Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

Its funny how no-one ever includes the climatic issues into account when discussing inefficiencies in Russia's shipbuilding industry. Frankly i'm amazed that Russian shipyards can keep working in conditions like this.

Nice pic BTW

can anyone confirm the claimed missiles numbers capabilities
of the kirov modernized  "Admiral Nakhimov" ?

Yandex translation

News " The Russian missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov will receive 480 anti-aircraft and attack missiles

Russian tark "Admiral Nakhimov" will be armed "in full".

Modernization of the Russian heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov will turn the Russian warship into a deadly weapon. According to the available resources Avia.pro according to information, the Admiral Nakhimov tark will receive 240 anti-aircraft guided missiles, which is enough to repel a massive missile strike and defeat most of the NATO air forces, as well as 240 cruise strike missiles, which makes it possible to launch a large-scale strike on enemy ships and military bases.

Despite the fact that the Russian nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov was commissioned back in 1988, after modernization, the warship will receive a completely new status and will pose a very serious threat against any Russian enemy.

It is known that the Russian cruiser will have new air defense systems: Sea-based SAM 9K96 "Redoubt" in the amount of 30 blocks of 8 launchers and SAM 42S6 "Morpheus" short-range. Among other things, the Admiral Nakhimov tark will receive unified UKSK 3s14 (30x8) launchers capable of launching various types of missiles, such as Kalibr, Onyx and Zircon.

The Admiral Nakhimov heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser is scheduled to return to the fleet next year.

https://avia.pro/news/rossiyskiy-raketnyy-kreyser-admiral-nahimov-poluchit-480-zenitnyh-i-udarnyh-raket

https://translate.yandex.com


240 air defenses missiles and 240 zircons ? is that is even possible?

Sea-based SAM 9K96 "Redoubt" in the amount of 30 blocks of 8 launchers and SAM 42S6 "Morpheus" short-range.

Well 30 times 8 tubes is 240, but we know that those tubes will likely have a mix of 9M96 missiles (better known as S-350), but also short range 9M100 missiles... but the 9M100 missiles are smaller than the 9M96 and you can fit 4 9M100 missiles in the tube one 9M96 goes, so with 240 launch tubes that means between 240 S-350s of up to 150km range, or 960 short range 9M100 missiles.... but obviously they would likely used a mixed load of both types.

Among other things, the Admiral Nakhimov tark will receive unified UKSK 3s14 (30x8) launchers capable of launching various types of missiles, such as Kalibr, Onyx and Zircon.

The original plan was for 10 UKSK 8 tube launchers... they would have to remove the Rif-M and the SS-N-14 launchers in the front of the ship to fit 30 UKSK launchers...

They would carry anti sub ballistic rockets in those UKSK tubes.

Will be interesting to see the complete details of the upgrade... because the Redut probably replaces the S-300F Rif system, but it should also have up to 8 Pantsir systems which is 16 30mm gatling guns and another 256 anti aircraft missiles, plus I would suspect a few Duet turrets around the place too.

It is a very big ship that had a old of old generation electronics that were bulky and huge... we are talking about room and building sized computers that could be replaced with a modern cell phone or tablet computer, so there should be a lot of space that could be made available for a range of different weapon types.

Also important to remember there are other systems and weapons that can go in these multipurpose launch tubes... for the UKSK-M that included jammer rockets and all sorts of other potential things like PAKET anti torpedo weapons etc etc.

can anyone confirm the claimed missiles numbers capabilities

I think their source is this which seems to have been in a magazine before/about the time Nakhimov went into the dock

But its pretty clearly not right.

80* UKSK cells has been consistent in official numbers & fits with 1* 8-cell per 2* Granit cells, visual evidence from Google Earth (10* things that look a lot like 8-cell UKSK cells were on the ground next to the Granit section).
There is no sign of any late sprint to put in twice as many.

The numbers given imply the replacement of the existing S-300F cells but there's no indication of any major structural work in that area on Google Earth -> every indication there will still be same 12* 8-cell rotary S-300 launchers (maybe a hatch over each cell & remove the rotary bit?) assumed modernised to take newer missiles.

The assumption has been that they'll fit in a smaller number of Redut cells instead of the Kinzhal/naval Tor further forward (maybe 3 or 4* 8-cell) & either side of the helicopter lift aft (2*8 each side) = 56/64.

Then there is the 6* Pantsir-M with 32 missiles each = 192.

Total 80+96+64+192 would be 432 missiles.

hoom wrote:
But its pretty clearly not right.

That image is 100% bullshit. The idiot who created it deleted the entire superstructure block that sits immediately forwards of the main bridge...

I fail to understand the mindset of the idiots who pull this crap

Nice image from the magazine Zavod issue 5 (annual mag from Sevmash), shows Nahkimov in early stages of rebuild from a POV I've not seen before.



source

Argh!! Now postponed to 2023..

https://tass.com/defense/1274887

mnztr wrote:Argh!! Now postponed to 2023..      

https://tass.com/defense/1274887

Not surprised.

