862
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:07 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.


    Further in the piece was this gem:

    "The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise."

    4 years and "several" billion...  now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....

    GW is few TIMES bigger vessel, with dozens of facilities Kuz never did and never will have that require overhaul, and overhaul is being performed in country where worker gets paid on average 20 times more than in Russia. Apples and oranges.

    Don't be silly seriously and compare such things.

    Errr... no.  The GW is not really that much bigger.  Her physical dimensions are quite comparable - the GW length/beam/draught is 332m/76m/12m while the K is 305m/72m/11m.  Her displacement may be higher 97,000 tonnes vs 66,000 but much of that is crew space (6k POB vs 1.5k) and storage for strike ordnance (which the K as an air superiority platform doesn't require), so saying the GW is a "few TIMES bigger" simply isn't correct.

    The scope of the K's overhaul will be VASTLY greater than the GW.  New boilers (or at least new burners and combustion air supply system), new UKSK systems, upgraded AAMs, upgraded radars and battle-management system, refurbed flight wing etc etc...  Russia will do this for ~1B while the US lays out at least double and gets far less.

    BTW Russias far lower labour costs make this possible, as labour cost is linked to Russia far lower cost of living.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3378
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  kvs on Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:05 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.


    Further in the piece was this gem:

    "The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise."

    4 years and "several" billion...  now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....

    GW is few TIMES bigger vessel, with dozens of facilities Kuz never did and never will have that require overhaul, and overhaul is being performed in country where worker gets paid on average 20 times more than in Russia. Apples and oranges.

    Don't be silly seriously and compare such things.

    Errr... no.  The GW is not really that much bigger.  Her physical dimensions are quite comparable - the GW length/beam/draught is 332m/76m/12m while the K is 305m/72m/11m.  Her displacement may be higher 97,000 tonnes vs 66,000 but much of that is crew space (6k POB vs 1.5k) and storage for strike ordnance (which the K as an air superiority platform doesn't require), so saying the GW is a "few TIMES bigger" simply isn't correct.

    The scope of the K's overhaul will be VASTLY greater than the GW.  New boilers (or at least new burners and combustion air supply system), new UKSK systems, upgraded AAMs, upgraded radars and battle-management system, refurbed flight wing etc etc...  Russia will do this for ~1B while the US lays out at least double and gets far less.  

    BTW Russias far lower labour costs make this possible, as labour cost is linked to Russia far lower cost of living.

    Every part of your post is dead on target except the last point. Labour costs cannot explain western prices. It took
    $13 billion and 8 years to build the new Ford class aircraft carrier. Suppose the average salary for workers/engineers/etc
    was $100,000 per year. The 100% of the cost would require 16,250 workers. I am quite sure that the workforce was actually
    around 20% of this figure. (I include he R&D figure in both the construction and job estimates since they can be lumped
    together and even if subsequent construction is 35% cheaper the basic point remains valid).

    Newport News Shipbuilding employs 22,000 workers but has several large projects running concurrently:

    Ford-class aircraft carriers
    USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- completed but overlapped other construction
    USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
    USS Enterprise (CVN-80)

    Virginia-class submarines
    USS Indiana (SSN-789)
    USS Washington (SSN-787)

    They are also dismantling the original Enterprise.

    So its workforce is not dedicated to one project and cannot explain the cost. US military product prices are inflated by
    profit all the way through the supplier chain. Russian prices are not yet equilibrated at this level and Russian workers
    made about $1500 per month before the forex drop, which did not make them poorer and Russian companies operate
    in rubles and not dollars so their wage costs have not gone down.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 533
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:26 pm

    kvs wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

    The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.


    Further in the piece was this gem:

    "The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise."

    4 years and "several" billion...  now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....

    GW is few TIMES bigger vessel, with dozens of facilities Kuz never did and never will have that require overhaul, and overhaul is being performed in country where worker gets paid on average 20 times more than in Russia. Apples and oranges.

    Don't be silly seriously and compare such things.

    Errr... no.  The GW is not really that much bigger.  Her physical dimensions are quite comparable - the GW length/beam/draught is 332m/76m/12m while the K is 305m/72m/11m.  Her displacement may be higher 97,000 tonnes vs 66,000 but much of that is crew space (6k POB vs 1.5k) and storage for strike ordnance (which the K as an air superiority platform doesn't require), so saying the GW is a "few TIMES bigger" simply isn't correct.

    The scope of the K's overhaul will be VASTLY greater than the GW.  New boilers (or at least new burners and combustion air supply system), new UKSK systems, upgraded AAMs, upgraded radars and battle-management system, refurbed flight wing etc etc...  Russia will do this for ~1B while the US lays out at least double and gets far less.  

    BTW Russias far lower labour costs make this possible, as labour cost is linked to Russia far lower cost of living.

