Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

What of the Lazarev then? I read they did some basic repair work to extend its time in dock, I know the first ship of the series is done for.

I didn't intend anyone to think they were anything like official
There are certainly obvious flaws in both but they both have some valid features too.

Also here's 28 April via Google Earth

hoom wrote:Also here's 28 April via Google Earth

Great find!

A few pics of work going on Admiral Nakhimov.

As time goes by, 2018 doesn't seems so far away.

What's your opinion on modernized 1144 potential against foreign fleets (excluding US)? While most of discussion is aimed at comparing Russian fleet to US fleet, lately it was "discovered" that there are potential clashes against other fleets - Turkish, for example.

While some of the upgrades that Nakhimov gonna get are still uncertain, we can already get pretty good idea what force it's gonna be after current "medium" modernization.

Many posters on russian forums are surprisingly negative to Orlan cruisers and express opinions varying from "They shouldn't have been built in the first place" to "This modernization is just money dump".
Calmer ones point that most important factor is price, and if the price is right all 4 Orlans should be repaired and modernized.

I think the important factor here is that Russia has substantial troubles with new ship building and it's safe to say has failed 2020 State Armaments Program in this area. It really hard to say now, when Russian will be able to build modern cruisers, destroyers or aircraft carriers. Most likely we can expect them to got into service not earlier than 2025, and produced enough for at least Northern Fleet after 2030.

If this prediction is right, there's no alternative to 1144, 1164 as the main surface ships. So is modernized 1144 potent enough to be a core of Russian fleet against foreign fleets like Turkey, Japan etc. in upcoming decade?

A1RMAN wrote:As time goes by, 2018 doesn't seems so far away.

What's your opinion on modernized 1144 potential against foreign fleets (excluding US)? While most of discussion is aimed at comparing Russian fleet to US fleet, lately it was "discovered" that there are potential clashes against other fleets - Turkish, for example.

While some of the upgrades that Nakhimov gonna get are still uncertain, we can already get pretty good idea what force it's gonna be after current "medium" modernization.

Many posters on russian forums are surprisingly negative to Orlan cruisers and express opinions varying from "They shouldn't have been built in the first place" to "This modernization is just money dump".
Calmer ones point that most important factor is price, and if the price is right all 4 Orlans should be repaired and modernized.

I think the important factor here is that Russia has substantial troubles with new ship building and it's safe to say has failed 2020 State Armaments Program in this area. It really hard to say now, when Russian will be able to build modern cruisers, destroyers or aircraft carriers. Most likely we can expect them to got into service not earlier than 2025, and produced enough for at least Northern Fleet after 2030.

If this prediction is right, there's no alternative to 1144, 1164 as the main surface ships. So is modernized 1144 potent enough to be a core of Russian fleet against foreign fleets like Turkey, Japan etc. in upcoming decade?

Upgrading "old Soviet junk" makes it totally modern as far as the important elements are concerned: firepower, detection ability and communications.
This is something NATO fanbois fail to grasp. Reality does not care about cosmetics.

A1RMAN wrote:So is modernized 1144 potent enough to be a core of Russian fleet against foreign fleets like Turkey, Japan etc. in upcoming decade?

Surely you are not serious with this question?? The Nakhimov is undergoing deep modernisation of weapons and sensors and comprehensive refurb of her propulsion and marine systems, and once back in service, she will be the most powerful surface combatant (non-carrier) on the planet. I don't think there is any real doubt that Nakhimov and her sisters-ships are capable of fulfilling such a role.

Big_Gazza wrote:

A1RMAN wrote:So is modernized 1144 potent enough to be a core of Russian fleet against foreign fleets like Turkey, Japan etc. in upcoming decade?

Surely you are not serious with this question?? The Nakhimov is undergoing deep modernisation of weapons and sensors and comprehensive refurb of her propulsion and marine systems, and once back in service, she will be the most powerful surface combatant (non-carrier) on the planet.  I don't think there is any real doubt that Nakhimov and her sisters-ships are capable of fulfilling such a role.

Problem is even if they modernize all four and they only confirmed two so far, all four will not be able to be a huge factor in a major naval battle. They would require at least 10 with high numbers of Destroyers, frigates etc has support.

It's a good ship no doubt but 4 ships alone cannot carry a war.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

A1RMAN wrote:So is modernized 1144 potent enough to be a core of Russian fleet against foreign fleets like Turkey, Japan etc. in upcoming decade?

Surely you are not serious with this question?? The Nakhimov is undergoing deep modernisation of weapons and sensors and comprehensive refurb of her propulsion and marine systems, and once back in service, she will be the most powerful surface combatant (non-carrier) on the planet.  I don't think there is any real doubt that Nakhimov and her sisters-ships are capable of fulfilling such a role.

