Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

Capability wise, it is not obsolete though.

Production stopped indeed, but there is enough stock to last through this decade at least, since not that many boats deploy with it at one time - Peter and the 949s, not all of which are even combat capable at one time (regular maintenance cycle).

"Maximum Mach number: 1.6-2.5
Range: 550 - 625 km (342 - 388 miles)
Platforms: Kirov CGN, Kuznetsov CVG, Oscar SSGN"

The missile has a Hi-Hi-Hi profile, which makes it somewhat outdated. Also, i doubt it can withstand a modern high density ecm coverage.

After the Peter and K has been refitted, the Oscar is the only platform left.
So the stock will be large, yes.

runaway wrote:

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.

I think there's a huge danger in taking off the cuff comments and translating them into English. Over 12 yrs ago, KIrov was ready for dismantling. Then in late 2011, its gonna be refitted by 2020. The worth of a scrapped ship is negligible. The worth of an upgradeable cruiser is huge. I'm just suspecting that Ushakov will stay as she is for a few yrs. BTW, I saw some 2010 pics of her, complete with new paint.


I agree, the latest Yak was terrible. But, earlier ones had the makings of something pretty good IMO. Really, I'm looking at the situation that while the Kuznetsov is being refitted, Russia will have zero carriers and just 1 / 2 heavy cruisers. Which is completely insufficient, and therefore necessitates stop gap measures being looked at. Britain got by with small carriers and VTOL - so maybe there is an argument for a Russian stopgap like that?

The stat I gave u was one I read - re the situation in the 1990s/ In reality a US carrier and Kirov cruiser would be part of their battlegroups. My suspicion is that the Kirov's missiles would take out a carrier pretty early on. How a KIrov might fare against aerial attacks, well thats hard to work out. Either way, Kirovs are still extremely formidable IMO. Tho best with the latest missile tech

The possible thing I could think that might invalidate the Kirovs is the abilty to "power pack" a stealth based ship based on the new nuclear destroyer plans. But, I dont think those smaller ships will be able to meet the spec of an upgraded Kirov. As Garry suggested.

Either way, 4 KIrovs isn't that much. Say the Navy needed 1 for the Pacific( say defending the Kurils), 1 for the Med( eg Syria) or Black Sea ( trouble in the Caucuses). Imagine 1 in refit, or flying the flag in Venezuela / Cuba / training exercises wherever. Then there's defending the North. Its not hard to think of a situation where the Navy is seriously short of ships. Suddenly 4 Kirovs doesnt look like a luxury.

Firebird wrote:

I think there's a huge danger in taking off the cuff comments and translating them into English. Over 12 yrs ago, KIrov was ready for dismantling. Then in late 2011, its gonna be refitted by 2020. The worth of a scrapped ship is negligible. The worth of an upgradeable cruiser is huge. I'm just suspecting that Ushakov will stay as she is for a few yrs. BTW, I saw some 2010 pics of her, complete with new paint.

I really hope you`re right there. If the hull is in good shape, it`s a huge advantage to modernize a Kirov, then to start building from scratch. Also, the design is very succesful, it just need new weapons, sensors and electronics. And yes, a new all nuclear propulsion would be a great upgrade.

I agree, the latest Yak was terrible. But, earlier ones had the makings of something pretty good IMO. Really, I'm looking at the situation that while the Kuznetsov is being refitted, Russia will have zero carriers and just 1 / 2 heavy cruisers. Which is completely insufficient, and therefore necessitates stop gap measures being looked at. Britain got by with small carriers and VTOL - so maybe there is an argument for a Russian stopgap like that?

Yes, it would be, if they hadnt scrapped the Kiev class way premature.
What about not selling the Admiral Gorshkov!!
No, thats impossible, if they dont want to scrap their arms reputation.
I think we can get along these years with only the Mistrals as baby carriers.

