Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

Can we get a translation of each please? What is the providence of this image anyway?

Vympel wrote:Can we get a translation of each please? What is the providence of this image anyway?

It's from "http://bastion-karpenko.ru/", probably done by an amateur enthusiast.

I included it really to just kick off the thread. Hopefully it's not a repost.

Actually I think that the "modifications" depicted are mostly retrograde, irrelevant, and fictional.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Vympel wrote:Can we get a translation of each please? What is the providence of this image anyway?

It's from "http://bastion-karpenko.ru/", probably done by an amateur enthusiast.

I included it really to just kick off the thread. Hopefully it's not a repost.

Actually I think that the "modifications" depicted are mostly retrograde, irrelevant, and fictional.

Well, official media have said that the modernization will include a naval variant of S-400, and Oniks. So UKSK launchers are a no-brainer, at least.

Vympel wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Vympel wrote:Can we get a translation of each please? What is the providence of this image anyway?

It's from "http://bastion-karpenko.ru/", probably done by an amateur enthusiast.

I included it really to just kick off the thread. Hopefully it's not a repost.

Actually I think that the "modifications" depicted are mostly retrograde, irrelevant, and fictional.

Well, official media have said that the modernization will include a naval variant of S-400, and Oniks. So UKSK launchers are a no-brainer, at least.

Can you point me to the official media?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Vympel wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Vympel wrote:Can we get a translation of each please? What is the providence of this image anyway?

It's from "http://bastion-karpenko.ru/", probably done by an amateur enthusiast.

I included it really to just kick off the thread. Hopefully it's not a repost.

Actually I think that the "modifications" depicted are mostly retrograde, irrelevant, and fictional.

Well, official media have said that the modernization will include a naval variant of S-400, and Oniks. So UKSK launchers are a no-brainer, at least.

Can you point me to the official media?

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20111203/169272925.html

UKSK is no question, they are the fleet standard.

SAMs are a different story. Will they got for a mix of 9M96 and larger rounds?
Will they use the VLS from the smaller ships? I think they will need a new one for 48N6 sized rounds.

SAMs are a different story. Will they got for a mix of 9M96 and larger rounds?
Will they use the VLS from the smaller ships? I think they will need a new one for 48N6 sized rounds.

The UKSK is for anti ship and land attack missiles, do you think they will make a S-400 SAM launcher that can't carry large S-400 missiles?

It is pretty clear that the Air Force is getting separate land based S-350 launchers for the smaller 9M96 missiles in individual tubes but I have seen no evidence that the Navy is doing so too.

the 32 tube launch system for Redut seems to be 32 full sized tubes for full sized missiles... considering the 9M96 can be fitted into the tubes there is no reason to have smaller systems unable to carry the heavier missiles even on smaller boats.

they are called standard launchers for a reason.

I am talking about the VLS cells we have seen on the smaller ships- 20380 and 22350. I have not seen any proof that they can be fitted with the full sized 48N6 rounds.

This drawing would allow for one 40N6 size missile, 4 9M96D size missiles, or 16 9M100 size missiles per launcher tube.

Each of the tubes in the proekt 20385 and many other ship types have the diameter for the 40N6, but the depth of the launcher subtype would determine the missile type. There are many proofs for that.

AK-630s? Those things have been around since the dawn of time, if they wanted to economize they would use Duets at least.

And what the hell is a СУАО Пума-02? (self-targeting artillery installation Puma-02???)
Whatever it is - doesn't much look like what it's labelled as.
Near the stern it looks more like some sort of fire-control radar or a sensor installation of some sort, while near the bow it's clearly depicted as an AK-630

Just a big mess this whole diagram is.
But it does offer some ideas at least.

flamming_python wrote:AK-630s? Those things have been around since the dawn of time, if they wanted to economize they would use Duets at least.

And what the hell is a СУАО Пума-02? (self-targeting artillery installation Puma-02???)
Whatever it is - doesn't much look like what it's labelled as.
Near the stern it looks more like some sort of fire-control radar or a sensor installation of some sort, while near the bow it's clearly depicted as an AK-630

Just a big mess this whole diagram is.
But it does offer some ideas at least.

That's why I said I have attached it with all of the errors. Amongst other things, the front "4" should change to a "5".

The one towards the stern is the Puma-02. Just like the related system in the proekt 20380, it has a primary AESA radar, and sometimes a separate mechanically scanned search radar that in these settings control the 100 mm and 30 mm guns, among other things.

Vympel wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Vympel wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Vympel wrote:Can we get a translation of each please? What is the providence of this image anyway?

