[Official] 'Peter The Great' News Thread:

Well 4x Leider class ships instead is a pretty desirable option. Good for navy, good for nuclear industry, good for ship building industry. Maybe the will send PV back home to Ukraine for mods and to reconstitute the shipyard there and create jobs.

The Kirov battlecruisers were all built at Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg. Same place where they build the Project 22220 icebreakers.

PTG might be withdrawn from the Russian Navy...

PTG wont be decommissioned...

Sounds to me like they are planning to send the PTG for upgrades soon... that would explain it being withdrawn from the RuN but also that it is not being decommissioned...

There will be lots of systems and equipment on the PTG that is old and obsolete and needs to be replaced just to make it affordable to operate it... replace all those floppy disk drives and old hard drives with solid state drives and USB ports.

I would say it would be a good opportunity for the radar companies working on new radars for the new destroyers and new cruisers to test new radar arrays and new sonar arrays and other sensors and weapons and equipment.

Equally they need to further upgrade Redut so it can carry the larger SAMs like the upgrades of Rif and Fort etc for the current missile versions.

They could also replace the 130mm guns with 152mm guns for testing and operational use too... and perhaps get some 57mm gun mounts going for CIWS using air burst shells to hit air targets like drones etc.

Such a huge ship should also have space for drones... submarine, sea surface, air, and also land drones that it could use to protect the ship and find targets etc etc.

Podlodka77 wrote:To AMCXXL.....

That story about "Peter the Great" is nonsense, and I strongly doubt that a ship that has been in service for only 25 years, that is, since April 1998, will be decommissioned. The Russians had many such idiotic statements...
Don't fall for that nonsense, AMCXXL.

Regarding the years you mentioned, yes, the Russians started building two Borei submarines in 2021, while the K-XXX Emperor Alexander III was launched last year. K-XXX "Knyaz Pozharskiy" will most likely be launched this year.

I have written a couple of times some of my assumptions about when keels could be laid for certain ships. I saw that it was completely ungrateful and that there could always be surprises.

https://tass.com/defense/1606933
The Pyotr Veliky cruiser to donate its name to nuclear submarine — source
In 2024, the ceremony of laying down a nuclear submarine will be held at Sevmash

MOSCOW, April 19. /TASS/. The name of the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser The Pyotr Veliky will be given to a project 955A Borey-A class strategic nuclear-powered submarine after the cruiser is withdrawn from the Russian Navy, a naval source told TASS.
"After The Pyotr Veliky cruiser has been withdrawn from the Navy, the strategic nuclear submarine of the Borey-A project will inherit this name," source said.

A keel-laying ceremony for a nuclear-powered submarine to be named The Pyotr Veliky will held at Sevmash in 2024. The submarine will eventually become the flagship of the Northern Fleet's division of nuclear-powered submarines.
TASS has obtained no official confirmation of this yet.
A source told TASS earlier Sevmash would start building a new series of Project 955A nuclear-powered submarines after 2023. A total of six Borey subs are planned to be built for the Northern and Pacific Fleets. With the completion of this series the Navy will have 14 new strategic submarines: 11 Borey-A class subs and three Borey class ones.
Earlier, a source told TASS that The Pyotr Veliky missile cruiser may be withdrawn from the Russian Navy.


In my opinion the Peter the Great Nuclear Cruiser is obsolete and modernizing as Nakhimov it would take a lot of years and a lot of money.
In addition, the sinking of the Moskva makes it clear that the Russian policy of many small ships instead of few large ones is correct.

There are two types of warships: Submarines and floating targets.
The larger the ship, the greater the danger and the greater the loss in case of sinking.

With what it would cost to modernize the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great, another half dozen frigates pr.22350 can be ordered

The only reason to keep in Nakhimov is to be an escort of the Kuznestov and to be flagship.
In fact the two remaining Slava should also be removed, they are useless without modernizing.

