Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

The fact of the matter is that it will be 10 years before they are ready to design and build such vessels from scratch and large vessels like this are truly global vessels with the capacity and capability no large group of small vessels can compete with.

If you want a ship to base a battle group around you need a large command vessel and the three remaining Kirovs of the Orlan class are ideal.

There were actually 5 ships in the original class but the last was rebuilt as a spy ship when it was clear there was not going to be more than 4 carriers needing such vessels in support.

Very simply the Kirov is the most capable ship in the Russian navy right now and refurbishing the two remaining vessels in her class means that when the Mistrals are built they will have ships to operate with because right now the Russian Navy is struggling to get Frigates built and has been working on a Destroy for 3-4 years now... there is no way they could scratch build a cruiser before 2025... but if they want a blue water navy they need a vessel to build battlegroups and carrier groups around.

The Orlan class were excellent vessels in their time and were well respected... with all new modular weapons and sensors and propulsion systems they will be even better, and the propulsion upgrades could include systems for the Kuznetsov upgrade and the new carriers planned for the future (ie 2020s).

This is very good news.

Very simply put... it wasn't their army or air force that made Britain a world power, and it isn't its army or air force that makes the US a world power... it is their navies that gave them global reach. Britain and the US didn't create the global economy in their time, but their navies gave them access and often control of the various parts of the global economy... which they have used to their benefit to become rich and powerful and strong.

Perhaps they both got too strong in their times and now it is time for other players... but the point is that a strong navy is needed for global reach and influence.

One should look at the planned reactivation of the battlecruisers in this context: Russia is planning to develop its own sea-based missile defense system

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110922/167048033.html

Well this planet is very badly named... rather than call it Earth it should really be called Water.

Having a land based mobile air defence system means the potential ability to position it on 1/3rd of the planets surface. Making it water based means 2/3rds are available.

The Almaz Altai company talking about air based interceptors would mean 3/3rds coverage by air and 2/3rds by sea, and 1/3rd by land... which offers pretty comprehensive coverage whichever way you look at it.

Why does Russia need a water based ABM system... we know for a fact that large lumps of material periodically fall from space and and thump into the surface on a fairly regular basis.

In human terms it is very rare but in geological terms it is fairly regular and consistent.

There have been several major extinction periods that we know of where a very large percentage of all life on this planet was wiped out... this will not stop just because we are here.

We talk about survival of the fittest, but the reality is that it is the creatures that fit their environment best that suffer the most when it drastically changes.

Humans are very adaptable, but there are almost 7 billion of us to feed and care for... when 90% of the rest of the animals are dead we will only have each other.... so to speak...

The reactivation of these ships has been on the board for the last 5 years, still nothing new.
But should it become reality, its very good news. It would allow the Mistrals to operate with complete airdefence, as state of the art systems will replace the old Sa-4 and sa-6 systems. That would allow the peter the great the time to be modernized also. With 3-4 active ships, one could be modernized at a time, while the others continue to fill their duties.
All I hope for now, is the renaming of Lazarev to the kick ass name Frunze!

Well, let's see how much their armaments will change, and electronics. But with the scope of work needed to rebuild them to modern state of the art cruisers, it will in all essential be a new ship.
Then, it will be the slavas turn to be modernized.

Still, I cross my fingers and wait for the ships to go to sea again. As Gary said, these ships are invaluable as command posts and as power projection.

On of the problems in the old Soviet Navy was the huge variety of weapons and sensors and propulsion systems and ship hulls.

The navy basically got custom made vessels for each specific role, which was both good and bad, because although most ships had all round armament fits so all had some air defence and some anti ship capability and anti sub capability a single vessel like the Sovremmeny class was a destroyer designed to sink ships, while the very similar Udaloy class was a dedicated ASW vessel. The Sov had 8 large launchers for Moskit anti ship missiles, while the Udaloy had 8 large launchers for anti sub missiles that later were dual purpose anti sub and anti surface vessel missiles.
The point is that now you could take a Udaloy hull and fit two UKSK launchers and have 8 dedicated anti ship missiles like Brahmos or Oniks AND 8 dedicated anti sub weapons that delivered modern anti sub torpedoes out to 40km at supersonic speeds by rocket booster.
Add a couple of 130mm guns and some vertical launch SAMs and you have one ship doing the job of two before it, so instead of 10 Sovs and 10 Udaloys you can have 20 ships that can do each job with twice or more of the main weapon payload of the vessel it replaced, or you can have a mixed load to allow the new vessels to do both jobs.