    Every part of your post is dead on target except the last point. Labour costs cannot explain western prices. It took
    $13 billion and 8 years to build the new Ford class aircraft carrier. Suppose the average salary for workers/engineers/etc
    was $100,000 per year. The 100% of the cost would require 16,250 workers. I am quite sure that the workforce was actually
    around 20% of this figure. (I include he R&D figure in both the construction and job estimates since they can be lumped
    together and even if subsequent construction is 35% cheaper the basic point remains valid).

    Newport News Shipbuilding employs 22,000 workers but has several large projects running concurrently:

    Ford-class aircraft carriers
    USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- completed but overlapped other construction
    USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
    USS Enterprise (CVN-80)

    Virginia-class submarines
    USS Indiana (SSN-789)
    USS Washington (SSN-787)

    They are also dismantling the original Enterprise.

    So its workforce is not dedicated to one project and cannot explain the cost. US military product prices are inflated by
    profit all the way through the supplier chain. Russian prices are not yet equilibrated at this level and Russian workers
    made about $1500 per month before the forex drop, which did not make them poorer and Russian companies operate
    in rubles and not dollars so their wage costs have not gone down.

    NewPort News booking less than 20% of tham money the leftower going ito the posket of other companies.

    The subcontractors represents way bigger chunk than the final assembly.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 862
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:54 am

    kvs wrote:
    Every part of your post is dead on target except the last point.   Labour costs cannot explain western prices.   It took
    $13 billion and 8 years to build the new Ford class aircraft carrier.    Suppose the average salary for workers/engineers/etc
    was $100,000 per year.   The 100% of the cost would require 16,250 workers.   I am quite sure that the workforce was actually
    around 20% of this figure.   (I include he R&D figure in both the construction and job estimates since they can be lumped
    together and even if subsequent construction is 35% cheaper the basic point remains valid).  

    Newport News Shipbuilding employs 22,000 workers but has several large projects running concurrently:

    Ford-class aircraft carriers
       USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- completed but overlapped other construction
       USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
       USS Enterprise (CVN-80)

    Virginia-class submarines
       USS Indiana (SSN-789)
       USS Washington (SSN-787)

    They are also dismantling the original Enterprise.  

    So its workforce is not dedicated to one project and cannot explain the cost.   US military product prices are inflated by
    profit all the way through the supplier chain.   Russian prices are not yet equilibrated at this level and Russian workers
    made about $1500 per month before the forex drop, which did not make them poorer and Russian companies operate
    in rubles and not dollars so their wage costs have not gone down.

    Yes, I didn't mention this dynamic as it wasn't the main thrust of my post.  The Russian national economy punches above its weight on its MIC because the component companies are often state-owned, or at least partially.  While Western nations must satisfy the incessent hunger for profit that lurks at the heart of its MIC, the Russian gov only needs to pay actual costs, or near to.  It can insist that state-owned companies tow the line and deliver what the military needs & wants, and at a price that the government is prepared to pay, all the while pumping money into the pay-packets of the MICs workers, engineers and managers (rather than the full scale diversion into the pockets of parasitic investors like in Western corporations).  

    It really comes down to a philosophical difference on why a nation has an MIC.  In Russia, the MIC exists to serve the nations defence needs.  In the West (principally the US), the MIC exists to enrich its elite private owners.  In Russia the MIC obeys the commands of its masters in government and concentrates on building stuff.  In the US the MIC uses its vast cash piles to corrupt those in government and to put into power compromised people who will continue to shovel the taxpayers money into the MICs ever-hungry blood-funnel.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 259
    Points : 261
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:33 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:..After the upgrade the K will have a VERY potent anti-ship/sub strike capability, even without factoring in her air wing.  She will be more than capable of defending herself against enemy surface/submarine units should it ever be required.  She will truly deserve the designation as a heavy air-craft carrying missile cruiser.
    I wonder, considering the number & duration of her deployments, how many years of her haul life will remain after this upgrade/refit? In recent pictures, she is moored to a buoy in Severomorsk & there are no pic. of her pierside! Again, any guesses for reason(s) why the Su-33 will be retained instead of retiring them?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 259
    Points : 261
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Update on upgrade

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun May 14, 2017 1:04 am

    Apparently Kalibrs won't be replacing Granits after all "due to high costs".
    http://www.ng.ru/news/581004.html?print=Y
    They have & will have enough other air, surface & SLCM platforms, so if true, the absence of Kalibrs (& Granits, for that matter) on this ship won't make a noticeable difference. The question is, will some/all Granits be retained or removed? Even w/o making structural changes, those tubes could be used for non-hazmat storage. All of that'll also speed up the shipyard period.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3378
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  kvs on Sun May 14, 2017 3:04 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Apparently Kalibrs won't be replacing Granits after all "due to high costs".
    http://www.ng.ru/news/581004.html?print=Y
    They have & will have enough other air, surface & SLCM platforms, so if true, the absence of Kalibrs (& Granits, for that matter) on this ship won't make a noticeable difference. The question is, will some/all Granits be retained or removed? Even w/o making structural changes, those tubes could be used for non-hazmat storage. All of that'll also speed up the shipyard period.