Either way, 4 KIrovs isn't that much. Say the Navy needed 1 for the Pacific( say defending the Kurils), 1 for the Med( eg Syria) or Black Sea ( trouble in the Caucuses). Imagine 1 in refit, or flying the flag in Venezuela / Cuba / training exercises wherever. Then there's defending the North. Its not hard to think of a situation where the Navy is seriously short of ships. Suddenly 4 Kirovs doesnt look like a luxury.

Agree, and we cant forget that the Slava cruisers are also in need of a thouroly modernization.
So, the Navy needs every hull of Kirovs and Slavas, including the "Ukraine" cruiser.

runaway wrote:"Maximum Mach number: 1.6-2.5
Range: 550 - 625 km (342 - 388 miles)
Platforms: Kirov CGN, Kuznetsov CVG, Oscar SSGN"

The missile has a Hi-Hi-Hi profile, which makes it somewhat outdated. Also, i doubt it can withstand a modern high density ecm coverage.

After the Peter and K has been refitted, the Oscar is the only platform left.
So the stock will be large, yes.

The profile is not all high. The missile can for example fly low, while one of the swarm flies high and transmits targeting data.

If Granit is outdated, then so is 90% of the Russian naval inventory. And a big portion of the American on too actually.
Kuz doesn't carry it anymore, but I have trouble seeing the Peter refitted this decade.

Ukraine would be a huge money waste, the 22350 can accomplish as much (more actually) and would not require expensive refit and modernization, and would enjoy a much greater service life. Let that thing rot away, we don't need another money sink.

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.

If they do upgrade two of the class then this will not be their only upgrade... remember the Kuznetsov will be on blocks till 2017 or later, from about 2013, and the article you posted above says they wont upgrade the vessels in 2012... As far as I know they haven't even formulated an upgrade path yet... except that they need to replace the Granits because they are no longer in production.
Of course the introduction into service if the UKSK system that is pretty much optimised for Onyx clearly shows that Onyx will replace the Granit.

Keep in mind that Onyx was the replacement for Moskit, and the Yakhont is the reduced range export version of the Onyx.

For all we know Onyx could have a flight range of 500-700km.

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.

I doubt they have finalised the upgrade plans yet and will probably try them on one before applying them to the second, so they can ensure the result is worth it.
Granit is not obsolete and is currently the most capable known anti ship missile in service.
Newer missiles might have better electronics, but the Granit has a digital datalink that allows it to pass back target data via satellite link to the launch ship or submarine giving a radar image of the carrier group being attacked.

From memory it was able to be launched in "teams" of 12, so fire off 12 missiles and they will operate together... flying at low altitude, with one missile climbing to about 1,000m to do a radar scan of the target group of ships. It would then drop back down and analyse the radar scan to determine how many ships were in the battle group and based on their size it would allocate missiles amongst the 12 to targets... obviously a carrier would get any nuclear armed missiles targeted at it, or several conventionally armed missiles to ensure they were hit hard. It would also transmit its radar view of the carrier group back to the launch platform via the satellite that spotted the carrier group in the first place.

A Kirov class could send two volleys of 10 missiles, while an Oscar could send two volleys of 12 missiles... if the lead missile was somehow shot down another missile in the group would be voted lead missile and take over the lead missile role.

The target will detect a single missile pop up and radar scan the fleet from 100-150km away but it will drop back down before any SAM launched by the carrier group could reach it... next thing you know is a spread out formation of supersonic missiles comes over the radar horizon... which is why AWACS and aircraft are so vital to ships at sea...

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

True but did you see the plans for the Yak-43?

25 ton engine based on the NK-32 and stealthy shape...

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.

Depends whose back yard it is... with land based fighter support... Plus of course a few Oscars would certainly add to the Granits carried by the Kirov... especially if one in 4 are nukes.

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

AFAIK their Slavas are carrying Vulkans... which may be in low rate production, but the replacement will be Onyx.

They don't seem to be in a huge hurry to introduce the Onyx... so perhaps they are waiting for Onyx II hypersonic model.

The missile has a Hi-Hi-Hi profile, which makes it somewhat outdated. Also, i doubt it can withstand a modern high density ecm coverage.