Problem is even if they modernize all four and they only confirmed two so far, all four will not be able to be a huge factor in a major naval battle. They would require at least 10 with high numbers of Destroyers, frigates etc has support.

It's a good ship no doubt but 4 ships alone cannot carry a war.

You are lumping all the assets of the US into a single theater. That is not likely to happen at all. You also make it sound like all the other
missile-equipped Russian ships are totally useless. Face it giant destroyers are dinosaurs like aircraft carriers. They were relevant for WWII
and not for missile wars like WWIII. In fact, having a collection of smaller ships which can carry even more missiles than one big one is vastly
better since they avoid the "all the eggs in one basket" problem.

Russia has the money and is doing the job of overhauling its ships to serve modern purposes. Many people are still engaged in obsolete thinking.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

A1RMAN wrote:So is modernized 1144 potent enough to be a core of Russian fleet against foreign fleets like Turkey, Japan etc. in upcoming decade?

Surely you are not serious with this question?? The Nakhimov is undergoing deep modernisation of weapons and sensors and comprehensive refurb of her propulsion and marine systems, and once back in service, she will be the most powerful surface combatant (non-carrier) on the planet.  I don't think there is any real doubt that Nakhimov and her sisters-ships are capable of fulfilling such a role.

Problem is even if they modernize all four and they only confirmed two so far, all four will not be able to be a huge factor in a major naval battle. They would require at least 10 with high numbers of Destroyers, frigates etc has support.

It's a good ship no doubt but 4 ships alone cannot carry a war.

No one is saying they will. They will form the core of a task force....

Russian naval forces are intended to defend the Motherland in the event of large scale conflict, so such a task force will operate close to home waters and therefore under the umbrella of both land-based strike aircraft carrying stand-off weapons such as AShMs, and attack subs. A few 1144 orlans operating with escorting destroyers and frigates, and a carrier fitted out for theatre air superiority and anti-sub warfare would be highly effective. Regardless of how impressed the Yankistanis may be with their ponderous CBGs, any attempt at forcing entry into Russian home waters will result in these highly expensive and vulnerable vessels being show-cased on international media when their blazing wrecks are shown hull up, sinking at the bow, with their screws lazily turning in the air...

We are entering the era of long-range hypersonic and ballistic anti-ship missiles with smart guidance systems, and carriers are the technology of yester-year. They may be potent against 3rd world nations or highly degraded 2nd world nations that lack the ability to defend themselves, but against a peer adversary, supercarriers are big slow vulnerable targets whose survivability will be next to non-existant.

The USN is already shitting its pants at the idea of challenging Chinas growing A2/AD capabilities in her near-abroad, and Russia will be no different. The loss of just one supercarrier would be utterly DEVASTATING to the Uh'Murikkkan ego, as the USN has long held that its carriers are untouchable by mere mortals. Prove this assertion to be just another example of baseless yankee boasting, and the world will see that the "Exceptional Nation" is naught but a pompous stuffed-shirt...

kvs wrote:
You are lumping all the assets of the US into a single theater.   That is not likely to happen at all.   You also make it sound like all the other
missile-equipped Russian ships are totally useless.   Face it giant destroyers are dinosaurs like aircraft carriers.   They were relevant for WWII
and not for missile wars like WWIII.   In fact, having a collection of smaller ships which can carry even more missiles than one big one is vastly
better since they avoid the "all the eggs in one basket" problem.  

Russia has the money and is doing the job of overhauling its ships to serve modern purposes.   Many people are still engaged in obsolete thinking.

Agree (mostly) with this, but one factor to consider is that a large vessel like the an Orlan has unrivalled endurance in a firefight. Not only does nuclear propulsion give her an unlimited range (or station keeping duration in home waters), her large size gives her a larger and more varied ordanance capacity so she can fight harder for longer. Greater displacement allows for heavier radars with greater range, as well as space for additional redundant systems and damage-mitigation/control measures. Distributed lethality is a good concept, but small ships can quickly exhaust their combat potential in a major engagement, and can be removed from the battle line by a single hit from even a lightweight AShM. The presence of a big capital ship like an Orlan will tend to focus the enemies attention, thereby allowing the small ships an opportunity to "get their guns off" so they can make an impact and avoid being disabled early in the engagement.

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

A1RMAN wrote:So is modernized 1144 potent enough to be a core of Russian fleet against foreign fleets like Turkey, Japan etc. in upcoming decade?

Surely you are not serious with this question?? The Nakhimov is undergoing deep modernisation of weapons and sensors and comprehensive refurb of her propulsion and marine systems, and once back in service, she will be the most powerful surface combatant (non-carrier) on the planet.  I don't think there is any real doubt that Nakhimov and her sisters-ships are capable of fulfilling such a role.

