Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Is there any chance of the old style rounded turret housings to return? I realy liked the old Soviet naval turrets apearance.

No, they'll probably be stealthy. I really wish they add a 152mm turret.

Also, if the leader wont be built, why aren't the Russians racing to upgrade the Lazarev? when peter the great and kuznetsov will be in upgrade/overhaul, how will the northern fleet be able to have long range AA?

What possible advantage do stealth turrets offer we already know that stealth is a load of bullshit as it cannot even hide aircraft form SAMs form the bloody 1960s.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Is there any chance of the old style rounded turret housings to return? I realy liked the old Soviet naval turrets apearance.

No, they'll probably be stealthy. I really wish they add a 152mm turret.

Also, if the leader wont be built, why aren't the Russians racing to upgrade the Lazarev? when peter the great and kuznetsov will be in upgrade/overhaul, how will the northern fleet be able to have long range AA?

What possible advantage do stealth turrets offer we already know that stealth is a load of bullshit as it cannot even hide aircraft form SAMs form the bloody 1960s.

Fuck forgot that the kirovs aren't stealth ships. Still the modern turrets offer weight savings, and if it has a 152mm gun the turret will surely be more angular.

Actually the Kirov class ships could be considered the first stealth ships... the British said that the radar signature of the Kirov is much smaller than what it should be for a ship of that size and it was only by examining the size of the wake it left could it be determined that it was a big ship.

I would expect if they are going ahead with 152mm guns it would make sense to fit them on the Kirov class as an upgrade and also any future cruisers they develop to eventually replace the cruisers.

It would also make sense to fit them to some types of landing ship to provide direct naval gun support.

The shell for the 130mm naval gun is about 30kgs, and its range is about 23km.

In comparison the 152mm Coalition fires 40kg shells out to 70km with GLONASS guidance giving a CEP of less than 10m.

A significant step up in fire power.

I rather suspect the twin gun arrangement would offer similar or better rate of fire for the larger calibre gun.

GarryB wrote:each gun needs a fully automated twin feed system so you can change ammo types with the push of a button

What makes you think the Koalitsiya has a dual feed system? It is not a belt fed autocannon like the 2a42.

The T-72,T-80,T-90 and T-14 armata all have autoloaders that allow for the changing of amunition types and they are all single feed I doubt that the 152.4mm 2a88 is an autocannon.

As for turret desighn cosmetics is more important than to make the retards who believe that kind of crap think your ship is invisible to radar.

I really wish someone would go back in time and kill the designers of the Horten HO-229 so that the Russian navy and airforce could not look like shit.

About naval guns' feeding systems, I don't know why but the double carousel is pretty much the standard worldwide, so it should have some advantages in naval applications.

And a double feeding system means not two rammers and/or two elevators each gun, means only two separated magazines for different kinds of ammunition.

Actually, if there will be a unified gun between navy and army in 152 mm caliber, that should mean at least separated propellant's charges, or even modular charges, so the magazines will be at least three, one for the charges and two for at least two types of projectiles.

If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

Most likely the Lider/Shkval class nuclear powered destroyer Orlov-Chesmenskiy that the Russian navy is planning to build.

The Pyotr Veliky still needs to be upgraded though and the ground based S-500 is still in testing with no news of a naval version we will most likely only see the first Lider class in the early to mid 2020s.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

I don't buy this.  The RuN wouldn't spend money dry-docking her and performing maintenance (including cleaning and repainting her hull) if a modernisation wasn't feasible.  IMHO it all depends on how well the Nahkimov rebuilt goes...

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

After Nakhimonov's upgrade it's Peter the Great's turn.

Once both are done (which will take a while due to scope of the work) construction of first Lider-class ship should start.

Big_Gazza wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

I don't buy this.  The RuN wouldn't spend money dry-docking her and performing maintenance (including cleaning and repainting her hull) if a modernisation wasn't feasible.  IMHO it all depends on how well the Nahkimov rebuilt goes...

Oh it's "feasible" alright but the amount of money it would cost doesn't make it worth it at all.