With larger ships you can have more UKSK launchers and more vertical SAM bins and larger more powerful radars with longer range and larger sonar sets.

All their vessels will have the Sigma battle management and data sharing system from carrier down to corvette.

A new compact nuclear propulsion system would be useful for the Kirovs and the Slavas and the Kuznetsov and any future carriers they might introduce in the next 20-30 years.

The Slavas had a similar role to the Kirovs but were cheaper and less ambitious, but with the unification of weapons and sensors and propulsion systems an upgrade of the Slavas would be very useful as well.

Nuclear power is expensive initially, but running costs are low, and it greatly reduces the logistics chain to support any battle group sailing any great distance... another important factor is that a battle group only sails as fast as its slowest member, so having nuclear powered Kirovs and nuclear powered carriers, but everything else gas turbine powered destroyers means for 2,000 nautical miles the whole battle group travels at 30 Knts, but then the destroyers run out of heavy oil and the speed suddenly drops to 16knts till the prepositioned oiler is reached... It is like in WWII with T-26 light tanks, T-34 medium tanks, and KV-1 heavy tanks in one unit... the T-26 gets there first, then the T-34s, and then the KV-1s that didn't break down arrive... not a good way for a unit to fight.

Among other contracts signed were those for construction of a Project 21300 rescue ship at Admiralteyskie Verfi shipyard and modernization of Project 11442 nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov (former Kalinin) which had been waiting for general overhaul since 1999 at Sevmash shipyard. After repair, Admiral Nakhimov will be stationed at Pacific Fleet, reports RIA Novosti referring to a spokesman for defense industry. Modernization of Admiral Nakhimov is essential because the only operable ship of this class Petr Veliky will be laid up for repairs in the nearest years, said Andrei Frolov.


Finally! But nothing about the other 2 Kirovs...

Pyotr Veliky’s sisters to sail again

2011-09-22




Three nuclear-powered battle cruisers that have been laid up for the last 20 years will get major overhaul including the reactors, electronic warfare systems and weaponry.


The refit work on "Admiral Nakhimov" has already started at the naval yard Sevmash in Severodvinsk reports Izvestia. A source in Russia’s military-industrial complex says to the newspaper that also the two other nuclear battle cruisers of the Kirov-class, “Admiral Lazarev” and “Admiral Ushakov” will get the same significant modernization.

The only vessel of the class today in operation is the Northern fleet’s flagship “Pyotr Veliky” (Peter the Great) based in Severomorsk on the Kola Peninsula.

Read also: Pyotr Veliky returned to home base

The hulls on the three huge navy vessels will be renovated and the reactors will be repaired. New radio-communications equipment and radars will be installed. The main acquisition will however be the upgraded weapons with new cruise missiles and universal launch systems. The number of cruise missiles on each vessel will increase from originally 20 to 80 after the refit, according to Izvestia’s source.

Read also: Nuclear cruiser to be modernized in 2011

The oldest vessel now to be refitted and enter service again is “Admiral Ushakov” from 1980. The vessel was sailing for Soviet Northern fleet until 1990. “Admiral Lasarev” was launched in 1984, also based in Severomorsk and used to sail the Barents Sea before she was laid-up after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “Admiral Nakhimov” was sailing for the Pacific fleet in the period from 1988 to the early 90ties.

One of the three refitted vessels will be based in Severomorsk together with today’s operational “Pyotr Veliky.”

- There will be two nuclear-powered cruisers with the Northern Fleet, says the Defence Ministry source to Izvestia. The two other will likely sail for the Pacific fleet.

The first modernized battle-cruiser “Admiral Nakhimov” will be handed over to the fleet again from the naval yard in Severodvinsk in 2015. The service life is expected to last until 2030-2040.


Just in time for Nakhimov to accompany Mistral to the Pacific fleet!

Interesting, it says the reactors will get "repaired".

That is an interesting translation.

The thing is that the Kirovs have a complicated design of propulsion... nuclear power plants in ships and subs are not all powerful so to propel a very large vessel like a Nimitz class they often fit multiple reactors.. 6-8 in fact to get the power to move such a large object.