Who told you it was a Hi hi hi missile?

The whole purpose behind its high flight speed is because it is acknowledged it will be detected at long range.

Also the Russians are not stupid... they have plenty of large high speed anti ship missiles that have high and low flight options... low reduces range and speed, but high makes it more vulnerable to detection and interception, so for instance the Kh-15 is designed to go high... 40,000m high.

After the Peter and K has been refitted, the Oscar is the only platform left.
So the stock will be large, yes.

Oscar and Oscar II.

Which is completely insufficient, and therefore necessitates stop gap measures being looked at. Britain got by with small carriers and VTOL - so maybe there is an argument for a Russian stopgap like that?

They will be getting Mistrals in 2013-2014...

Either way, 4 KIrovs isn't that much. Say the Navy needed 1 for the Pacific( say defending the Kurils), 1 for the Med( eg Syria) or Black Sea ( trouble in the Caucuses). Imagine 1 in refit, or flying the flag in Venezuela / Cuba / training exercises wherever. Then there's defending the North. Its not hard to think of a situation where the Navy is seriously short of ships. Suddenly 4 Kirovs doesnt look like a luxury.

I agree that 4 would be best, they will not have a Kirov in the Black Sea... it is just too small of a pond and vulnerable to land based NATO countries.

Also, the design is very succesful, it just need new weapons, sensors and electronics. And yes, a new all nuclear propulsion would be a great upgrade.

When they are building carriers they have repeated several times that they will have nuclear propulsion, so they will need to develop and perfect them for those. The fact that even their destroyers will be nukes suggests they want a low footprint force, so they might have decided that they only want two large capital ships... one for the Northern Fleet and one for the Pacific.

I think it is important to keep in mind that until they finalise the upgrades they wont know how much they will cost and what state the ship needs to be in to be viable. A ship that needs a new reactor will be written off if the upgrade they intend does not include a new reactor simply because it will add cost and complication to the intended upgrade.

They might want cheap and simple upgrades now to wait for technology and shipyard skills to improve and in 15 years give them a much more complete upgrade.

Of course by then they might have mastered large ship building to the point where they might want to scratch build a thoroughly new vessel.

Agree, and we cant forget that the Slava cruisers are also in need of a thouroly modernization.
So, the Navy needs every hull of Kirovs and Slavas, including the "Ukraine" cruiser.

You are quite right, the Kirovs are beautiful ships, but the Slavas were built for the same role but cheaper.

The main problem would be the Slavas don't suit the same upgrades the Kirov suits as the 20 Granit tubes on Kirov could be easily be replaced by UKSK tubes and suddenly you can load anti ship or anti sub or land attack missiles, so it occupies the same space and adds flexibility.
On the Slava the missiles are above deck so taking them off will reduce top weight, but not free up internal space to fit the UKSK tubes so you will need to make internal changes to make space for them... and of course they are quite deep so they take up lot of area internally.

If the new carriers are going to be nuke propelled however it will make sense to make the remaining Slavas nukes as well.

Part of the point of these upgrades is standardisation. New vessels in the Russian navy will have the same missile systems and the same electronics and similar sensors and similar propulsion and gun armament so having these same things added to older vessels in upgrades makes a lot of sense... even if it costs a little more now, in the long term it means standardisation of parts and support and training and maintainence.

They have a budget and they need to make judgement calls about how to spend it. I think at a bare minimum they need two Kirovs... one for each major fleet, but I also think a decent upgrade of the Kuz would be useful... if they can make her a nuke and add EM cats with fixed wing AWACS then she will become much more capable. By 2020 she could have naval PAK FAs on her... imagine the US and UK Navies whining about the Ruskies having heavy 5th gen fighters on carriers, while they might or might not have F-35s... he he he he.