Russia should focus on submarines (at least 40 nuclear and 40 not nuclear) and have a surface fleet with small ships 22380/5/6, the Udaloy and Sovremenny should be replaced by the 22350/22350M, which can deny the ocean to enemy formations with modern long range hypersonic missiles.
The cruisers are not necessary at all , and if an aircraft carrier is made, of course, a maximum of the size of the English carriers and with a limited crew of about 700 servicemen, nothing to put 5000 guys in a floating coffin
US Navy is also lopking for smaller ships
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a34523513/navy-secretary-wants-smaller-aircraft-carriers/

I know that TASS reported that text and I am familiar with that story and I consider it idiocy.
Regardless of the fact that the modernization of "Peter the Great" is very expensive and costs as much as the construction of several project 22350 frigates (which is a fact) the fact is also that Russia is still doing VERY BAD in building those frigates..

It is easiest to make a decision to decommission a ship that is sure to have an operational life of up to 50 years after only 25 years of service. As you already know, the last two frigates had their keels laid way back in 2020 in July at the idiotic Sewernaya Werf. And worst of all, that imbecile shipyard has a contract for two more frigates whose construction has not even started.
And while project 1164 "Atlant" is not promising for modernization because it is impossible to place UKSK launchers on those cruisers and they will probably remain with 2 X 8 missiles for P-1000 until the end of their service. On the other hand, project 1144 has a nuclear propulsion, as well as a great potential for modernization - which unfortunately costs a lot. That is better than the unfortunate saga with the frigates because there is still no progress.
And while the Russians like to say how they solved the problem with gas turbines, I am of the opinion that this will only be the case when the next frigates like "Admiral Isakov" become active. And as far as we know, "Isakov" has not yet been launched.
And while in the Amur Shipyard they started building 6 new corvettes in the past 2 years, the fucking SW is not even able to lay the keels for the frigates ordered 3 years ago at "Army-2020".
The Russians must first learn to build ships, so decommissioning an already very small number of ships is sheer idiocy.


But as far as the future is concerned, we agree, that is, the construction of project 22350 frigates and project 20385 corvettes should be continued.
There is no dispute about submarines at all - they must be a priority.

AMCXXL wrote:In my opinion the Peter the Great Nuclear Cruiser is obsolete and modernizing as Nakhimov it would take a lot of years and a lot of money.
In addition, the sinking of the Moskva makes it clear that the Russian policy of many small ships instead of few large ones is correct.

There are two types of warships: Submarines and floating targets.
The larger the ship, the greater the danger and the greater the loss in case of sinking.

With what it would cost to modernize the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great, another half dozen frigates pr.22350 can be ordered

The only reason to keep in Nakhimov is to be an escort of the Kuznestov and to be flagship.
In fact the two remaining Slava should also be removed, they are useless without modernizing.

There is just one problem with this plan. There are not enough Russian surface ships to begin with. So it is not a question of replacing a couple of cruisers with many more frigates. But of replacing the cruisers with basically nothing.

I agree that the Slava-class Varyag should be removed from service. But the Marshal Ustinov was extensively upgraded and there is no good reason to remove it from service in the short term.

I also disagree with the idea that the nuclear cruisers as a concept in the Russian Navy serve no purpose. Russia lacks supply ships and foreign bases. If the Russian Navy needs to deploy a task force for whatever reason far away from Russia's shores then the nuclear cruisers will be one of the few ways to do it.

Also unlike surface ships the Russians seem to have much less issues making nuclear boats in general.

In addition, the sinking of the Moskva makes it clear that the Russian policy of many small ships instead of few large ones is correct.

What a stupid suggestion, first of all because I rather doubt they will make many small ships, and those many small ships get divided up into separate fleets so any many they achieve will be divided by five fleets meaning they will need hundreds of ships just to have many at each fleet.

Bigger ships are better able to defend themselves than small ships... by a wide margin.

A small Russian ship currently couldn't survive very long because it cannot carry a large number of defensive missiles and under a sustained attack would quickly run out.

I have seen no conclusive evidence that Moskva was hit by anything, Kiev claims it was anti ship missiles, but if that were the case why did they not ask for more and why did they stop using them?

I would guess there was either a problem with an S-300 missile failing and burning on the deck starting an internal fire that got out of hand... there was talk of fire fighting equipment not being up to scratch, or it hit a mine, which sounds a bit suspect... its sonars were not new but only one Russian ship hitting a mine?

Sounds unlikely.

