Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

A naval version of the Tor-M2U is being developed by Izhevsk Electromechanical Plant Kupol for integration on to the Russian Navy vessels.

Yes but the naval Tor-M2U is pretty clearly setup for small scale installation, not suitable for the large scale on Nakhimov.

Russian Navy Kirov-class cruiser Admiral Nakhimov Return to Operational Status Slips to 2022

The return to operational status of the Russian Navy’s Project 11442M (NATO reporting name: Kirov-class) Admiral Nakhimov nuclear-powered missile cruiser will take place within three to four years, United Shipbuilding Corporation President Alexei Rakhmanov has told the Interfax News Agency.


"I think we will return the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser to the Navy in 2020-2021. We are working to this end with due account taken of the changes in the amount of work to be done," Rakhmanov said.

Once upgraded, the Admiral Nakhimov will feature characteristics that are far more advanced and she will beef up the Russian Navy considerably. The upgrade will include the replacement of her missile and gunnery weapons, in particular the introduction of long-range cruise missiles organic to the Kalibr (SS-N-27 Sizzler) system.

The Admiral Nakhimov nuclear-powered missile cruiser is designed to destroy high-value surface and land targets and provide air defense for the formation it is part of. The ship was launched in 1986 and commissioned in 1988. She had been moored at Sevmash in Severodvinsk from 1999 to 2012 when a decision was made to rebuild her. The contract for repairing the cruiser was placed in 2013. The Admiral Nakhimov’s upgrade to Project 11442M standard will afford the warship the Kalibr missile system. The cruiser displaces 24,500 tons, measures 251 m long, has a full power of 140,000 hp, a speed of 31 knots and a crew of 728 and carries a Kamov Ka-27 (Helix) helicopter or versions thereof.


Navy Recognition Comments
The Sevmash Shipyard launched the modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov to Project 11442M standard on January 24, 2014. The modernization started with dismounting the large equipment and systems subject to replacement or repair. This slashed the structural weight, which, in turn, made it easier to bring the ship from the berth to the flooding dock.

Sevmash and KBSM (Special Machinebuilding Design Bureau) made a deal for 10 modules of 3S14 vertical launch system (VLS) for installation as part of the cruiser’s upgrade. The deal’s value is estimated at 2.559 billion rubles ($39 million). Thus, 20 SM-225 launchers of the 3K-45 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) system will be replaced with 10 3S14 VLS modules to accommodate 3M-14 (SS-N-30) land-attack and 3M-54 (SS-N-27A Sizzler) antiship cruise missiles of the Kalibr missile system. The ammunition load will total 80 missiles.

The Project 11442M (NATO reporting name: Kirov-class) Admiral Nakhimov nuclear-powered heavy guided missile cruiser will be equipped with Tsirkon hypersonic missiles during her upgrade, a source in shipbuilding industry previously told TASS. "The Admiral Nakhimov’s strike system will be replaced with Tsirkon hypersonic missiles as part of her repair and heavy upgrade," the source said.

It was earlier reported that the first Russian Navy vessel to receive Pantsir-M missile and gun system will be heavy nuclear missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov. It will also be fitted with a new generation information management system.

Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/april-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5050-russian-navy-kirov-class-cruiser-admiral-nakhimov-return-to-operational-status-slips-to-2022.html

One question...

What is the status of Lazarev and Ushakov? Are they scrapped or stored somewhere?

Azi wrote:One question...

What is the status of Lazarev and Ushakov? Are they scrapped or stored somewhere?

The Lazarev is in dock, not active and the Ushakov is decommissioned.

Benya wrote:"I think we will return the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser to the Navy in 2020-2021. We are working to this end with due account taken of the changes in the amount of work to be done," Rakhmanov said.

Hmmm...  this suggests that the scope of the modernisation has changed since the work started in 2014?  It's possible however that the delay is due to unplanned and/or additional repairs due to unexpected condition of vessel or equipment.  For instance, now that the reactor has been de-fuelled and can be fully inspected, its possible that the refurbishment will be more involved (purely conjecture, just an illustrative example of what can happen in large complex rebuilds).

Big_Gazza wrote:

Benya wrote:"I think we will return the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser to the Navy in 2020-2021. We are working to this end with due account taken of the changes in the amount of work to be done," Rakhmanov said.