Modernization of Cruiser Admiral Nakhimov to Start After 2012

Modernization of Cruiser Admiral Nakhimov to Start After 2012 06.12.2011
Text: RIA Novosti
Photo: Nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov. nswap.info
Modernization of Project 1144 Orlan nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov will start at Sevmash shipyard after 2012; the emphasis will be put on enhancement of missile arms, said the shipyard's director general Andrei Diachkov in the interview to RIA Novosti.

Cruiser Admiral Nakhimov has been mothballed at Sevmash for the recent ten years.

"This would be a quite considerable arms enhancement, especially the ship's missile system. Today, the cruiser is still armed with Granit cruise missiles which are out of production now. Nobody is satisfied with their power and range any more, so we plan to mount the new mighty missile weapon – Caliber and Onyx systems", Diachkov said.

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.

According to him, defense ministry initially planned to sign two contracts at once, i.e. one for development works, and another for repair and upgrading. "In the course of talks, we have reached a conclusion that it was pointless to continue work on the ship without final version of modernization project. That is why, it was decided to suspend repair works at the shipyard", said the Sevmash's director. He said the contract for development of a reduced technical project had been tied with Severnoye Design Bureau. The bureau will determine the way for the ship's modernization.

Defense ministry agreed to pay for the ship's maintenance at the yard's quay for the period of development works, noted the interviewee.

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.

Presently, Russian Navy has in inventory only one ship of that project – missile cruiser Petr Veliky. She is the world's biggest non-aircraft-carrying attack warship designed for destruction of large sea surface targets, protection of deployed naval forces from aerial attacks, and antisubmarine warfare in distant sea and ocean zones.

The nuclear-powered cruiser was handed over to Russian Navy in 1998. Her standard displacement is about 24,000 tons, full displacement is 26,000 tons. Mighty nuclear-powered plant makes possible to accelerate up to 31 knots (60 kph). The cruiser's length is 251 meters, beam is 28.5 meters, height is 59 meters, crew is over 800 men.

Basic weapon is Granit P-700 (3M-45, Shipwreck) antiship supersonic cruise missiles. Twenty missiles are located under main deck at launch angle of 60 degrees. The ship also has various advanced arms to hit surface targets, submarines, and repel aerial attacks. Petr Veliky has no analogs worldwide.

The part I highlighted in bold above I find interesting... it has been mentioned by a naval source that the Klub/Kalibre system is limited to 300km or less in the export models only and these weapons that are similar in size to the Tomahawk, are also similar in range at about 2,000km for the anti ship and land attack domestic models.

It says the upgrade will focus on the missiles so I assume that will mean the removal of the Granit launch bins and probably Rif-M, and of course the SS-N-14 system at the front of the ship, and also probably the replacement of the SA-N-8 Klinok system as well.

The UKSK vertical launch system will allow the replacement of the Granit and SS-N-14 with similar or better missiles... depending on the actual range of the Oniks... its electronics are from the mid 1990s and have probably already been updated several times... note the RVV-MD is an R-73 with modern digital processors and upgraded parts including a new rocket motor, so I don't see why they wouldn't upgrade the Onix too.

The Redut SAM system would be an ideal replacement for the Rif-M, and either more Redut bins with 40km range and 120km range missiles replacing the Klinok or an updated Klinok or Pantsir-S1 could replace Klinok and Kashtan-M.

The 130mm twin guns could be replaced by the new 152mm twin gun turret based on Coalition, which would allow a significant range increase plus Glonass guided shells, which would be a significant step forward.

This would require a radar upgrade and some electronics.

The question is, will they make the overhaul simple and quick and cheap and then apply it to Peter the Great, and leave a deeper upgrade to later when they have built a few medium sized ships like Destroyers... remember so far they are building Corvettes and slowly putting together Frigates.

Certainly getting Sigma installed on the Kirovs would be vital if they see them as being the flagships for the northern and pacific fleet... they are installing Sigma on everything including Corvettes, so their flagships need it.

Obviously the UKSK is also capable of carrying long heavy missiles including the Kh-101 and Kh-102 and the Kirov (Orlan) class would be ideal platforms for such missiles... there are not many countries with air forces that can fly 5,000km offshore to take on the ship that is launching 5,500km range cruise missiles at their ports... even if it was alone it could take on quite a large number of aircraft at once.