It's from "http://bastion-karpenko.ru/", probably done by an amateur enthusiast.

I included it really to just kick off the thread. Hopefully it's not a repost.

Actually I think that the "modifications" depicted are mostly retrograde, irrelevant, and fictional.

Well, official media have said that the modernization will include a naval variant of S-400, and Oniks. So UKSK launchers are a no-brainer, at least.

Can you point me to the official media?

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20111203/169272925.html

Thanks.

I had seen this; do you have anything other than RIA Novosti?

The passage that you are probably referring to is made to look as though it's a continuation of what Dyachkov is saying, but it's not clear that it's the case. Also, further up, even Dyachkov is saying that they don't know about the details of the refit.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Thanks.

I had seen this; do you have anything other than RIA Novosti?

The passage that you are probably referring to is made to look as though it's a continuation of what Dyachkov is saying, but it's not clear that it's the case. Also, further up, even Dyachkov is saying that they don't know about the details of the refit.

Nope, haven't seen anything apart from that.

http://nworker.ru/2014/06/24/2304.html

The modernization project is not even completed yet.

Admiral Lazarev (ex Frunze) in dry dock:



Appearantly some primer paint being applied to it:






This could be a indication its going to be refitted after Nakhimov is complete.

it will be scrapped, that ship is finished, if they choose to bring it back it will only be because of abysmal production rates of new ships in russian shipyards and flaws in new designs! which shows i was right !

navyfield wrote:it will be scrapped, that ship is finished, if they choose to bring it back it will only be because of abysmal production rates of new ships in russian shipyards and flaws in new designs! which shows i was right !

You figure that from what? A few pics showing what could simply be surface rust on the superstructure? If the Lazarev has a hull in good condition and her reactor and machinery are serviceable there is no reason she cannot be restored to service. Cost and schedule will of course depend heavily on the extent of her "deep modernisation", but Russian intentions are so hopelessly clouded by contradicting announcements that its pointless to speculate too much. We will only know for sure when she sees the inside of a drydock...

I'd agree however that the Ushakov (ex-Kirov) is likely destined for the scrapyard as she suffered serious reactor damage in 1990 and appears to have been left to rot. She could be repaired, but its probably too costly (and difficult).

I'd agree however that the Ushakov (ex-Kirov) is likely destined for the scrapyard as she suffered serious reactor damage in 1990 and appears to have been left to rot. She could be repaired, but its probably too costly (and difficult).

Actually that is the key... these vessels are part nuke and therefore can't be left to rot.

It all depends on the upgrades planned.

If they are half arsed cosmetic minor changes then it doesn't make sense to do too much to the propulsion.

However there is no point in being HA about these large ships.

They have planned a range of brand new sensors and weapons and propulsion and electronics.

the original propulsion of the Kirovs was not well thought out.

It was half nuclear and half conventional, which means it could zip around all day at about 18knts on nuke propulsion or the conventional propulsion could kick in a boost speed to over 32 knots... but only for about 2,000NMs or so.

The lack of a decent modern compact nuclear reactor for large ships.

For their new carriers they are developing decent modern compact nuclear reactors for large ships, and ripping out all the conventional propulsion, and the reactors, would give a huge performance boost and make it much more reliable and give the whole propulsion system a few years test before it goes into a new carrier.


All the electronics and sensors and weapons being replaced sounds expensive and time consuming, but will make them fully compatible and standardised with all the new vessels going into the fleet.

The new weapons and sensors will have performance orders of magnitude better than the equipment already fitted and will allow full compatibility with the entire fleet. No matter which port it goes to in Russia it will be able to be fully supported and loaded and equipped efficiently and maintainence will not be a problem as all systems sensors weapon and propulsion will be standardised with other vessels in the fleet.

Nuclear power is more expensive initially, but in the long term should simplify things... larger production runs of propulsion and sensors and weapons etc will reduce costs and standardise production and support.... and use and maintainence and training...

GarryB wrote:

I'd agree however that the Ushakov (ex-Kirov) is likely destined for the scrapyard as she suffered serious reactor damage in 1990 and appears to have been left to rot. She could be repaired, but its probably too costly (and difficult).

Actually that is the key... these vessels are part nuke and therefore can't be left to rot.

It all depends on the upgrades planned.

If they are half arsed cosmetic minor changes then it doesn't make sense to do too much to the propulsion.

However there is no point in being HA about these large ships.

They have planned a range of brand new sensors and weapons and propulsion and electronics.

the original propulsion of the Kirovs was not well thought out.