We have been over this already.

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

After Nakhimonov's upgrade it's Peter the Great's turn.

Once both are done (which will take a while due to scope of the work) construction of first Lider-class ship should start.

Wait what have you done with PapaDragon?

I guess SeigSoloyvov is next.

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

After Nakhimonov's upgrade it's Peter the Great's turn.

Once both are done (which will take a while due to scope of the work) construction of first Lider-class ship should start.

This is really stupid since no large ships will supplement the nakhimov. I believe the lider will be built during petr velikiy's modernization because the Pacific fleet needs large ships and the slavas don't cut it.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

I don't buy this.  The RuN wouldn't spend money dry-docking her and performing maintenance (including cleaning and repainting her hull) if a modernisation wasn't feasible.  IMHO it all depends on how well the Nahkimov rebuilt goes...

Oh it's "feasible" alright but the amount of money it would cost doesn't make it worth it at all.

We have been over this already.

Worth what? Still having JUST 1 operational battlecruiser into the 2020s that is completely insufficient for the RuN's needs?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:............

Worth what? Still having JUST 1 operational battlecruiser into the 2020s that is completely insufficient for the RuN's needs?

Well big ships don't just come out of the blue. It takes time.

Pricetag for upgrade of Lazarev would be approaching price of brand new Yasen sub and would be practically on par with price of new Borei sub.

Lazarev doesn't stand a chance there because for Russian Navy new submarines will always take priority over upgrading old surface vessels.

Upgrading Nakhimonov will last roughly until 2020 and after that they will spend another 5 or more years upgrading Peter the Great.

At that point they will have Lider project ready for construction so it will make more sense to invest in brand new ship than to spend another half a decade upgrading old one at exorbitant prices.

What makes you think the Koalitsiya has a dual feed system? It is not a belt fed autocannon like the 2a42.

Belt feed is irrelevant... a 30mm cannon on a BMP-2 is designed to engage different targets, but it carries HEI-T and AP-T ammo... AP is a waste against soft targets and HE is a waste against hard targets so the gun uses a dual feed to allow HE or AP to be used.

A naval gun is the same... most of the time simple standard HE rounds are fired, but sometimes another round needs to be used, so having a separate feed with a different ammo type makes it ready to fire too.

As mentioned a different propellent feed option would be valuable too especially as the Coalition is known to use a variable propellent feed system to match the current targets requirements.

Well big ships don't just come out of the blue. It takes time.

Well big ships don't just come out of the blue. It takes time.

No these big ships are in a drydock, better than being on the drawing board and then built for 10+ years by incompetents.

Pricetag for upgrade of Lazarev would be approaching price of brand new Yasen sub and would be practically on par with price of new Borei sub.


Lazarev doesn't stand a chance there because for Russian Navy new submarines will always take priority over upgrading old surface vessels.

Except a brand new yasen sub only appears every 7-9 years or so. Compared to 5-6 years to upgrade nakhimov. Also:

Yasen doesn't have area air defence
Yasen can't protect task forces
Yasen is as vulnerable to US subs or even more due to lacking as plentiful anti-torp countermeasures and lacking escorts.
Yasen has 2-3 times less UKSK cells
Yasen doesn't have radar
Yasen can't power project
Yasens can't replace Slavas

Therefore, having more 1144s is more useful and efficient than waiting for yasens.

Upgrading Nakhimonov will last roughly until 2020 and after that they will spend another 5 or more years upgrading Peter the Great.

And it takes 7-9 years to build a single Yasen and who knows how much for a leader

At that point they will have Lider project ready for construction so it will make more sense to invest in brand new ship than to spend another half a decade upgrading old one at exorbitant prices

Lider still won't have the sheer firepower potential of a 1144 and who knows how long they will be built or how expensive they'll be. If the liders would start being built in 2024-25 only then it would make sense to throw away the kirovs.

Lider still won't have the sheer firepower potential of a 1144 and who knows how long they will be built or how expensive they'll be. If the liders would start being built in 2024-25 only then it would make sense to throw away the kirovs.