GarryB wrote:Nobody is satisfied with their power and range any more, so we plan to mount the new mighty missile weapon – Caliber and Onyx systems", Diachkov said.

ky has no analogs worldwide.

The part I highlighted in bold above I find interesting... it has been mentioned by a naval source that the Klub/Kalibre system is limited to 300km or less in the export models only and these weapons that are similar in size to the Tomahawk, are also similar in range at about 2,000km for the anti ship and land attack domestic models.

So, even the Navy thinks the Granit is outdated, not just me.
And i call it a Hi-Hi-Hi trajectory, as it certainly isnt a sea skimmer.

The 130mm twin guns could be replaced by the new 152mm twin gun turret based on Coalition, which would allow a significant range increase plus Glonass guided shells, which would be a significant step forward.

This would require a radar upgrade and some electronics..

I havent read of any new 152mm gun turrets, but agree, new glonass shells would be very effective,... and very expensive.

The question is, will they make the overhaul simple and quick and cheap and then apply it to Peter the Great, and leave a deeper upgrade to later when they have built a few medium sized ships like Destroyers... remember so far they are building Corvettes and slowly putting together Frigates.

I think the overhaul now would be relatively quick, as they soon runs out of Modern capital ships. It wont do to leave the Kirovs on a 7-10 years rebuilding.

The Yak-43 was to have been the third generation VTOL/STOL fighter, to follow and eventually replace the Yak-141M..

Yes, i think there is still a need for a "Harrier" type jet. As it could be employed on Mistrals and yes, even container ships.

To bad it wasnt developed, now the F35 II will be the only one.

So, even the Navy thinks the Granit is outdated, not just me.

They think that because it was manufactured in the Ukraine and is no longer produced.

The purpose of the Oniks was to replace the Granit, so they want to upgrade the platforms with Granit to use the UKSK launcher... just common sense really.

BTW they also think the AK-74M is outdated, but even in 20 years time it will still be a lethal and effective weapon.

And i call it a Hi-Hi-Hi trajectory, as it certainly isnt a sea skimmer.

It is not a sea skimmer by any means, but read this:
(right click and choose "save link as" to download the pdf)

www.dtig.org/docs/Russian-Soviet%20Naval%20Missiles.pdf

I havent read of any new 152mm gun turrets, but agree, new glonass shells would be very effective,... and very expensive.

A joint development with the Army and Navy to develop a new long range 152mm artillery system. They can both share development costs and unify the design of the gun and ammo to simplify production and training. The main problem for the Army is that the land vehicle has a turret so big it wont fit on standard aircraft. The likely solution will be the removal of the top gun and dual feed auto loader for the top gun to make the turret smaller.
It will still use the same high pressure long range ammo.
The GLONASS guidance systems is basically an electronic fuse attached to the nose of the round with small control surfaces (fins) to steer the round onto target. CEP is 10m or less for accuracy in all weather day or night. At $1,000 per fuse it is actually pretty cheap, and compared to the US equivalent it is actually 50 times cheaper.

In terms of the Navy, they will get a much longer range gun with a heavier shell with much greater accuracy than the standard 130mm gun which is not used by the Russian Army.

This will be orders of magnitude cheaper than missiles and will offer a very powerful naval gun support capability for landing forces.

I think the overhaul now would be relatively quick, as they soon runs out of Modern capital ships. It wont do to leave the Kirovs on a 7-10 years rebuilding.

I agree. I think if they are going to keep the standard propulsion for now that a quick update of the primary missile systems and possibly an introduction of Sigma to enable communications with other vessels in the Russian navy, and if it all goes well then the Peter the Great will go in and have a similar upgrade. Once that is achieved they will need to decide a future for their Oscars and Oscar IIs, as replacing those Granits with Oniks missiles would remove the Granits from the fleet, which will improve logistics and commonality.
If the UKSK launchers are used for the upgrade it means the platforms suddenly become much more capable as the Granit, like the Oniks are anti Ship missiles ONLY, but the UKSK launch tubes add a ASROC/Subroc type Klub, plus land attack and anti ship missile capability so the Oscars and Kirovs suddenly become much more flexible and capable vessels.