For the Kirovs they devised a combined propulsion design with a gas turbine and nuclear propulsion, where the nuke plant would get the vessel up to 16knts, while the gas turbine would take it up to just over 30knts. There was only enough fuel on board for about 2,000 nautical miles of sailing at full speed, but obviously it could sail for years at 16knts with nuclear only.

Obviously if these boats are going to operate with nuclear powered carriers then they need to be able to maintain top speed, so an upgrade of the reactors and the replacement of the gas turbine engine and fuel and equipment with another reactor to increase power would be ideal.

reactor technology has moved on in 30 years and is much safer and likely more efficient too.

GarryB wrote:Interesting, it says the reactors will get "repaired".

.

Hope they mean replaced. At least in Kirovs case, i think that is neccesary since they had a accident with it.
And it would be a very good idea to have multiple reactors, as you point out, to be able to follow a carrier at top speed.

Read btw that its the name Kirov nowadays for nr1 as the name ushakov has gone over to another ship, a sovremenny destroyer.
The new load of 80 cruise missiles, as opposed to the old 20, is a huge improvement. Also the ability to chose loadout for specific mission, ie surface or ASW.

The new load of 80 cruise missiles, as opposed to the old 20, is a huge improvement. Also the ability to chose loadout for specific mission, ie surface or ASW.

Yes, they clearly intend to replace the 20 vertical launch tubes for Granit with with 10 UKSK vertical launch systems, with 8 tubes in each system they can mix and match Brahmos/Oniks, plus land attack Klub, subsonic and supersonic anti ship Klub, and of course the supersonic ballistic rocket anti submarine Klub that delivers a torpedo up to 40km from the ship at mach 1.5.
They can have any of these weapons in any combination in those 80 tubes, which makes it very flexible.

As far as I know they will also fit her with the twin barrel 152mm gun system as used in the land based Coalition. With extended range ammo and longer barrels, plus of course the new satellite guided fuses that can be fitted it will be a very impressive vessel... unless the 152mm guns are for the Destroyers and there is a 203mm gun for larger vessels, but that is pure speculation as nothing has been heard about such a development.

I liked the idea that they were joining development between land and sea based artillery systems as it optimises spending and increases the production figures, and reduces duplication of effort.
The problem is that the Navy is currently better funded than the Army, so the Army pulled out. The Coalitions turret was too big to fit in an aircraft transport plane anyway so they would have needed to reduce to a single gun model with a smaller turret to proceed.

Of course the reason the turret was so big was because it had two main guns with dual feed auto loading belts for each gun.

Removing one gun also removes two belt feeds for 152mm rounds and of course storage for the extra ammo carried for the second gun, so it should result in a significant turret size reduction so perhaps they are proceeding with it anyway.

The adaption of the 2S1 into a 120mm gun mortar system suggests that they will drop the 122mm calibre in favour of the 120mm.
They are also getting rid of the 100mm and 115mm tank calibres... I wonder if they will also do away with the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 as it is the only platform that uses it.

The trend to heavier calibres... I wonder about the 203mm and 240mm... will they be kept and improved or removed to streamline the calibres?

If they remove the 203mm then the upgraded Kirovs will certainly get 152mm guns instead, but these vessels and the Slavas could be fitted with 203mm guns that could later be test benches for EM guns when they mature.

Efforts with EM cats will certainly help in the field of EM gun tech development.

"The overhaul of mothballed Admiral Nakhimov nuclear-powered cruiser will start after 2012 with the focus on refitting the ship with advanced weaponry and electronics, the Sevmash shipyard said.


“During the talks with the Russian Defense Ministry, we have concluded that it would be senseless to continue the repairs without determining the final variant of the modernization, so the repair work has been suspended [until after 2012],” Sevmash General Director Andrei Dyachkov said on Friday in an exclusive interview with RIA Novosti.


Dyachkov said on Friday the fate of the Admiral Ushakov, which has been docked at the Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk, has not been determined."

1. So they havent made a final descision on the armament layout, or are they waiting for upgraded systems to be put in production.

Whatever, it smells bad, as with the Lada subs, nothing are completed, just postponments.

2. Ushakov or Kirov`s fate is uncertain. Guess that means scrapyard for her. Probably they have find the vessel in a too bad shape.

3. Or just maybe, by 2020 they could have new destroyers in the water for less money. Maybe i stick my neck out, but i suggest thats what`s going to happen.
The Kirov and Frunze will be scrapped, and the funds will be used to build these new destroyers instead.