A full NPP upgrade to the new systems developed for large and heavy ships would be expensive but would create a much faster and much more capable ship and any bugs or problems can be identified and incorporated into the design of the next gen cruisers that will replace the Kirovs.

An initial high cost but greatly reduced operational costs and all the new systems will be highly automated and will reduce crew requirements dramatically.

I rather suspect the Lider will be optimised for modular weapons launchers and therefore be better placed to carry more weapon tubes in a more efficient way.

More compact electronics and propulsion systems would also likely free up more space and if used efficiently would allow long trips with less support needed...

The important bit is that a Cruiser is useful now can could sail with one or two other vessels in support, whereas a carrier would need more support vessels, but in turn would offer better support to the vessels they operate with.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:No these big ships are in a drydock,

Not ships, only one ship. Single not plural. And that one is nearly useless (Lazarov). Lead ship (Ushakov) is completely useless (fried reactor)  

KomissarBojanchev wrote:...better than being on the drawing board and then built for 10+ years by incompetents.

As opposed to being upgraded by incompetents? You do realize you are talking about same people here?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:....Except a brand new yasen sub only appears every 7-9 years or so. Compared to 5-6 years to upgrade nakhimov.

6 years at least and probably longer. As for Yasens last 5 were laid down in year long intervals. They will be coming online in similar tempo.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yasen doesn't have area air defence

Doesn't need it, not in it's job description. It has bigger fish to fry.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yasen can't protect task forces

Yes it can.

Also Russia still doesn't have any permanent task force to speak of.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yasen is as vulnerable to US subs or even more due to lacking as plentiful anti-torp countermeasures and lacking escorts.

BS.

Yasen is one of best protected subs in existence. Where do you think Paket-M came from? And that is just stuff we know of.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yasen has 2-3 times less UKSK cells

More than enough for it's intended job.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yasen doesn't have radar

Subs don't need radars

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yasen can't power project

Yes it can. Also, not it's job description anyway.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Yasens can't replace Slavas

Slavas are also irrelevant for Russian Navy when compared to nuclear submarines.

Now if they used money that would have been spent on upgrading Lazarev and spent it on frigates they would be able to purchase dozen of them easy thus creating those Task Forces you speak of.

Again, Lazarov loses out when faced with logic.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Lider still won't have the sheer firepower potential of a 1144

Says who? You?

According to current data Lider will have similar number of VLS cells to upgraded Kirov-class. This is not some big news.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the liders would start being built in 2024-25 only then it would make sense to throw away the kirovs.

That's exactly when they will start ordering Liders and when other 2 Kirovs will officially be scrapped. Nakhimonov and Peter the Great will get upgrades and resume service.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Except a brand new yasen sub only appears every 7-9 years or so.

More like 6. And a brand new Yasen boat will enter service every year starting from this year, 2018, I think.

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

After Nakhimonov's upgrade it's Peter the Great's turn.

Once both are done (which will take a while due to scope of the work) construction of first Lider-class ship should start.

So what made you suddenly supportive of the Lider class? The potential for Russia to build a Shtorm or 2?

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

After Nakhimonov's upgrade it's Peter the Great's turn.

Once both are done (which will take a while due to scope of the work) construction of first Lider-class ship should start.

So what made you suddenly supportive of the Lider class? The potential for Russia to build a Shtorm or 2?

I was never unsupportive of Lider-class. I simply believe that RuN should build up it's fleet of corvettes and frigates in sufficient numbers before committing to construction of small number of large vessels that will take long time to build.

Anyone who read my comments should be familiar with this opinion.

And above all I disagree with moron's assertion that Lider-class destroyer is secretly already under construction somewhere. It's and idiotic fantasy and anyone who believes it is complete and irredeemable retard.

As for Shtorm I said all I needed to say about it. Russia doesn't need it, plain and simple.

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

After Nakhimonov's upgrade it's Peter the Great's turn.

Once both are done (which will take a while due to scope of the work) construction of first Lider-class ship should start.