The point is that the problem for that vessel was not that it was too big, but that its defensive systems were not upgraded like they should have been... it was not really upgraded from the period it was built, so of course its defence against drones and missiles would not be strong... it is supposed to operate as part of a group of ships all working together on air defence.

I can believe they decided that this particular ship is not cost effective to upgrade and to continue to use it without an upgrade does not make a lot of sense but if that was the case why continue with the upgrade of the other Orlan class ship... why not cancel the upgrade and retire them both and then start working on new destroyer and cruiser types to replace them?

Perhaps the time and cost was excessive and they just want to test the Nakhimov to see if the upgrades are useful and effective.... but what if the upgrades turn out to be amazing... if they are scrapping the PtG then the Nakhimov becomes a white elephant because one of a type is not a lot of use except maintaining skills in its use.

It would become critical to synchronise the Nakhimov and the Kuznetsov so they are both available together so they can be used together.

Ironic you think a failure of the Atlant class would lead to the withdrawal of an Orlan class ship...

There are two types of warships: Submarines and floating targets.
The larger the ship, the greater the danger and the greater the loss in case of sinking.

Submarines are fucking useless for anything except war and what difference will they make there?

During peace time how can your subs ensure US and UK ships don't hijack Russian bound freight and cargo... a sub is useless in that regard.... it is also useless for anti piracy.

MOST IMPORTANT... you do understand it is Russian missiles you are claiming that make surface ships pointless... by that notion US carrier groups must make Russian trade with the rest of the world pointless, so Russia should pull its pants down and take it up the arse from the west in terms of trade because Russia must isolate itself from everyone and let the west skim the cream off their trade with the rest of the world forever...

Maybe the PtG is going to get a super upgrade and be called PtSR.... Putin the Saviour of Russia.

With what it would cost to modernize the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great, another half dozen frigates pr.22350 can be ordered

Even if that were true the upgrade of the PtG takes up one slipway that they have available when the Nakhimov puts to sea... any orders for 6 new frigates will be added to the end of the current schedule and wont even get laid down for quite a few years yet, so money saved will likely be diverted to other things when it is decided those extra frigates are not needed anyway.

They have x number of fleets and will know how many frigates and how many corvettes they want... if you are not making any bigger ships then you wont need a lot and the most potent ship in the fleet wont be a ship or a sub... it will be a MiG-31K for the next half decade and then after that it will likely become MiG-41Ks.

BTW might as well cancel those helicopter carriers and scrap the Kuznetsov because corvettes and frigates wont be able to defend those... frigates and corvettes will barely be able to defend themselves.

US Navy is also lopking for smaller ships

Who gives a **** what they are doing?

Their smaller vessels was the LCS... how did that go?

There is no dispute about submarines at all - they must be a priority.

Subs are useless in peace time, they are like snipers. An amazing tool and asset in taking down enemy forces selectively, but when you are outnumbered like Russia currently is, they will get you eventually and then you have nothing at all.

In peace time subs are useless, you need surface ships for most things... even just clearing mines.

You rate Russian air defence as being as useless and weak as western air defence... I would suggest their new missiles in a variety of types along with other more exotic weapons and systems will make Russian ships the worlds best able to deal with hypersonic weapons... if a hypersonic weapon has not guidance it is useless... expendable jammers launched from ships to sit in open ocean next to expendable decoys with corner reflectors looking like enormously massive bits of metal sitting on the ocean surface... and that is just a start.

A large ship has large propulsion systems and potentially large reserves of electrical energy available for it, which should be good for lasers and other directed energy weapons, not to mention their SAMs are some of the best in the business and have been designed to hit very high speed targets.

The Soviets had missile swarm technology in the 1980s so how hard would it be to develop a smart SAM.

Russian hypersonic anti ship missiles have sensors to detect incoming threats, but imagine launching two SAMs up at the target... one using its onboard radar to get precise and close range radar tracking information of the incoming missile but the other radar silent using IIR sensors to track the incoming threat... the main problem with IIR sensors is lack of range information but that could be provided by the active radar homing SAM that was launched with the IIR homing SAM... together they could get close enough to the threat to get a kill perhaps?