Problem is even if they modernize all four and they only confirmed two so far, all four will not be able to be a huge factor in a major naval battle. They would require at least 10 with high numbers of Destroyers, frigates etc has support.

It's a good ship no doubt but 4 ships alone cannot carry a war.

No one is saying they will.  They will form the core of a task force....

Russian naval forces are intended to defend the Motherland in the event of large scale conflict, so such a task force will operate close to home waters and therefore under the umbrella of both land-based strike aircraft carrying stand-off weapons such as AShMs, and attack subs.  A few 1144 orlans operating with escorting destroyers and frigates, and a carrier fitted out for theatre air superiority and anti-sub warfare would be highly effective.  Regardless of how impressed the Yankistanis may be with their ponderous CBGs, any attempt at forcing entry into Russian home waters will result in these highly expensive and vulnerable vessels being show-cased on international media when their blazing wrecks are shown hull up, sinking at the bow, with their screws lazily turning in the air...

We are entering the era of long-range hypersonic and ballistic anti-ship missiles with smart guidance systems, and carriers are the technology of yester-year.  They may be potent against 3rd world nations or highly degraded 2nd world nations that lack the ability to defend themselves, but against a peer adversary, supercarriers are big slow vulnerable targets whose survivability will be next to non-existant.

The USN is already shitting its pants at the idea of challenging Chinas growing A2/AD capabilities in her near-abroad, and Russia will be no different.  The loss of just one supercarrier would be utterly DEVASTATING to the Uh'Murikkkan ego, as the USN has long held that its carriers are untouchable by mere mortals.  Prove this assertion to be just another example of baseless yankee boasting, and the world will see that the "Exceptional Nation" is naught but a pompous stuffed-shirt...

I understand that but I mean okay lets say they have one Kirov class has the core what kind of support ships will it have? Russia currently has few escorts to give to anything they will not be able to field a sizable Blue Water force to challenge say the Us or even China.

I know some people will say well china stuff is junk but quantity is quality in it's own right enough Chinese ships can sink a upgraded Kirov and what few escorts Russia could spare for it. I know this is also a moot point has russia would mostly stick to shore defense in such a occasion.

Given their current build rate, one can safely assume they will not have a huge navy anytime soon is all.

At the same time china's Navy is huge already to the point the US cannot afford to openly challenge it anymore.

SeigSoloyvov wrote: Russia currently has few escorts to give to anything they will not be able to field a sizable Blue Water force to challenge say the Us or even China.

It seems that Russian military command understands it. The fleet will probably stick closer to a friendly shore if some big conflict actually happens. With support of Fighter\Bomber\Strategic aviation, coastal AShM's and AA systems.

If you followed latest news it seems like Russia expects things to get hot on a Far East in near future. They are deploying:
- New Pantsir and S-400 systems
- Su-35
- New strategic aviation unit
- Adm. Nakhimov is rumored to go to Pacific Fleet when it's ready

Especially sending Nakhimov there. I think it would be natural choice to exchange Nakhimov with PtG, for the time PtG is in modernization and Northern Fleet is weakened (even more weakened by Kuznetsov going for repair and mods too). Seems like Fleet Command thinks Far East is more important.

PapaDragon wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:.....

Problem is even if they modernize all four and they only confirmed two so far, all four will not be able to be a huge factor in a major naval battle. They would require at least 10 with high numbers of Destroyers, frigates etc has support.

It's a good ship no doubt but 4 ships alone cannot carry a war.

There are two scenarios:

1) War against countries that can be incinerated by this ship alone

2) War against countries that are too big for any Navy, where these (and other) ships will be redundant  and which will be over in 20 minutes-for everyone on the planet.

So this ship definitely has a purpose and that purpose lies in scenario no. 1

Well then I vote we test her out on good old ukraine.

I am sure it will serve Russia well in the future, I agree with modernizing them Russia needs ships right now and at the current pace of building everything they can get helps frankly, I would have went with three over two. Since the first one (forget its namesake) is said to be a floating nuclear disaster.

If supported well but other surface vessels ships like these are very good to have the only problem is like stated right now Russia cannot support such a task force well enough far away from home for prolonged periods of time.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
I understand that but I mean okay lets say they have one Kirov class has the core what kind of support ships will it have? Russia currently has few escorts to give to anything they will not be able to field a sizable Blue Water force to challenge say the Us or even China.

I know some people will say well china stuff is junk but quantity is quality in it's own right enough Chinese ships can sink a upgraded Kirov and what few escorts Russia could spare for it.