So what made you suddenly supportive of the Lider class? The potential for Russia to build a Shtorm or 2?

I was never unsupportive of Lider-class. I simply believe that RuN should build up it's fleet of corvettes and frigates in sufficient numbers before committing to construction of small number of large vessels that will take long time to build.

Anyone who read my comments should be familiar with this opinion.

And above all I disagree with moron's assertion that Lider-class destroyer is secretly already under construction somewhere. It's and idiotic fantasy and anyone who believes it is complete and irredeemable retard.

As for Shtorm I said all I needed to say about it. Russia doesn't need it, plain and simple.

I agree with you, to me it seems the smaller vessels the Russian Navy is building are calling into question the need for large capital ships. I think the Kirov rebuild is a cheaper way to test the concept Leider with less spend. The 23350M I think will be the largest warship built in any sort of realistic timeframe.

There are things a big ship can do that many small ships cannot... a fleet of a thousand corvettes is just a big a waste as a very very expensive fleet of 50 battle cruisers.

What they need is a sensible mix of ships to serve their interests... which includes large vessels.

They don't need to built lots of ships right now... a mix of upgrades to effective older larger ships and new smaller ships will do for now while they work out the technology and systems on the larger ships.

A retired Kirov class ship with a fried reactor is an ideal opportunity to fix something that was not right in the first place... the Soviets never had a decent marine NPP system and when making their Kirovs they fudged the issue by combining the propulsion with a combined nuke and conventional propulsion system.

They weren't even sure it would work so they also built the Slava class as a backup alternative.

Now they have decent high power NPPs so ripping out the complex propulsion systems of the Kirovs and indeed the conventional system of the Kuznetsov and replacing it with a new rather more powerful NPP system would make enormous sense even just testing new arrangements for the next gen large ships and carriers.

GarryB wrote:There are things a big ship can do that many small ships cannot... a fleet of a thousand corvettes is just a big a waste as a very very expensive fleet of 50 battle cruisers.

What they need is a sensible mix of ships to serve their interests... which includes large vessels.

They don't need to built lots of ships right now... a mix of upgrades to effective older larger ships and new smaller ships will do for now while they work out the technology and systems on the larger ships.

A retired Kirov class ship with a fried reactor is an ideal opportunity to fix something that was not right in the first place... the Soviets never had a decent marine NPP system and when making their Kirovs they fudged the issue by combining the propulsion with a combined nuke and conventional propulsion system.

They weren't even sure it would work so they also built the Slava class as a backup alternative.

Now they have decent high power NPPs so ripping out the complex propulsion systems of the Kirovs and indeed the conventional system of the Kuznetsov and replacing it with a new rather more powerful NPP system would make enormous sense even just testing new arrangements for the next gen large ships and carriers.

Is that the plan? Are they replacing the entire powerplant? The pix I see do not indicate that type of surgery and I would not assume the reactors are fried. I know one of them has fried reactors but I don't think it is Nakimov. I thought the idea to use smaller NPP for long range cruise and oil fired super heaters for dash speed was actually pretty ingenious to contain costs for a platform that was always never meant to be more then 5 ships. Of course today they would probably use a smaller submarine NPP for cruise and gas turbines for dash. It would be an excellent solution if they wanted to build 3-4 Lieders for example. But yes a small number of large ships is useful. But in a high intensity war they are very hard to protect, and an fleet of small, but heavily armed missile ships maybe have a better chance of survival...or none. No one knows and hopefully we will not find out.

Big_Gazza wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If the lazarev will never be upgraded then what will it be replaced with?

I don't buy this.  The RuN wouldn't spend money dry-docking her and performing maintenance (including cleaning and repainting her hull) if a modernisation wasn't feasible.  IMHO it all depends on how well the Nahkimov rebuilt goes...

Because lets keep nuclear fueled ship rot in our shipyard? US kept number of WW2 auxilary ships mothballed till 10 years ago, some of which had propulsion removed and reused.

What we know is that Navy deemed Lazarev mindblowingly expencive to repair due to structural and issues with reactor it had previously.