Or just send a nuke into the flight path of the incoming threat/s

In fact I would say the only safe surface fleets would be those with aircraft carriers where flights of Su-57s could be operating on a perimeter and when a hypersonic missile is detected the Su-57s could wait for it to pass their position and launch a hypersonic air to air missile to chase it down and kill it from behind... no ranging needed... just very high flight speed and an IIR sensor... and then turn and start launching more hypersonic weapons at the launch platform for the threat missile.

The thing is the latest frigates are a lot more capable than older ships. The Admiral Gorshkov frigate has 16 VLS cells for surface to surface missiles and 32 VLS cells for SAMs which can be quad packed with short range missiles for a max of 128 short range missiles. The Slava class cruiser has the same 16 VLS cells for surface to surface missiles. It does have a lot more SAMs in it, like 64 S-300 class missiles and 40 short range OSA missiles. But the S-300 missiles come in revolver launchers instead of regular VLS cells. These will be less effective against saturation attacks than the newer system. Plus the fact you can more easily mix and match SAM missiles with the Redut in the frigate makes it a lot more versatile in terms of air defense. So I think the Slava class cruiser is pretty questionable in terms of performance against the regular Admiral Gorshkov class frigate. And that is without any upgrades being done to the frigate. Either the ones already in construction or the planned enlargement of the class turning the frigate into a destroyer.

The Kirov battlecruisers though are in a whole different league. They have like twice the displacement and twice the missile load of a Slava class cruiser. Plus the ship hull design in the Kirov battlecruisers is much more amenable to upgrade to modern VLS than the Slava cruisers' hull. I personally think it was a mistake to scrap the other battlecruisers. It might just be that they considered it would be cheaper to build new ships than upgrade the older hulls due to the extensive retrofits required. But given how Baltic Shipyard is loaded with building nuclear icebreakers and floating nuclear power stations for most of the next decade, I wonder if that was such a good idea.

Would It be also possible that they want tò give the name of Moskva to the Battlecruiser?

I seriously doubt that they will scrap it. Possibly they want to delay the decision and see what is best to do.

As far as the older two ships, their condition was much worse than Nakhimov, and considering the extremely high cost and time needed to properly modernise them, it was probably deemed unpractical.

GarryB wrote:I have seen no conclusive evidence that Moskva was hit by anything, Kiev claims it was anti ship missiles, but if that were the case why did they not ask for more and why did they stop using them?

IMHO there are really only two possibilities - sabotage or accident. Something exploded inside the vessel and the loss of the Moskva was a result of her being gutted by the subsequent fire.

I don't believe for a moment that her loss was due to AShMs. If the Banderites had sucessfully used "Neptunes" and taken out the BSF flagship in such a fashion they would be prioritising their manufacture, and the West would be pumping similar weapons into theatre. Instead, there has been.... nothing. Russian ships operate openly and yet no further use of AShMs, or even UAVs in focused attacks on Russian vessels. That tells me everything there is to know.

The thing is the latest frigates are a lot more capable than older ships.

That is very true, but while the capacity for weapons has massively increased with smaller lighter more capable anti ship and anti sub weapons and also smaller lighter and more capable air defence missiles a Frigate is still a small ship of limited endurance, and while the performance of modern ships has massively increased, the threats have increased too.

It was an open secret that British ships of the early 1980s were inadequately defended, but that was OK at the time because the Soviet Union didn't have any potent sea skimming missiles like the French had...

But these days most countries could form up a group of 30 or 40 drone type threats that could mob a single vessel on its own and be quite a challenge.

The Admiral Gorshkov frigate has 16 VLS cells for surface to surface missiles and 32 VLS cells for SAMs which can be quad packed with short range missiles for a max of 128 short range missiles. The Slava class cruiser has the same 16 VLS cells for surface to surface missiles. It does have a lot more SAMs in it, like 64 S-300 class missiles and 40 short range OSA missiles.

I agree with what you are trying to say but that is totally unfair... the Gorshkov has the advantage that those 16 launch cells can carry anti ship or land attack or anti sub missiles, while the Atlant cruiser only carries Vulcan anti ship missiles, but in terms of SAMs if you want to carry quad missiles in those 32 Redut tubes then that limits you to 9M100 missiles which have a range from 5 to 15km that are purely CIWS type self defence missiles so an aircraft like an A-10 could fly 20km away launching missiles at the ship and be quite safe from anything except possibly the 130mm gun.