It was half nuclear and half conventional, which means it could zip around all day at about 18knts on nuke propulsion or the conventional propulsion could kick in a boost speed to over 32 knots... but only for about 2,000NMs or so.

The lack of a decent modern compact nuclear reactor for large ships.

For their new carriers they are developing decent modern compact nuclear reactors for large ships, and ripping out all the conventional propulsion, and the reactors, would give a huge performance boost and make it much more reliable and give the whole propulsion system a few years test before it goes into a new carrier.


All the electronics and sensors and weapons being replaced sounds expensive and time consuming, but will make them fully compatible and standardised with all the new vessels going into the fleet.

The new weapons and sensors will have performance orders of magnitude better than the equipment already fitted and will allow full compatibility with the entire fleet. No matter which port it goes to in Russia it will be able to be fully supported and loaded and equipped efficiently and maintainence will not  be a problem as all systems sensors weapon and propulsion will be standardised with other vessels in the fleet.

Nuclear power is more expensive initially, but in the long term should simplify things... larger production runs of propulsion and sensors and weapons etc will reduce costs and standardise production and support.... and use and maintainence and training...

Yup, my comment on the A.Ushakov being left to rot was tongue in cheek. Mothballed nuclear powered vessels must be adequately preserved to ensure that a loss of containment of nuclear materials (liquids & gasses) doesn't occur. eg protecting the hull from corrosion with cathodic protection (sacrificial aluminium or zinc anodes bonded to the hull beneath the water line or connected by cable to superstructure) but AFAIK this doesn't prevent surface rust above the water line. Ushakov looks rather sad and despondent tied up in Severodvinsk, but her condition doesn't look too bad. Pictures I have seen show less surface rust than the A.Lazarev, and she is apparently next in line after A.Nakhimov.

My main concern with the Ushakov is the extent of the damage from the 1990 accident, the extent and severity of the radiation hazard, and the consequent difficulty of decontamination works before the refurbishment can properly begin. Is there any public domain info available on the nature of the damage?

Supposing Russia had MASSES of large naval ship building capacity. And a carrier fleet was taking shape. And also Russia's version of a missile shield - either S400 and S500 and perhaps even rail guns/energy weapons were in place...

My question is, what would a new version of a Kirov class look like?
The options for the new destroyer announced last yr included a 15000 ton 210m nuclear destroyer.

I wonder, would Russia build a giant 26000 ton battle cruiser again? It could have a 2nd nuclear reactor to power the energy weapons. AND it could have a huge arsenal of S-500's etc.

Would naval doctrine say "build it big again"?

Or would it look to use a number of different destroyers or standard Slava class sized cruisers?
Something that *might* (or might not!) be stealthy, like a Zummwalt (which I think is actually a bit of bullshit that looks like another US fanboy creation designed to bamboozle and siphon off exhorbitant levels of US tax dollars).

Alternatively, the Kirov hulls are so large, perhaps a Kirov2 could share hull and other characteristics with
new aircraft carrying cruisers.

navyfield wrote:it will be scrapped, that ship is finished, if they choose to bring it back it will only be because of abysmal production rates of new ships in russian shipyards and flaws in new designs! which shows i was right !

Your asinine logic keeps me coming back every time.

"if they do this, im right, id they do this other thing, im right!"

What are you right about? That Russian shipyards are slow as hell?
Wow! Someone get this guy a medal! You have such insight! Tell me more!

"Flas in new designs"? Flaws in your brain more like. What does a Kirov have to do with new designs? Utterly incompatible comparison.

Admiral Nakhimov to become most powerful missile cruiser in Russian fleet

S-400 will replace the S-300F
Poliment-Redut will replace the Osa-M
Caliber cruise missiles will replace the P-700 Granit anti-ship cruise missiles

George1 wrote:Admiral Nakhimov to become most powerful missile cruiser in Russian fleet

S-400 will replace the S-300F
Poliment-Redut will replace the Osa-M
Caliber cruise missiles will replace the P-700 Granit anti-ship cruise missiles

Whoever wrote that in the original article is smoking some good shit.

TR1 wrote:

George1 wrote:Admiral Nakhimov to become most powerful missile cruiser in Russian fleet

S-400 will replace the S-300F
Poliment-Redut will replace the Osa-M
Caliber cruise missiles will replace the P-700 Granit anti-ship cruise missiles

Whoever wrote that in the original article is smoking some good shit.

Oh, c'mon TR1... The guy that wrote that article has sources, you don't...

His sources are shit.

Poliment-Redut replacing Osa?

Do I really need to spell out how stupid such a statement is?