Yes, i think there is still a need for a "Harrier" type jet. As it could be employed on Mistrals and yes, even container ships.

To bad it wasnt developed, now the F35 II will be the only one.

I remember seeing models of proposed Soviet carriers in the 1970s and 1980s and they showed Mig-23s and Mig-27s on fixed wing carriers. Any art now of future Russian carriers might show Mig-29Ks and Su-33s, but at the end of the day in 2025-2030 when the first one or two new Russian carriers hit the water I rather suspect they will be carrying Pak Fa based aircraft. The Harrier is a very capable aircraft within its limitations, but a naval PAK FA will be much more practical use than any updated Harrier... even one modified from a steath fighter like the F-35 II. I really can't see the VSTOL F-35 actually making it to service.

BTW the Yak-43 actually looked like a really big F-35, but its line drawing design is from the mid 1980s.

The figures I have seen are for 10 UKSK systems for a total of 80 missile tubes, and I have seen a figure 160 SAM tubes for their large ships, so if Redut has 16 tubes as is believed then that means ten Redut systems too.

Of course in addition you should include about 8-10 Pantsir-S1 systems with about 32 missiles each as well.

Although much smaller than Granit the Oniks probably has a range in the order of 400-500km and perhaps is much smarter than Granit as it has much more recent "electronics".

The thing is that the upgrades for the Kirovs are likely to come in stages so what is not done in the first stage might be left to later on when it is cheaper or easier to do so.

They are already very powerful vessels and the first change will definitely be the replacement of Granit with Oniks as this has to be done because of dwindling stocks of Granit missiles and the fact that it is no longer in production.
Any other upgrades will be gravy, and might be left till they are cheaper.
It is already a very powerful ship.

I rather suspect what they will do is what was described above... 5 billion is not a huge amount, but should be enough for an electronics upgrade (communications battle management etc), what I disagree with whomever wrote this article is that they will replace the Granits with UKSK tubes.

As they mention in the article the main issue is that these vessels are armed with a single use missile that is no longer in production that can only be used against enemy ships. By replacing it with UKSK launchers it suddenly becomes a multirole vessel as it can be loaded with land attack cruise missiles, sub sonic and supersonic anti ship missiles and anti submarine missiles.

They can pretty much leave every thing else FOR THE MOMENT.

Once the K has had its huge overhaul then they can put one and then the other Kirov though a similar major overhaul when the new AESA radars will already have been installed on the Kuz and will be cheaper... hopefully... also the new compact nuclear powerplant that will be installed on the Kuz will be mature.

After upgrading the Kuz they can decide if it works or not... if the new reactor is crap, and the AESAs don't work and this that and the other are rubbish then new carriers and new cruisers might be needed, but to design a new cruiser and build it and test it and then build another will take 15 years. A two year minor weapon swapout and communicaitons radio upgrade and you can have a useful cruiser for not much money till you decide on a more substantial overhaul or brand new from scratch design.

The Kirov hull is proven and most of the vessel is great. A new propulsion, upgraded weapons and sensors to match those fitted to all other vessels and it should be sweet.

These vessels could potentially last another 30-40 years, and before you say they will be obsolete then... you are ignoring their size and capacity mean that in 30 years time they could have high power laser air defence systems to defend against hypersonic missile threats, and EM guns able to launch projectiles into near space orbit for all we know...

Would be nice to use Nakimov to test S-500/400 for new destroyers.

5 years ago, I would have agreed with you, but with experience with Bulava I believe many of the failures were associated with using the Akula (Typhoon) class test bed.

I feel the best use of the two Kirov class vessels will be as operational flag ships to lead groups of Russian ships around the place.