Hmmm...  this suggests that the scope of the modernisation has changed since the work started in 2014?  It's possible however that the delay is due to unplanned and/or additional repairs due to unexpected condition of vessel or equipment.  For instance, now that the reactor has been de-fuelled and can be fully inspected, its possible that the refurbishment will be more involved (purely conjecture, just an illustrative example of what can happen in large complex rebuilds).

Plus rumors say they overestimated hull integrity status, so they will probably need to repair and reinforce it more than originally planned.

Bunch of onboard/drone footage of Nakhimov progress in this

Deck around the UKSK going in, confirms the 10* modules = 80 missiles.

George1 wrote:
So you believe the Navy made the right decision to upgrade the RNS Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser?

Of course! Project 1144 ships are, first and foremost, an excellent hull made of AK-25 grade steel, and a nuclear propulsion unit. The hull is made of two layers of steel, the outer layer being stainless steel. That hull will last forever. It can be used for 40, 50, or even 60 years. It has unique biological and structural protection systems. It is designed very intelligently, using great technological solutions. A combination of a great hull and a nuclear propulsion unit is a platform that can be put to almost any use. Let us also recall the great structural defenses that ship has. It’s a special design that prevents missiles from penetrating the ship’s ammunition dumps by means of a series of barriers. Yes, the ship’s various systems and pipelines, as well as its armaments, need to be replaced, but the main thing, the platform itself, it fit for purpose. I believe that all four ships of that class must be refurbished and brought back into service.
[/b]

Interesting comment.  I've often wondered whether the Ural SV-33 (Proj 1941) is really going to be scrapped... since photos seem to suggest that they are stripping the ship of its superstructure and heavy deck equipment, but they are leaving the hull and below decks intact.  Google earth images of Bolshoi Kaman in March 2016 show a complete hull stripped down to the deck, yet current images show no trace of the ship.  Its impossible that a nuclear powered hull would be stripped to to the hull plates and vanish within 12 months, so where is she?  Has she been towed elsewhere for preservation awaiting the option of a future rebuild?

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:
So you believe the Navy made the right decision to upgrade the RNS Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser?

Of course! Project 1144 ships are, first and foremost, an excellent hull made of AK-25 grade steel, and a nuclear propulsion unit. The hull is made of two layers of steel, the outer layer being stainless steel. That hull will last forever. It can be used for 40, 50, or even 60 years. It has unique biological and structural protection systems. It is designed very intelligently, using great technological solutions. A combination of a great hull and a nuclear propulsion unit is a platform that can be put to almost any use. Let us also recall the great structural defenses that ship has. It’s a special design that prevents missiles from penetrating the ship’s ammunition dumps by means of a series of barriers. Yes, the ship’s various systems and pipelines, as well as its armaments, need to be replaced, but the main thing, the platform itself, it fit for purpose. I believe that all four ships of that class must be refurbished and brought back into service.
[/b]

Interesting comment.  I've often wondered whether the Ural SV-33 (Proj 1941) is really going to be scrapped... since photos seem to suggest that they are stripping the ship of its superstructure and heavy deck equipment, but they are leaving the hull and below decks intact.  Google earth images of Bolshoi Kaman in March 2016 show a complete hull stripped down to the deck, yet current images show no trace of the ship.  Its impossible that a nuclear powered hull would be stripped to to the hull plates and vanish within 12 months, so where is she?  Has she been towed elsewhere for preservation awaiting the option of a future rebuild?

If they take off evrything but the hull then it would be easy to make it a new ship by designing the rest of the ship on that hull. It's the biggest ship produced, they shoyldn"t have issues for doing so. Every new equipement will be smaller than its soviet counterpart.

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:
So you believe the Navy made the right decision to upgrade the RNS Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser?

Of course! Project 1144 ships are, first and foremost, an excellent hull made of AK-25 grade steel, and a nuclear propulsion unit. The hull is made of two layers of steel, the outer layer being stainless steel. That hull will last forever. It can be used for 40, 50, or even 60 years. It has unique biological and structural protection systems. It is designed very intelligently, using great technological solutions. A combination of a great hull and a nuclear propulsion unit is a platform that can be put to almost any use. Let us also recall the great structural defenses that ship has. It’s a special design that prevents missiles from penetrating the ship’s ammunition dumps by means of a series of barriers. Yes, the ship’s various systems and pipelines, as well as its armaments, need to be replaced, but the main thing, the platform itself, it fit for purpose. I believe that all four ships of that class must be refurbished and brought back into service.
[/b]

Interesting comment.  I've often wondered whether the Ural SV-33 (Proj 1941) is really going to be scrapped... since photos seem to suggest that they are stripping the ship of its superstructure and heavy deck equipment, but they are leaving the hull and below decks intact.  Google earth images of Bolshoi Kaman in March 2016 show a complete hull stripped down to the deck, yet current images show no trace of the ship.  Its impossible that a nuclear powered hull would be stripped to to the hull plates and vanish within 12 months, so where is she?  Has she been towed elsewhere for preservation awaiting the option of a future rebuild?