Not sure why Russia would ever need to challenge China? Far more likely is that Russia will field naval assets in SUPPORT of China in a regional confrontation between the PRC navy and the USN. Russia should (and in fact are) working assiduously to deepen the alliance with the PRC, and as this develops (eg mutual defense pact, equipment inter-operability, technology exchanges), Russia can begin to count PRC naval assets as their own (and vice-versa), considering that any large conflict will likely involve Russia and China on the same side.

Russias position should be to support China in their stance on the South China Sea, and to deploy a token naval presence in support of her ally. Now THAT will make the feckless Yankistani war-mongers stand up and take notice!

There seems to be two distinct VLS designs for Kalibre/Klub/Oniks/Zircon etc.  The 3R-14UKSK-Kh is a 4-missile module based on a closed cylindrical housing, while the 3S-14 looks to be a 8-missile module based on a open structure.

The Nakhimov upgrade is using 3S-14 modules, and this is confirmed from public domain details of the purchase orders placed on the manufacturer.  The 3S-14 is also used on the Gorshkov & Grigorovich class judging by photos showing the lifting of the VLS module during vessel builds.

Possibly the 3S-14 is a redesign to simply the launcher?  

BTW the equivalent submarine VLS for the Yasen class is an altogether different design.  A possible config is given this article described as SM-315 (?).  This design could clearly be downsized to suit the available space in a Pr-494 Antei launch tube.



Finally, there are four (4) Kirovs available, but the Navy hasn't yet committed to rebuild either the Lazarev or Ushakov. My view is that there is no rush on making this decision, and the Lazarev at least will depend on the success of AdN and PtG. Lazarev looks to be in good structural condition, though Ushakov is said to have major reactor issues and the cost of rebuild may prove to be prohibitive.

Interestingly, the hull of the Ural SSV-33 is AFAIK still preserved after her radars and superstructure was deleted. Its possible that she is being retained for a possible future rebuild?

Big_Gazza wrote:There seems to be two distinct VLS designs for Kalibre/Klub/Oniks/Zircon etc.  The 3R-14UKSK-Kh is a 4-missile module based on a closed cylindrical housing, while the 3S-14 looks to be a 8-missile module based on a open structure.

The Nakhimov upgrade is using 3S-14 modules, and this is confirmed from public domain details of the purchase orders placed on the manufacturer.  The 3S-14 is also used on the Gorshkov & Grigorovich class judging by photos showing the lifting of the VLS module during vessel builds.

Possibly the 3S-14 is a redesign to simply the launcher?  

BTW the equivalent submarine VLS for the Yasen class is an altogether different design.  A possible config is given this article described as SM-315 (?).  This design could clearly be downsized to suit the available space in a Pr-494 Antei launch tube.



Finally, there are four (4) Kirovs available, but the Navy hasn't yet committed to rebuild either the Lazarev or Ushakov.  My view is that there is no rush on making this decision, and the Lazarev at least will depend on the success of AdN and PtG.  Lazarev looks to be in good structural condition, though Ushakov is said to have major reactor issues and the cost of rebuild may prove to be prohibitive.

Interestingly, the hull of the Ural SSV-33 is AFAIK still preserved after her radars and superstructure was deleted.  Its possible that she is being retained for a possible future rebuild?

No they are scrapping that thing, they did take some parts for it to repair other nuclear warships. However the ship is to be disposed of within the Bay of Bolshoy Kamen in the Primorsky region by November 30, 2017.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
No they are scrapping that thing, they did take some parts for it to repair other nuclear warships. However the ship is to be disposed of within the Bay of Bolshoy Kamen in the Primorsky region by November 30, 2017.

I know is supposed to be scrapped by 2017, but it doesn't LOOK like a ship that is being broken up. It looks like a ship that has had her non-essential superstructure stripped awaiting a final decision on what to do with her.

Consider the following pic from 25 Mar 2016:

Big_Gazza wrote: A possible config is given this article described as SM-315 (?)

Can some user provide a link to this article. What is this SM-315. It could point out to be a different launcher from UKSK series.
Russian navy wants to prioritize UKSK but some ships/subs are not getting UKSK . This may well be the actual reason for 'not'
deploying UKSK across the board.

Now there is another question regarding Pr949 series .. will they modernized by changing the current  granit launchers to this
particular launchers ..I dont think so the re-work will be huge ..

gaurav wrote:
Can some user provide a link to this article.

The link to the article:

http://alternathistory.com/otechestvennye-protivokorabelnye-rakety-udar-iz-pod-vody-chast-3-ya

Thats pretty huge data in that link.It actually shows the historical progress of soviet navy rather than the Russian navy.

"Admiral Nakhimov" modernization