It wouldnt be the first time a modernization program is getting far more expensive from the first calculations, and not so very good either.

Thats what happened to Sverdlovsk class in the 60`s, for example, and to the Kirov class cruisers in the 50`s.

""New Destroyer Project. The most desirable Proposed Project. Up to 192 Surface to Air(Air Defense) Missiles(+32 Kashtan missiles at 10km range). 16 Modular Klub missile VLS(Vertical Launch) cells. This Destroyer could do anything. It could likely install the newest S-400 missiles giving it total control of the air to around 200km away. Horizontal Klub or Torpedo launch tubes(8 total) allow for varying types of anti-submarine(or anti-ship) weapons to be used in the rear of the ship, the Fire Control system for the Klubs/Torpedoes also controls anti-torpedo rockets. This ship would give the Russian Navy real firepower, the aging "Sovremennyy"(Project 956) and "Udaloy"(Project 1155) type Destroyers along with many of the Cruisers could be retired if even 6 of these ships were to be built."

Not impossible, but larger ships offer larger ship capabilities... smaller ships with smaller radars and smaller weapon loads actually require larger crews per bang per buck.

I rather suspect the problem is the Redut system with the new S-400 missiles and large AESA antenna arrays and of course the Morfei missile.

Also keep in mind that the Yakhont and Brahmos are 300km range weapons because of treaty obligations... there are rumours that the Oniks has a range of 700km or more and with Brahmos II in development with a flight speed of mach 7-8 I think you can comprehend the potential of 80 tubes in one ship.

The UKSK is ready and working and installed on Corvettes already.

It is the Redut and Morfei that will likely need till 2012-2013 or even 2014 to be ready, but the point is that most of the guts will be taken out of these vessels anyway, and they need a new nuclear propulsion system too, so it is not going to be cheap or fast, but the result will be worth it.

Whatever, it smells bad, as with the Lada subs, nothing are completed, just postponments.

Except that the Project 677 is in operational testing and based on that the two Project 677s laid down already will be completed as improved Project 677Ms.

It has been 20 years of neglect... throwing cash and expecting instant results is totally unreasonable.

Or just maybe, by 2020 they could have new destroyers in the water for less money.

They plan to build fixed wing carriers, and destroyers are simply not good enough escorts for fixed wing carriers.

They need their AEGIS like cruisers and a combination of ex Kirovs (Orlan class) and ex Slava class vessels should be sufficient for the job. Even if they end up with two Kirovs and 4 Slavas for the role each Kirov can be a flagship for the northern and pacific fleets respectively and form the core of a carrier group.

""New Destroyer Project. The most desirable Proposed Project. Up to 192 Surface to Air(Air Defense) Missiles(+32 Kashtan missiles at 10km range). 16 Modular Klub missile VLS(Vertical Launch) cells. This Destroyer could do anything. It could likely install the newest S-400 missiles giving it total control of the air to around 200km away. Horizontal Klub or Torpedo launch tubes(8 total) allow for varying types of anti-submarine(or anti-ship) weapons to be used in the rear of the ship, the Fire Control system for the Klubs/Torpedoes also controls anti-torpedo rockets. This ship would give the Russian Navy real firepower, the aging "Sovremennyy"(Project 956) and "Udaloy"(Project 1155) type Destroyers along with many of the Cruisers could be retired if even 6 of these ships were to be built."

First of all instead of a Kashtan mount with 32 x 10km range missiles why not a Pantsir-S1 mount with 32 x 20km range missiles and much better multi target engagement capability?

BTW Late model S-300s can hit targets at 250km. The late model S-400s are two small missiles with 40km range, 120km range, and large missiles with 200km range and one in development with a 400km range.

The control system on board the destroyer is the same Sigma battle management system installed on all new and converted Russian vessels from Corvette right up to carrier and includes communication and datalink capability to share the air, sea and undersea picture amongst all vessels in the group... very much like AEGIS.

The point of the frigate having 2 UKSK systems means that with 8 Oniks missiles and 8 anti submarine rocket torpedos, the new frigate has 8 anti ship missiles better than the 8 Sunburns carried by the Sovremmeny class vessels, and 8 anti sub torpedoes delivered to targets 40km away at mach 1.5, compared to the SS-N-14 Silex missile that delivered a torpedo to a target a similar distance away on a subsonic missile.