The disposal work was to be finished by November at the latest it's quite possible they finished up a bit early really. They could have moved the hull to a reserve area sure if you know where the Russians keep those, which I do.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:
So you believe the Navy made the right decision to upgrade the RNS Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser?

Of course! Project 1144 ships are, first and foremost, an excellent hull made of AK-25 grade steel, and a nuclear propulsion unit. The hull is made of two layers of steel, the outer layer being stainless steel. That hull will last forever. It can be used for 40, 50, or even 60 years. It has unique biological and structural protection systems. It is designed very intelligently, using great technological solutions. A combination of a great hull and a nuclear propulsion unit is a platform that can be put to almost any use. Let us also recall the great structural defenses that ship has. It’s a special design that prevents missiles from penetrating the ship’s ammunition dumps by means of a series of barriers. Yes, the ship’s various systems and pipelines, as well as its armaments, need to be replaced, but the main thing, the platform itself, it fit for purpose. I believe that all four ships of that class must be refurbished and brought back into service.
[/b]

Interesting comment.  I've often wondered whether the Ural SV-33 (Proj 1941) is really going to be scrapped... since photos seem to suggest that they are stripping the ship of its superstructure and heavy deck equipment, but they are leaving the hull and below decks intact.  Google earth images of Bolshoi Kaman in March 2016 show a complete hull stripped down to the deck, yet current images show no trace of the ship.  Its impossible that a nuclear powered hull would be stripped to to the hull plates and vanish within 12 months, so where is she?  Has she been towed elsewhere for preservation awaiting the option of a future rebuild?

The disposal work was to be finished by November at the latest it's quite possible they finished up a bit early really. They could have moved the hull to a reserve area sure if you know where the Russians keep those, which I do.

Seriously, the hull is being stored? I assumed it was all scrapped?

I know 1 or 2 of the Boreis or Yasens actually used hulls from earlier classes of sub.
What could it be used for? Or is it something like testing missiles on the hull?

I think it'd be great to keep the hull in reserve for a quick rebuild of something if ever the need arose. But I understand that hull building (esp Mistral style modular) is the quick part nowadays. And fitting out is the slow part.

The Ural is a massive hull 870 ft long. Thats bigger than light aircraft carriers.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:
So you believe the Navy made the right decision to upgrade the RNS Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser?

Of course! Project 1144 ships are, first and foremost, an excellent hull made of AK-25 grade steel, and a nuclear propulsion unit. The hull is made of two layers of steel, the outer layer being stainless steel. That hull will last forever. It can be used for 40, 50, or even 60 years. It has unique biological and structural protection systems. It is designed very intelligently, using great technological solutions. A combination of a great hull and a nuclear propulsion unit is a platform that can be put to almost any use. Let us also recall the great structural defenses that ship has. It’s a special design that prevents missiles from penetrating the ship’s ammunition dumps by means of a series of barriers. Yes, the ship’s various systems and pipelines, as well as its armaments, need to be replaced, but the main thing, the platform itself, it fit for purpose. I believe that all four ships of that class must be refurbished and brought back into service.
[/b]

Interesting comment.  I've often wondered whether the Ural SV-33 (Proj 1941) is really going to be scrapped... since photos seem to suggest that they are stripping the ship of its superstructure and heavy deck equipment, but they are leaving the hull and below decks intact.  Google earth images of Bolshoi Kaman in March 2016 show a complete hull stripped down to the deck, yet current images show no trace of the ship.  Its impossible that a nuclear powered hull would be stripped to to the hull plates and vanish within 12 months, so where is she?  Has she been towed elsewhere for preservation awaiting the option of a future rebuild?

The disposal work was to be finished by November at the latest it's quite possible they finished up a bit early really. They could have moved the hull to a reserve area sure if you know where the Russians keep those, which I do.

Yeah, the more I think about it, its likely that "disposal" doesn't mean complete scrapping (as this would require specialist facilities to handle dismantling of the nuclear reactor and irradiated machinery), but means strip-down and preservation of the hull and essentials.