    NG is a liberast 5th column rag. Nothing it writes is credible since all of it is agenda-driven spin. It only sounds plausible because
    not all of its readers have the context to see it for what it is. The magic of the mass media.

    If they are not replacing the launch tubes because of cost, then they would have designed a Granit replacement missile to use them.
    A modern missile with this size would be something impressive. But it simply not credible that replacing the launch tubes of the Granit
    is a cost Russia cannot bear. This nonsense is obviously predicated on the readers not knowing relative costs. If Russia can build
    war ships from scratch, it can certainly do some welding to replace a few metal shells.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 862
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun May 14, 2017 5:24 am

    kvs wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:Apparently Kalibrs won't be replacing Granits after all "due to high costs".
    http://www.ng.ru/news/581004.html?print=Y
    They have & will have enough other air, surface & SLCM platforms, so if true, the absence of Kalibrs (& Granits, for that matter) on this ship won't make a noticeable difference. The question is, will some/all Granits be retained or removed? Even w/o making structural changes, those tubes could be used for non-hazmat storage. All of that'll also speed up the shipyard period.

    NG is a liberast 5th column rag.   Nothing it writes is credible since all of it is agenda-driven spin.   It only sounds plausible because
    not all of its readers have the context to see it for what it is.    The magic of the mass media.  

    If they are not replacing the launch tubes because of cost, then they would have designed a Granit replacement missile to use them.
    A modern missile with this size would be something impressive.    But it simply not credible that replacing the launch tubes of the Granit
    is a cost Russia cannot bear.    This nonsense is obviously predicated on the readers not knowing relative costs.    If Russia can build
    war ships from scratch, it can certainly do some welding to replace a few metal shells.

    Agreed, its complete and utter BS. FFS, if the Russians are going to replace Granits on the Pr494A Antei SSGNs (with a custom designed liner inserted into the missile tubes to accomodate 3x kalibre/Oniks), and replace the Adm. Nakhimovs 20x granits with 3C-14 VLS, then why would replacement of the Kuznetsovs tubes be an issue?

    The Granit replacement (48 missiles vs existing 12) will add a huge improvement on the K's anti-ship (& sub) capability, and give her much greater operational flexibility. No commander is going to use a Granit against an enemy corvette, but with Oniks/Kalibres? No problem, let it rip.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 259
    Points : 261
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 18, 2017 12:39 am

    As the saying goes: it's the economy,...! All its future cruises'll be together with CGN & SS/GN escorts, joined in the Med.Sea & elsewhere by SSKs & korvettes, all armed with CMs anyway, so why overdo it? Even the Chinese decided against having any CM launchers below deck on her sister ship Liaoning & removed that compartment all together, all the while not having enough of, & building more SSNs, FFGs & DDGs. And there's not going to be a need to send Adm. K. to the Black Sea & enable it to transit the Turkish Straits by carrying CMs & not being a true a/c carrier. Besides, the sooner this yard period ends, the sooner it'll deploy & the yard can start working on something else.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 862
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu May 18, 2017 1:10 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:As the saying goes: it's the economy,...! All its future cruises'll be together with CGN & SS/GN escorts, joined in the Med.Sea & elsewhere by SSKs & korvettes, all armed with CMs anyway, so why overdo it? Even the Chinese decided against having any CM launchers below deck on her sister ship Liaoning & removed that compartment all together, all the while not having enough of, & building more SSNs, FFGs & DDGs. And there's not going to be a need to send Adm. K. to the Black Sea & enable it to transit the Turkish Straits by carrying CMs & not being a true a/c carrier. Besides, the sooner this yard period ends, the sooner it'll deploy & the yard can start working on something else.

    No, not buying it. You'll need a proper source from somewhere offical like the Russian defence ministry or the shipyard before I'll belive it. Replacing the 12x Granits with 48x Oniks/kalibre will give the Kuz an integral rapid-response strike capability equal to 3x Gorshkov escorts. The Kuz is Russias only carrier, and will be for 10 years, so its sensible to make her as tough a bitch as possible.

    Why "overdo" it? Because Russian naval forces will always be severly outnumbered in any future clash with the HATOstani orcs, and having a nice big belly full of ship-killers would be a great asset in a target rich environment. It also allows a commander the option to overkill on salvo size. Its false economy to save on ordance if it puts your irreplaceable flagship at risk.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 259
    Points : 261
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 18, 2017 9:42 pm

    Good points, but for the sake of the argument, who is going to benefit by posting this info. if it's not true? I think it's a leak by an insider & it's just too embarrassing to officially admit it as then they'll need to go to damage control mode. Perhaps if the Western sanctions, high expenditures in Crimea + Syria & low oil prices weren't the issue it would be "a given". So, with Granits retained the mission would still not be compromised. There'll be plenty of them to last many years once other platforms switch to Kalibrs/Oniks.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:10 am