This frigate is not an either/or it could perform both missions without rearming, or carry twice the weapon load of primary weapons on the same mission.

In terms of SAMs it is very well defended too.

The volume provided by the Kirovs hull however offers an even more impressive expansion potential...

Very simply if you want carriers you need large ships to support them and if you are building new carriers you have no place to build large ships. The result is you either get carriers with no large ships to operate with them which makes them white elephants, or you build large vessels and delay the carriers... or you do what they are doing and update existing large vessels and crack ahead with new frigate and new destroyer programs and work their way up to get ready to make carriers.

Whether you upgrade the Kirovs or scratch build new replacements they will take 5-10 years... building them from scratch will likely take longer which means you are trying to build your Kirov replacement at a time when you should be laying down your first carrier in 2022-2025.

I think there's a huge case for having 4 Kirov class cruisers. I'd also like to see the "Cabbage" ( Kirov hulled)intelligence ship brought back in some way.

Garry is right, big ships take a huge amount of time to build. And they're in refit for a long time too. These are real power projectors, symbols of national pride. And they tend to have a lifespan of many decades - just like the US cruisers.

I'm sure the Navy and govt will see it this way.

Russia to refit Admiral Nakhimov nuclear cruiser after 2012


The overhaul of mothballed Admiral Nakhimov nuclear-powered cruiser will start after 2012 with the focus on refitting the ship with advanced weaponry and electronics, the Sevmash shipyard said.

The Admiral Nakhimov (former Kalinin) Kirov class cruiser was commissioned in 1988 and mothballed in 1999. It has been docked at the Sevmash shipyard in the city of Severodvinsk in northern Russia, undergoing repairs since 2005.

“During the talks with the Russian Defense Ministry, we have concluded that it would be senseless to continue the repairs without determining the final variant of the modernization, so the repair work has been suspended [until after 2012],” Sevmash General Director Andrei Dyachkov said on Friday in an exclusive interview with RIA Novosti.

Dyachkov said that the main changes during the overhaul will be applied to cruiser’s armaments as the SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles – the ship’s current main weaponry – have become outdated.

The SS-N-19s will be replaced with P-800 Yakhont (SS-N-26) anti-ship cruise missiles. The cruiser will also receive advanced air defense missile systems based on the land-based S-400 Triumf, and new point-defense systems.

Russia built four Kirov class nuclear-powered cruisers in 1974-1998. One of them, the Pyotr Veliky, is still in active service as the flagship of the Northern Fleet.

Several sources in the Russian military and defense industry earlier said that the Russian Defense Ministry was planning to refit the Admiral Nakhimov, Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov missile cruisers by 2020 in a major boost for the Russian Navy's combat strength.

Dyachkov said on Friday the fate of the Admiral Ushakov, which has been docked at the Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk, has not been determined.

The Kirov class main weapons in current configuration include 20 SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles, designed to engage large surface targets, and air defense is provided by 12 SA-N-6 Grumble launchers with 96 missiles and two SA-N-4 Gecko with 40 missiles.

After the refit, the Kirov class cruisers will most likely be deployed with Russia's Northern and Pacific fleets as part of large task forces set up to carry out a variety of combat missions - from "hunting" the adversary's aircraft carriers and submarines to massive land assaults.

http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111203/169272925.html

Let me just add that the Russian fleet cannot be the size of the Soviet fleet but it will have a similar mission.

Larger vessels are more capable and with automation don't need enormous crews to operate efficiently.

It would be silly to invest lots of money in fixed wing carriers to then try and save a few pennys by using a lot of smaller ships.

I rather doubt a destroyer sized vessel can fully exploit the full 400km range of the late model S-400 missiles, but Kirov probably could.

And Firebird is quite right... there were 5 Orlan hulls layed down, but only 4 were completed as Kirov class cruisers. The other hull ended up being use as an intel ship, but it was laid up a while ago because of lack of funds to operate it.

The old Kirovs were flagships and had a lot of electronics on board, so ripping all that out and putting in new state of the art stuff will greatly increase its performance... fitting it with sat coms and sat datalinks and the upgraded Kirovs could have an elint role too, so you get 4 battle cruisers and 4 large well defended Elint vessels too.

When naval S-500s become available you are going to need a really big ship, and the result will be a global ABM system on paper... but in operational terms you have something so much more valuable... global ASAT capability...