Don't suppose you can share that knowledge on where such a "reserve area" may be located?

I suppose the Kapusta could be compared to the US Iowa class in some ways.
Which were in and out of service lots over a massive length of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship

The massive Iowas were built in the 1930s/40s. And used til 1958 Then used from 1968 to 1969. Then brought to service 1982 to 1992 and then finally decommissioned again. They are now museum ships.

Seems a shame to destroy the Kapusta hull, assuming it isn't glowing with radiation etc.

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:
So you believe the Navy made the right decision to upgrade the RNS Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser?

Of course! Project 1144 ships are, first and foremost, an excellent hull made of AK-25 grade steel, and a nuclear propulsion unit. The hull is made of two layers of steel, the outer layer being stainless steel. That hull will last forever. It can be used for 40, 50, or even 60 years. It has unique biological and structural protection systems. It is designed very intelligently, using great technological solutions. A combination of a great hull and a nuclear propulsion unit is a platform that can be put to almost any use. Let us also recall the great structural defenses that ship has. It’s a special design that prevents missiles from penetrating the ship’s ammunition dumps by means of a series of barriers. Yes, the ship’s various systems and pipelines, as well as its armaments, need to be replaced, but the main thing, the platform itself, it fit for purpose. I believe that all four ships of that class must be refurbished and brought back into service.
[/b]

Interesting comment.  I've often wondered whether the Ural SV-33 (Proj 1941) is really going to be scrapped... since photos seem to suggest that they are stripping the ship of its superstructure and heavy deck equipment, but they are leaving the hull and below decks intact.  Google earth images of Bolshoi Kaman in March 2016 show a complete hull stripped down to the deck, yet current images show no trace of the ship.  Its impossible that a nuclear powered hull would be stripped to to the hull plates and vanish within 12 months, so where is she?  Has she been towed elsewhere for preservation awaiting the option of a future rebuild?

The disposal work was to be finished by November at the latest it's quite possible they finished up a bit early really. They could have moved the hull to a reserve area sure if you know where the Russians keep those, which I do.

Yeah, the more I think about it, its likely that "disposal" doesn't mean complete scrapping (as this would require specialist facilities to handle dismantling of the nuclear reactor and irradiated machinery), but means strip-down and preservation of the hull and essentials.

Don't suppose you can share that knowledge on where such a "reserve area" may be located?  

Disposal, in this case, means scraped, the contract was to have the hull scraped by November at the most. The entire ship gone into pieces to be clear

I don't know if the hull is in a reserve dockyard right now, I'd need to check and that would take ages. I have heard nor seen anything to suggest the Russians kept the hull so at this point consider it scrapped.

Firebird wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:
So you believe the Navy made the right decision to upgrade the RNS Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser?

Of course! Project 1144 ships are, first and foremost, an excellent hull made of AK-25 grade steel, and a nuclear propulsion unit. The hull is made of two layers of steel, the outer layer being stainless steel. That hull will last forever. It can be used for 40, 50, or even 60 years. It has unique biological and structural protection systems. It is designed very intelligently, using great technological solutions. A combination of a great hull and a nuclear propulsion unit is a platform that can be put to almost any use. Let us also recall the great structural defenses that ship has. It’s a special design that prevents missiles from penetrating the ship’s ammunition dumps by means of a series of barriers. Yes, the ship’s various systems and pipelines, as well as its armaments, need to be replaced, but the main thing, the platform itself, it fit for purpose. I believe that all four ships of that class must be refurbished and brought back into service.
[/b]

Interesting comment.  I've often wondered whether the Ural SV-33 (Proj 1941) is really going to be scrapped... since photos seem to suggest that they are stripping the ship of its superstructure and heavy deck equipment, but they are leaving the hull and below decks intact.  Google earth images of Bolshoi Kaman in March 2016 show a complete hull stripped down to the deck, yet current images show no trace of the ship.  Its impossible that a nuclear powered hull would be stripped to to the hull plates and vanish within 12 months, so where is she?  Has she been towed elsewhere for preservation awaiting the option of a future rebuild?

The disposal work was to be finished by November at the latest it's quite possible they finished up a bit early really. They could have moved the hull to a reserve area sure if you know where the Russians keep those, which I do.

Seriously, the hull is being stored? I assumed it was all scrapped?