Ironically the 9M96 missiles with 120-150km range is actually rather better than the old S-300 while being rather smaller and lighter, while the smaller 9M96 missiles with the 50-60km range take up the same amount of tube space in terms of width... the difference is in length.

32 tubes means 32 x 120-150km range 9M96 or 32 x 50-60km range 9M96 or 128 9M100 with a range of 5-15km.

All appear to be active radar homing missiles for day and night and all weather capability... the 9M100 was rumoured to be an IIR guided AAM with a two way datalink that can select its own targets or have new targets selected by the launch platform after launch, but it appears they have gone for ARH for all weather capability.

Maybe they will make two versions of it... or perhaps three where one is ARH and one IIR and the other command guided because it is cheaper and with enormous AESA radars on each ship would be very accurate too.

But the S-300 missiles come in revolver launchers instead of regular VLS cells. These will be less effective against saturation attacks than the newer system.

Another good point, the old revolver launchers limited potential rate of fire and of course a problem with the hatch meant 8 missiles could not be fired instead of just one on the newer models.

The newer systems can actively monitor each missile in each cell to make sure everything is OK before launch...

Plus the fact you can more easily mix and match SAM missiles with the Redut in the frigate makes it a lot more versatile in terms of air defense.

Also very true and the fact that the launcher will be fitted to most new Russian ships means new missiles will be designed to be compatible.

So I think the Slava class cruiser is pretty questionable in terms of performance against the regular Admiral Gorshkov class frigate. And that is without any upgrades being done to the frigate. Either the ones already in construction or the planned enlargement of the class turning the frigate into a destroyer.

The Atlant class also had lots of bulky electronics and equipment that has shrunk in size so a serious upgrade could massively increase its potential and its size means it can have an endurance that no Frigate could match.

The design of the missile ramps makes upgrades difficult, but they upgraded Udaloy class ships with UKSK launch tubes, the Atlant would need a serious shift around of things to make room for launch bins etc... but the point is that fitting it with close in defence systems for any potential conflict and it is fine as a stopgap till a proper designed ship can be made ready.

The evolution of design of ships means their new cruisers wont be nearly as big as the old cruisers but will pack in a lot more firepower and be rather more valuable on it own or as part of a group of ships and subs.

The Kirov battlecruisers though are in a whole different league. They have like twice the displacement and twice the missile load of a Slava class cruiser.

That is because nuclear propulsion allowed a bigger ship and that is the ship they wanted but were not sure it would succeed as a design.

I agree that the Orlans offer much better upgrade potential and I think they should have taken the opportunity to use these ships for proper testing... the ship with the problematic reactor that they scrapped first, I would have taken it as a good opportunity to test new ship based NPPs and replace the entire combined propulsion system with a nuclear based system... either electric drive with nuke power generation, or nuke drive...

I would have also added new cell based launchers for S-400 and UKSK launchers, and also replaced the guns with a 152mm gun mount, and maybe even replaced some of the 30mm gun turrets with 57mm gun turrets.

Make it a test ship and of course try new AESA radar arrays and new sonar systems and all the other EW equipment and systems... that 5km range anti drone laser system would be interesting too...

So many new things to test with space and power capacity to really test them... wouldn't be cheap but might save problems in the future with brand new ships where everything is new... look at the Zumwalt as an example... the Americans aren't stupid and they know how to make ships, but when your customer is too ambitious and your shipyard managers just see dollar signs and say they can deliver then it puts the guys actually designing and making the stuff in a seriously stressful position... and problem solving when everything is new is a nightmare to isolate what is doing what...

When nothing works where do you start?

Would It be also possible that they want tò give the name of Moskva to the Battlecruiser?

That would be a nice gesture... though I still think Putin the Saviour of Russia has a nice ring to it... probably get good funding too...

IMHO there are really only two possibilities - sabotage or accident. Something exploded inside the vessel and the loss of the Moskva was a result of her being gutted by the subsequent fire.