GarryB wrote:
It would be silly to invest lots of money in fixed wing carriers to then try and save a few pennys by using a lot of smaller ships.

I rather doubt a destroyer sized vessel can fully exploit the full 400km range of the late model S-400 missiles, but Kirov probably could.

The old Kirovs were flagships and had a lot of electronics on board, so ripping all that out and putting in new state of the art stuff will greatly increase its performance... fitting it with sat coms and sat datalinks and the upgraded Kirovs could have an elint role too, so you get 4 battle cruisers and 4 large well defended Elint vessels too.

"Now we have yet indecision on the fate of the three remaining ships after so many years today the managers, supervisors, and the defense ministry now knew as posted here by the news below.
“During the talks with the Russian Defense Ministry, we have concluded that it would be senseless to continue the repairs without determining the final variant of the modernization, so the repair work has been suspended [until after 2012],” Sevmash General Director Andrei Dyachkov said on Friday in an exclusive interview with RIA Novosti said.

Jesus Christ what a disastrous lack of fore sight and shameless indecision? By 2012 the defense ministry will say the ships are too old we need new ones. "

I agree with Jesus, this lack of foresight has been an ongoing trend in subs as well as surface ships. You could get the ships ready as to Propulsion, electronics and and most of the weapon systems too.
It seems foolish to stop repairing the Kirovs hull and engines because some AA missiles isnt ready!!

And if you want to keep waiting for the newest most up to date systems, you would have to wait forever, as systems evolves continually.

If this insnt russian Maskirovka, then its am sorry to say, an example of yet another huge flaw in planning and execution of the shipbuilding industri and the military industri as a whole.

I agree with your logic, yet their decision is what it is.... therefore I would conclude the problem is more than just the SAMs, though I would expect that for the Kirov they will be installing a main radar that will be one kick ass major AESA... the AESA being developed for the full S-400 is supposed to be pretty incredible in terms of range and performance so I can't see the primary radar on the Kirov being a tiddler.

I suspect they have not decided how far the upgrade will be... if they keep it they will likely keep it for the next 40 years or so, so this will only be the first of many upgrades, so the question for them is... do they spend a lot of money now and give it a complete upgrade... propulsion and everything now, or do they do a cheap half assed job now in anticipation of new stuff being available in 2018-2020 that will blow away the stuff they can do now.

They have only started making bigger vessels now so it is possible that the new large and powerful nuclear reactors they want to use in large ships are not quite ready yet... the Kuz is going into overhaul in 2013 and wont be coming out till at the very least 2017 so the reactor they might have developed to install in the Kuz and the other new carriers, and also their upgraded capital ships (Slava and Kirov) might have a development plan linked to the schedule for the Kuz and might not be ready now... so delaying the Kirov till 2012 will align the reactor with the upgrade of the ship better.

Keep in mind the 100 thousand ton Nimitz class had two reactors to power it, so at half the weight the Kuz and the Kirovs and Slavas should get away with just one powerplant hopefully.

As long as they receive proper maintainence they should be fine... remember this is the end month of 2011 so the end of 2012 is less than a year away.

If they are replacing the reactors then there can be no surprises like with the Gorshkov/Kiev class because there is no point in keeping any old wiring or piping... it all needs to go anyway... and the Kirovs were fitted as command vessels so there will be a lot of wiring. Hopefully now it will be replaced with modern fibre optics.

Here is an argument I have for reactivating the battlecruisers instead of more frigates:
The nuclear battlecruisers have virtually unlimited range and larger stores. The frigates (Gorshkov or Talwar class) have shorter endurances and will require resupply ships.
So, if you don't want to reactivate the giants and rather use the funds to build new frigates, make sure that money is used into building both frigates as well as resupply ships.

I think people may be worrying about the vagueness of the term "fate". Whereas, in practice I suspect the issue is more of what type of refit should be undertaken.

Personally, the idea that ANY of the 5 Kirov hulls should be scrapped is horrifying.
We've had a form of tyranny from a Far Right USA administration, and we have a powerful China emerging. Not to mention, more problems in the MIddle East. These are flagships, ships that would be coveted by any navy in the World.

At a very min, get 2 or 3 Kirovs at state of the art level. Then give 1 or 2 plus the Kapusta(intel ship) a quick sort out, so they can be flying the flag / being the flexible option etc etc.