What was original date?

the last one was 2022 but it seems to be a rolling schedule. No wonder they are not enthusiastic about PTG.

mnztr wrote:the last one was 2022 but it seems to be a rolling schedule. No wonder they are not enthusiastic about PTG.

6-12 months that's hardly a delay for Russian naval construction, they are never on time

Who said they aren't enthusiastic about PtG?

Only place that story is being shat out is this forum

not just this forum, many articles out there. just tieing up the slip for so long makes this non viable

mnztr wrote:not just this forum, many articles out there. just tieing up the slip for so long makes this non viable

Many which articles?

Search the whole thread, it has been discusses endlessly. There was one I recall from the barants sea observer. IF they make 2023, that will be 23 years. Its just not possible to justify this kind of undertaking. They should be able to build a clean sheet leider class in less then half that time.

mnztr wrote:Search the whole thread, it has been discusses endlessly. There was one I recall from the barants sea observer. IF they make 2023, that will be 23 years. Its just not possible to justify this kind of undertaking. ...

You mean Independent Barents Observer? That's barely a website

Also, tying up a slip? Was there something else that they need that slip for?

Some other vessel among "numerous" that Russia is building?

They could tie up three times as much space and still have plenty to spare

If there's one thing Russian Navy has in abundance it's empty space because they they sure a shit don't have too many ships

mnztr wrote:...They should be able to build a clean sheet leider class in less then half that time.

No Leader will be built ever

And even if they try it will take twice as long as overhauling this one

Have you seen how long corvettes take to build there?

You sound like that idiot who said that they should rip out used engine from Neustrashimyy class just to finish one Grigorevich, bad joke at best

I do not understand why people think it is so hard for Russia to replace the Kirov nuclear battlecruisers with some other new ship. Be it Leader or something else with similar capabilities.
Russia seems to be able to build twin-reactor nuclear icebreakers just fine. With more displacement.
If the weapons and the radar were the problem, well, in that case they could not do a Kirov battlecruiser upgrade either.

The reactors exist, the naval weapon systems also exist, the combat systems and sensors will likely be trialed with the Nakhimov upgrade.
The same shipyards which built the Kirov at St. Petersburg are building the nuclear icebreakers. It took about 7 years from laying it up to commissioning the first ship.
Sure a nuclear battlecruiser might take more time since you need to integrate the weapon systems and sensors. But I doubt it would take more than the Nakhimov upgrade.

I think this is part of the reason why they only selected to upgrade two ships.

I expect them to start construction on a new nuclear battlecruiser around 2025 after the 4th nuclear icebreaker is launched.

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:Search the whole thread, it has been discusses endlessly. There was one I recall from the barants sea observer. IF they make 2023, that will be 23 years. Its just not possible to justify this kind of undertaking. ...

You mean Independent Barents Observer? That's barely a website

Also, tying up a slip? Was there something else that they need that slip for?

Some other vessel among "numerous" that Russia is building?

They could tie up three times as much space and still have plenty to spare

If there's one thing Russian Navy has in abundance it's empty space because they they sure a shit don't have too many ships

mnztr wrote:...They should be able to build a clean sheet leider class in less then half that time.

No Leader will be built ever

And even if they try it will take twice as long as overhauling this one

Have you seen how long corvettes take to build there?

You sound like that idiot who said that they should rip out used engine from Neustrashimyy class just to finish one Grigorevich, bad joke at best

I guess you know what an idiot sounds like since you sound like one all the time.

mnztr wrote:...I guess you know what an idiot sounds like since you sound like one all the time.

Do fuck off

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:...I guess you know what an idiot sounds like since you sound like one all the time.

Do fuck off

After you

lancelot wrote:I do not understand why people think it is so hard for Russia to replace the Kirov nuclear battlecruisers with some other new ship. Be it Leader or something else with similar capabilities.
Russia seems to be able to build twin-reactor nuclear icebreakers just fine. With more displacement.
If the weapons and the radar were the problem, well, in that case they could not do a Kirov battlecruiser upgrade either.

The reactors exist, the naval weapon systems also exist, the combat systems and sensors will likely be trialed with the Nakhimov upgrade.
The same shipyards which built the Kirov at St. Petersburg are building the nuclear icebreakers. It took about 7 years from laying it up to commissioning the first ship.
Sure a nuclear battlecruiser might take more time since you need to integrate the weapon systems and sensors. But I doubt it would take more than the Nakhimov upgrade.

I think this is part of the reason why they only selected to upgrade two ships.

I expect them to start construction on a new nuclear battlecruiser around 2025 after the 4th nuclear icebreaker is launched.

they hardly have modern frigates....they aren't going to start on a cruiser anytime soon.

lancelot wrote:I do not understand why people think it is so hard for Russia to replace the Kirov nuclear battlecruisers with some other new ship. Be it Leader or something else with similar capabilities.
Russia seems to be able to build twin-reactor nuclear icebreakers just fine. With more displacement.
If the weapons and the radar were the problem, well, in that case they could not do a Kirov battlecruiser upgrade either.