Agree, those S-300F SAMs are not new and maybe they tried to launch one and it was catapulted into the air but the main rocket motor didn't fire and it fell back down onto the deck and burned down through the deck to start internal fires. It is not a new ship and they have not spent a lot on it so maybe the fire fighting equipment was not in the best condition and the fire did too much structural damage... hard to say for sure, but if the Orcs actually sank it we would know.

If anything is going to counter hypersonic weapons they will be big and need a large ship to operate from... just the large radar arrays will need big ships to carry and power them.

Russia is in the best position to develop missiles and systems to defeat such threats... we have seen hints like the S-550 which is supposed to be a dedicated anti satellite weapon... they mentioned there was not to be a naval version... which suggests there will be a naval S-500 system to defend against ICBM and SLBM and other ballistic threats...

I rather suspect the new destroyers and cruisers will be all electric drive with NPP for electricity generation, but other than that we will just have to guess.

GarryB wrote:If anything is going to counter hypersonic weapons they will be big and need a large ship to operate from... just the large radar arrays will need big ships to carry and power them.

Russia is in the best position to develop missiles and systems to defeat such threats... we have seen hints like the S-550 which is supposed to be a dedicated anti satellite weapon... they mentioned there was not to be a naval version... which suggests there will be a naval S-500 system to defend against ICBM and SLBM and other ballistic threats...

I rather suspect the new destroyers and cruisers will be all electric drive with NPP for electricity generation, but other than that we will just have to guess.

IMHO the only practical way to defeat hypersonic manoeuvring missiles is to locate a large HE warhead to a position forward of its general vicinity and then detonate with a debris/projectile field that is directed preferentially into a torus-like envelope to maximise the chance of hitting the target.  Not at all easy to do of course, but I don't see a practical alternative.  The bigger the warhead and the more energetic the debris field, the greater chances of a kill.  Dinky little kinetic impactors like THAAD are a pathetic joke that might be very efficient at delivering taxpayer money into the pockets of LM's fat-cat shareholders, but will do fck-all to take down real life hypersonic missiles

Watch and enjoy.. This ship should remain in service at least until 2050. Modernization is necessary, of course.

Would be interesting to see the structure rebuilt with AESA arrays and better antenna design to minimise RCS and signature.

It was the first ship to have vertical launch tubes for weapons on a large scale which meant its RCS was rather less than other Soviet ships like the Atlant class with missile launch tubes above deck.

I seem to remember it was the Royal Navy that was quoted as saying that it had a RCS signal that was much smaller than it should be from a ship of this size and it was only the wake size at any particular speed that identified the ship is being rather bigger than it appeared.

Big_Gazza wrote:

GarryB wrote:I have seen no conclusive evidence that Moskva was hit by anything, Kiev claims it was anti ship missiles, but if that were the case why did they not ask for more and why did they stop using them?

IMHO there are really only two possibilities - sabotage or accident.  Something exploded inside the vessel and the loss of the Moskva was a result of her being gutted by the subsequent fire.
I don't believe for a moment that her loss was due to AShMs.  If the Banderites had sucessfully used "Neptunes" and taken out the BSF flagship in such a fashion they would be prioritising their manufacture, and the West would be pumping similar weapons into theatre.  Instead, there has been.... nothing.  Russian ships operate openly and yet no further use of AShMs, or even UAVs in focused attacks on Russian vessels. That tells me everything there is to know.

For a month and a half, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet operated irresponsibly within the range of this weapon, believing that Ukraine did not have a weapon that could endanger its ships. Had these missiles been operational from the beginning of the war, they would have been launched on a ship in the last month and a half. During that time, Ukraine received the missiles and prepared them for launch, and Russian intelligence could not detect them.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/analysis-chain-of-negligence-caused-the-loss-of-the-moskva-cruiser/

Since the sinking, the VMF keeps its ships out of range of Ukr. AShMs, & that's why Ukr. mil. wasn't able to use them. For now, Russian naval commanders are likely to be more cautious in their deployments off Ukraine’s shores.
Instead, they try to hit RF ships in & near ports by BMs & surface drones.
Recalling the past events, I expect PtG CGN to be placed in reserve for a number of years until better times. Also I doubt they'll deploy 2 CGNs together- it'll be overkill & risk exposing other areas.
They could even lease/sell/barter it to the PRC in exchange for a few smaller ships, given her nuclear ratings' sailors a platform to train on at sea (before they get their NP icebreaker) while conducting independent & joint patrols with Russian Pac. Fleet.