I know 1 or 2 of the Boreis or Yasens actually used hulls from earlier classes of sub.
What could it be used for? Or is it something like testing missiles on the hull?

I think it'd be great to keep the hull in reserve for a quick rebuild of something if ever the need arose. But I understand that hull building (esp Mistral style modular) is the quick part nowadays. And fitting out is the slow part.

The Ural is a massive hull 870 ft long. Thats bigger than light aircraft carriers.

"Could be" That means I don't know right now but I'd say it's gone since I'd have heard about it in some way by now.

That would also be extremely expensive to convert that hull into a functional modern ship, Russia Contrary to popular belief does not have money to send on such projects like that.

The original contract stated the ship be COMPLETELY scrapped basically not a screw left intact, any mentions of modifying the contract would have been picked up.

All the evidence suggests the hull was scrapped like planned.

Nakhimov

What can be, with fair certainty, surmised about Nakhimov's subsystems once it reenters service around 2021 or so?

10 modules of UKSK mean 40 missiles? Kalibr is mentioned in various newsbits, but UKSK is perfectly capable of launching Oniks, is it not? Is it fair to expect a mix of Kalibr and Oniks missiles?

What about Tsirkon? Some media have been speculating about that as well, - but assuming its development will indeed end by 2021, what do we know about the missile itself? How compatible is it with UKSK?

Then there's the old S300F system. Is it realistic that will be replaced 1-on-1 basis with a navalized S400?

What about Redut? Will S400 silos be made modular, so Redut missile can be used as well?

Or will old SA-N-4 launcher locations be replaced with a VLS module or two per location, containing only Redut?

What about SA-N-9? What sort of replacement can be expected? Perhaps pretty much same sort of launcher, only with newer variant missiles and new targeting systems?

Any news about radar suite on Nahkimov? Something new, to serve all the mentioned missiles? Or a set of various targeting radars for various systems mentioned? Is there a talk of integrated sensor mast?

Paket instead of older RBU systems? Any details?

No official comprehensive list.
There was a price-list of things being purchased http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1124199.html but its pretty old, some things may be wrong/updated/missing.

Some things we know for sure like 10*8 = 80 UKSK cells.

Expectation is certainly both Kalibr & Onyx, given the primary task of zapping US CVBGs an Onyx heavy loadout is probably going to be more common. (but a trip to Syria with a crapton of Kalibr would be a likely early task if the damn war is still going by then)

Zirkon is definitely expected to be UKSK compatible -> would replace Onyx for anti-CVBG task.

Upgrade to S-300FM (PtG has one S-300F, one S-300FM) probably somewhat upgraded from PtG but who knows how much
No naval S-400 known to be in the works. (possible that the S-300FM will be roughly equivalent)

9M-96 missile is part of the S-400 system already, whether it can be mounted on the S-300F/FM carousel who knows?
Hasn't been any official mention of Redut VLS cells being part of the upgrade but most people assume it will be.

Unknown what is planned for the Osa or Tor, we do know that the Land Tor has had recent upgrade but a lot of people assume Redut cells would be put in instead of Tor.

Main radar is upgrading to Podberezovik as seen on Ustinov, a modern Fregat, Poliment is on the list, Puma for the gun.

Paket yes, also the anti-sub Kalibr.

Also replacing the Kashtans with Pantsir-M.
New EW/ECM stuff, sonars & modern integrated battle management system, new Reactors etc.

So... basically there is no confirmed news yet whatsoever about Zircon, S400, Tor, Redut, radars etc? It's all unsubstantiated rumors in the media and various internet forums?

GarryB wrote:Zircon 100% yes... the UKSK launcher is a universal launcher for land attack, anti ship, and anti sub cruise missile weapons and ballistic missile weapons for surface ships.

New missiles will be compatible with the launcher because all new and upgraded vessels will have the UKSK launcher.

Keep in mind that this wont be the last upgrade for these vessels... they will likely remain in service for a few decades to come so even if they don't get a full comprehensive upgrade this time likely the next time they will get more done.

I am looking for specific citations from the media, as they often are given for certain stuff.

This person, who is head of this and this, said the following, in this publication, on this date.

Like "Zircon is compatible with UKSK" or "Zircon will be a part of Nahkimov's armament when it returns into service" or "Redut/S400/S500 will be implemented in Nakhimov during the modernization" And so on.

Do any of such citations exist in any of the media?

We can all we be 90% sure about answers to those questions, but still an actual confirmation from an official source would be better.