The reactors exist, the naval weapon systems also exist, the combat systems and sensors will likely be trialed with the Nakhimov upgrade.
The same shipyards which built the Kirov at St. Petersburg are building the nuclear icebreakers. It took about 7 years from laying it up to commissioning the first ship.
Sure a nuclear battlecruiser might take more time since you need to integrate the weapon systems and sensors. But I doubt it would take more than the Nakhimov upgrade.

I think this is part of the reason why they only selected to upgrade two ships.

I expect them to start construction on a new nuclear battlecruiser around 2025 after the 4th nuclear icebreaker is launched.

They probably have the B team doing this rebuild. Its a lot of grunt work. A new battlecruiser would be taking up the A teams time. There are submarines, ice breakers and helicopter carriers to build. By doing this rebuild, they can focus the A teams energy on higher priority stuff.

I am happy to see this thing get a new life. There have been enough Soviet ships scrapped. The Nakimov and PTG were the 2 newest ships of the class.

mnztr wrote:not just this forum, many articles out there. just tieing up the slip for so long makes this non viable

Non-viable?  

In what way exactly?  Come on, don't be shy.  

IF they make 2023, that will be 23 years. Its just not possible to justify this kind of undertaking. ...

23 years for what?  Since Nahkimov was tied up in 1999 awaiting "repairs"?  You are aware I assume that she sat tied up for some 15 YEARS before the rebuild began?  The rebuild is long and complex and extensive in scoipe.  Sure, 7 years is too long, but don't act like a fuckling clown and yabber about 23 years when its fucking clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that the actual active modernisation is much much less.

Grrr..  the fucking nonsense that gets puked on this forum by clowns who should know better but who are too fucking busy pushing their fucking narratives and agendas.  Get serious and stick to facts and figures or just fuck off...

Big_Gazza wrote:

mnztr wrote:not just this forum, many articles out there. just tieing up the slip for so long makes this non viable

Non-viable?  

In what way exactly?  Come on, don't be shy.  

IF they make 2023, that will be 23 years. Its just not possible to justify this kind of undertaking. ...

23 years for what?  Since Nahkimov was tied up in 1999 awaiting "repairs"?  You are aware I assume that she sat tied up for some 15 YEARS before the rebuild began?  The rebuild is long and complex and extensive in scoipe.  Sure, 7 years is too long, but don't act like a fuckling clown and yabber about 23 years when its fucking clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that the actual active modernisation is much much less.

Grrr..  the fucking nonsense that gets puked on this forum by clowns who should know better but who are too fucking busy pushing their fucking narratives and agendas.  

The ship was docked awaiting repairs in 1999. That means the project started then, even if the work on the ship did not start, the engineering and planning started. You think they just show up and start cutting? You are beyond dumb if you think this project only started when the work started. Its been fucking YEARS. Yeah keeping a ship on slip or drydock has opportunity cost. You have no brains to figure out a shipyard costs a lot of money to keep open? Probably have clowns like you running this project thats why its such a cluster. Maybe they have no other use for the slip, in which case then can close it down and save money. A lot of hard core commies here that seem to have no idea how business works. WOW!!! Idiot after idiot. Guess what, delays in this project have impacted the PTG project ,you think that has no cost? What else could this fine facility have been used for? We will never know, that is what you call opportunity cost.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

lancelot wrote:I do not understand why people think it is so hard for Russia to replace the Kirov nuclear battlecruisers with some other new ship. Be it Leader or something else with similar capabilities.
Russia seems to be able to build twin-reactor nuclear icebreakers just fine. With more displacement.
If the weapons and the radar were the problem, well, in that case they could not do a Kirov battlecruiser upgrade either.

The reactors exist, the naval weapon systems also exist, the combat systems and sensors will likely be trialed with the Nakhimov upgrade.
The same shipyards which built the Kirov at St. Petersburg are building the nuclear icebreakers. It took about 7 years from laying it up to commissioning the first ship.
Sure a nuclear battlecruiser might take more time since you need to integrate the weapon systems and sensors. But I doubt it would take more than the Nakhimov upgrade.

I think this is part of the reason why they only selected to upgrade two ships.

I expect them to start construction on a new nuclear battlecruiser around 2025 after the 4th nuclear icebreaker is launched.

they hardly have modern frigates....they aren't going to start on a cruiser anytime soon.

Thats a retarded western propaganda. The gorshkovs are modern and have engines. All the components needed for a cruiser replacement are there.

Regarding the nakhimov, it says problems with suppliers is the cause, which most likely has to do that the middlemen are corrupt and incompetent, which is not unexpected given what we have seen with the zvezda engine manufacturer

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:...I guess you know what an idiot sounds like since you sound like one all the time.

Do fuck off

Is that all you can do, troll?

limb, you really need to learn how to read.

"They hardly "HAVE"

Have in this case means the possession, not designs. Christ, why do I need to explain grade school-level English?

How Gorshes do they have in the water and commissioned, just 1. So yes, they hardly have any modern frigates.

Before you call something retarded learn to read alright buddy