Hahaha... if Kiev could sink Russian ships they would never shut up about it, and they would do everything they could to sink as many as they could... they have already disguised HE as rolls of material and put them on a truck to damage the Crimean bridge and launched lots and lots of sea surface drones... are you saying they couldn't put one of these super missiles on the back of a sea drone or launched it from a container ship and sent it out 200km into the black sea down the grain corridor like they have been to launch their drones they were using to try to hit Russian intel ships checking on gas pipes to Turkey...

More importantly the Russians have come clean and been honest about most of their failures... unlike Kiev... if the Nazis had sunk the Moskva I would think the Russians would actually use that to get more support for destroying Kiev rather than pretending it didn't happen.

Lots of sailors on board that ship and lots of sailors on ships that went to rescue them... pretty sure the truth would have come out if it was a nazi attack.

Tsavo Lion wrote:https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/analysis-chain-of-negligence-caused-the-loss-of-the-moskva-cruiser/

Pfftt... might as well consult the Ukrainians or British MoD. I couldn't care less what this article says. It's nothing but atlantacist drivel.

TASS is again yapping about Peter the great being decommissioned soon after Nakhimov comes back....

T-47 wrote:TASS is again yapping about Peter the great being decommissioned soon after Nakhimov comes back....

Nakhimov has been in the shipyard for more than 10 years
If you want to overhaul Peter the Great then 2024 to at least 2034, has no sense

You need the workers of the shipyard for build submarines at a higher pace, in special Yasen

for the price of overhaul and maintenance of Peter the Grerat you can have nearly half a dozen of frigates of pr.22350
with the crew of 750 people of Peter the Great you can fullfill the crews for 4 pr.22350

Not "more than" 10 years when they only started really working on it in 2014. But yeah close to that.

The frigates are not being built at the same shipyard where the PtG upgrades would have been done, and the frigates have had delays on their own. For example, the Admiral Isakov seems nowhere close to ready. For whatever stupid reason. They are testing the Admiral Golovko, but there is no good reason why the Admiral Isakov has not been put into the water yet, the engines for it were delivered a long time ago.

You talk about delays with the Admiral Nakhimov upgrade. Sure. But they cannot seem to build a single frigate in less than a decade either.
You would also think that after the experience of doing this upgrade, doing the same to PtG would have been more straightforward.

for the price of overhaul and maintenance of Peter the Grerat you can have nearly half a dozen of frigates of pr.22350
with the crew of 750 people of Peter the Great you can fullfill the crews for 4 pr.22350

Honestly I hate it when people say things like that... because first of all it is bullshit they have made up in their heads.

Second of all you can save the equivalent money right now needed to build half a dozen frigates... but those half a dozen frigates... do they arrive by space ship? Are they automatically designed and built in no time taking up no materials and no shipyard space and built by magical workers already working on other things but made at the same time so nothing else is effected.

And thirdly who mans these extra frigates and where are they based and can they all be delivered on time and to budget and where is the funding to operate them and they already had plans for the ships they were building so building a half dozen more ships means more money and energy and time that has to come from somewhere.

And fourth, which damn frigates are you going to be building... the type you already tested and decided on changes for them, or the new design you don't know whether it will be any bloody good or not because it has never been tested yet.

The reality is that even if you could build a dozen frigates with the money spent upgrading a single cruiser that is not a good deal because 12 frigates can't do what a full sized cruiser can.

Or do you prefer to play chess with all pawns?

So even if you save the money and allocate it to building new frigates they will have a frigate building programme they will be following so these 6 new frigates will be tacked on the the end of the production schedule that will be based on resources and money and what shipyards are available and what the subcontractors can produce so that money will go to making 6 frigates... in about 20 years time when they have made the other 30 odd frigates that they were going to be making anyway... how is that useful?

But more importantly it means you lose the use of a cruiser now which wont be replaced for a decade or more, so you don't get 6 new frigates, you just lose a cruiser.

As from the world geopolitical status of the present day and foreseeable future, Russia needs both the PtG overhaul AND Yasens AND those frigates!

lancelot wrote:Not "more than" 10 years when they only started really working on it in 2014. But yeah close to that.