The cost of a brand new Kirov ship would be gigantic. Why destroy whats so good? This would be in the same league as the destruction of the half built Ulyanovsk.. or carrier sales to China for 20m USD.

PS didnt the Americans reckon it would take FOUR carrier to take out one Kirov?

I also heard that the 5th hull was being considered as an aircraft carrier, but deemed too small. ( Even so, its a similar size to some countries aircraft carrying cruisers).
This makes me wonder, the Yaks were pretty good VTOL craft, would this be a stopgap option for some situations? Bearing in mind, Kuznetsov is due a long refit, and any new carriers arent even off the drawing board yet.

Or, the Americans could sell Russia a Nimitz, when China come knocking for the loan repayments:D

To add to TheArmenians point about supply ships... not only will you need to buy more, but imagine a sudden problem in Venezuela and Russia needs to get a carrier group there fast.

It doesn't matter if the carrier can do 35 knts with its new nuclear power plant... for the carrier group to arrive together as a single force it has to travel at the speed of its slowest component. In their current form with a combined nuclear and gas turbine propulsion a current Kirov can travel at 32 knots... for 2,000NM and then needs to refuel or continue the rest of the journey on nuclear only... which means the rest of the journey will be at 16knts. Having lots of small conventionally powered vessels will likely be worse as they are smaller and will likely have a much shorter full speed range.

Having upgraded Kirovs and all nuke powered destroyers as escorts the battlegroup could power around the place at top speed (including the new subs with new propulsion systems that allow 25 knts in quiet mode).

There is nothing particularly scary about a more powerful China... except if Russia does not expand and become more powerful too. Kirovs = expansion of capabilities. No Kirovs means limited options and much less performance.

Lets just say that the arrival of the Kuz in Syria will cause quite a stir but on its own it is clearly a for show visit rather than a combat ready force. Add a Kirov and two or three destroyers and you have the core of a real battlegroup.

With all the vessels using the Sigma battlespace management system they will all be sharing information from their sensors to create a complete air, sea and undersea picture.

After the upgrade if the Kuz gets a catapult too this will mean larger heavier aircraft can be operated... and if that includes an AWACS aircraft then the performance of the Kuz will be greatly enhanced as its eyes will see much further, and it will be able to hide itself better as the AWACS controls the CAP (combat air patrols).

Firebird wrote:Personally, the idea that ANY of the 5 Kirov hulls should be scrapped is horrifying.

He stressed that the powerplant would face no changes. "Development works are supposed to finish in April, and then drawing up of repair and modernization project will start. Sevmash won't work on this project in 2012", said Diachkov.

Diachkov emphasized that only modernization of Admiral Nakhimov was in question. "Take note, I'm talking of only Nakhimov. The similar cruiser Admiral Ushakov is laid up at Zvezdochka ship-repair plant, but she's already written off", said the interviewee.

Big news.
First, the Kirov is written off and will be scrapped. And i am almost certain the Frunze will be scrapped too.
That leaves only two left, Nakhimov(Kalinin) and Peter.

Second, the modernization sounds limited, it wont include propulsion, and thats a real shame. Also, if they were to replace all obselete electronics, they could have a whole team working with only that, and still not be ready 2012. But, all work is halted, quite a mysteri if you ask me.

Third, Peter is due to be modernized after Nakhimov, if Nakhimov have to wait, Peter have to wait, and is already aging fast. Some systems would be near obselete, for example the Main weapon, Granit missiles.
So the combat value of a Cruiser comissioned 1998, without any significant upgrade, is somewhat limited.

Forth, sorry firebird, but it seems clear that 3 of the 5 Kirov hulls will be scrapped, and we will have to wait for some years to see what is to become of the last 2.

Last, the Yak-38 Vtol, was a terrible plane, combat value almost zero. Let it rest in peace.

Btw, i very much doubt the US planned to go up against one Kirov with 4 Carriers. The airwing of One is 90 planes, and and say 30 of these can be used in an attack.
Well, 30 planes with several missiles each, and perhaps SSM from the escort, would overwhelm even a Kirov battlegroup.

Granit near obsolete? You are going to have to explain that one.

PtG is, and should be, very low in priority of modernization. Ship is fine as is, and will be fine in ten years.

TR1 wrote:Granit near obsolete? You are going to have to explain that one.

Its no longer in production. And was developed in the 70-s.