The frigates are not being built at the same shipyard where the PtG upgrades would have been done, and the frigates have had delays on their own. For example, the Admiral Isakov seems nowhere close to ready. For whatever stupid reason. They are testing the Admiral Golovko, but there is no good reason why the Admiral Isakov has not been put into the water yet, the engines for it were delivered a long time ago.

You talk about delays with the Admiral Nakhimov upgrade. Sure. But they cannot seem to build a single frigate in less than a decade either.
You would also think that after the experience of doing this upgrade, doing the same to PtG would have been more straightforward.

the works started a lot of time ago but probably had been intermitent before the Maidan coup, then the military budget increased

English version of wilipedia:
On 30 October 2008, Russian Navy representatives of the Northern Fleet announced that the first modification on Admiral Nakhimov had been started and that the ship would re-join the Russian fleet by 2012.[13][14] In November 2010 the director of Sevmash, Nikolai Kalistratov, repeated this statement confirming that the Russian government had appropriated money for Admiral Nakhimov to be repaired in 2011 (costing over 50 billion rubles.) However he also said that the funds were insufficient and more were needed to bring the ship back to active service.[15] After finishing repairs, Admiral Nakhimov was reported as likely to join the Russian Pacific Fleet.[16] However, by 2020 it was reported that she would remain with the Northern Fleet.[17]

the money is important, is better to use it for other thigs like pr.22350 and Yasen. In leningrad you have a lot of workforce, the problem is on Murmansk and Arkhangelsk

the workforce used in Nakhimov and Kuznestov will be free of work in 2024, so the Yasen program others can be accelerated. Also in necesary to increrase the repair rate as in the case of Akulas, Udaloy an pther

GarryB wrote:

for the price of overhaul and maintenance of Peter the Grerat you can have nearly half a dozen of frigates of pr.22350
with the crew of 750 people of Peter the Great you can fullfill the crews for 4 pr.22350

Honestly I hate it when people say things like that... because first of all it is bullshit they have made up in their heads.

Second of all you can save the equivalent money right now needed to build half a dozen frigates... but those half a dozen frigates... do they arrive by space ship? Are they automatically designed and built in no time taking up no materials and no shipyard space and built by magical workers already working on other things but made at the same time so nothing  else is effected.

And thirdly who mans these extra frigates and where are they based and can they all be delivered on time and to budget and where is the funding to operate them and they already had plans for the ships they were building so building a half dozen more ships means more money and energy and time that has to come from somewhere.

And fourth, which damn frigates are you going to be building... the type you already tested and decided on changes for them, or the new design you don't know whether it will be any bloody good or not because it has never been tested yet.

The reality is that even if you could build a dozen frigates with the money spent upgrading a single cruiser that is not a good deal because 12 frigates can't do what a full sized cruiser can.

Or do you prefer to play chess with all pawns?

There's just no point in having two nuclear cruisers right now, fleets start with patrol ships and corvettes not imperial destroyers.
The reason for keeping the Kuznestov and a Nuclear Cruiser is to keep the specific service and know how in the Navy
Where does he get a first-class cruise crew of 750, including an experienced Rear Admiral to captain him, from the employment office?
not before it has to have crews and officers that have served in ships of 3rd rank, 2nd rank and in frigates and destroyers of 1st first rank
the workforce released by the Nakhimov will be used to speed up work on the Yasen in Sevmash or to modernize Akulas in Zvyozdochka, the money for anything else, more frigates, corvettes or SSKs, the reason some programs are so slow is In addition to limited money, the lack of personnel in the shipyards, especially in the North
Did you know that Murmansk Oblast lost almost half of its population in 30 years?? from 1.2 million to just 650,000? Lack of workforce is the biggest constraint to Russia's industrial growth

On the other hand, the large combat ships are a thing of the past, floating targets.
Russia is a continental power, the strategy is to DENY THE OCEAN to the Yankee navy, that is achieved with hypersonic missiles and nuclear torpedoes.
The middle of the ocean has no value anymore and today no ship can safely approach less than 1000 or 2000 miles from the coast, you will not see an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf ever again