The Kirovs will eventually get S-400/S-500 systems, so there does need to be testing done, but for the moment fitting UKSK tubes and removing the Granits and SS-N-14 launch system should be fairly straight forward... the Granit tubes are slightly angled, while the UKSK tubes are vertical, but that should not pose insurmountable problems. The real question is should they take the opportunity to install the unified Redut vertical launch tube bins for SAM in place of the RIF system... the RIF system is vertical launch but had rotary bin launchers and one launch position, while the new system will be simpler cheaper fixed bins where every missile is ready to launch and there is no need for under deck access to the tubes or the rotary alignment system.
With the new missiles on the cheap it will be interesting regarding the performance of the missiles with the old radar sensor suite... it might limit the performance of even the newer missiles, but the advantage of commonality with the rest of the fleet would make it worth the temporary sacrifice of carrying missiles with a 250km range that can engage targets out to 90km... which in actual fact is plenty really.

A more expensive upgrade in 5-10 years time to install new super AESA radars and electronics and optronics should result in a very very capable ship, especially with a new compact all nuclear propulsion system for high speed sailing all the way to the deployment area if need be rather than the current arrangement with a 2,000 mile limit for top speed operations. Just having NPPs should make the propulsion more compact and reliable and make it able to keep up with all nuclear carriers... no point in having a nuclear powered carrier that can do 35+knts if all the other vessels in the carrier group can only sustain 16knts for long range deployments.

Of course zipping around everywhere at 35knts is not a great idea either.

I can see the reasoning in a lite refit for Nakhimov.
The 2 oldest Kirovs could be done later, when propulsion issues, naval S-400+500 issues are cleared. Or even when people are thinking more of energy weapons.

It looks like Piotr Velikiy is out of action for a while with its upcoming refit, so thatmeans a speedy demand for Nakhimov back in use.

Finally, I wonder what would happen if the Navy was planning a heavy cruiser today.Will energy weapons and ship launched ICBMs etc mean huge ships would be designed? Or would they just want to keep the Kirov hulls and concentrate on the new nuclear destroyer( or even a slightly enlarged version of it)?

Firebird wrote:I can see the reasoning in a lite refit for Nakhimov.
The 2 oldest Kirovs could be done later, when propulsion issues, naval S-400+500 issues are cleared. Or even when people are thinking more of energy weapons.

It looks like Piotr Velikiy is out of action for a while with its upcoming refit, so thatmeans a speedy demand for Nakhimov back in use.

Finally, I wonder what would happen if the Navy was planning a heavy cruiser today.Will energy weapons and ship launched ICBMs etc mean huge ships would be designed? Or would they just want to keep the Kirov hulls and concentrate on the new nuclear destroyer( or even a slightly enlarged version of it)?

Peter Velikiy is only due for standard scheduled dry dock visits, nothing lengthy. There is absolutely no way the Nakhimov could be brought to active status, lite modernization or not, before Peter is back in service.

George1 wrote:I think that admiral nakhimov and pietr veliky can go a logical modernization with P-800 missiles in place of older P-700, and S-400 in place of S-300.

I have an alternative suggestion for Admiral Lazarev and admiral Ushakov. They could be modified to LARGE INTELLIGENCE SHIPS. And replace a lot of old intelligence ships in russian navy.

Yes I believe there already is an EW/Intel ship based on the Kirov hull.

flamming_python wrote:[Yes I believe there already is an EW/Intel ship based on the Kirov hull.

There is, and its rusting away in the far east, no way such a large ship can be economical vial to perform EW/ Intel operations.
"
Due to high operating costs, SSV-33 was laid up.[2]

The SSV-33 was assigned to Pacific Fleet, however there wasn't a pier ready for this ship. She was forced to anchor out. Machinery had to remain running while at anchor to support other systems and huge crew. Ship became a floating barracks. She never went to sea, while her powerful radioelectronic equipment gradually began to decay.

The main systems of the Ural haven't functioned for a long time and it would cost an enormous amount of money to restore it. A few years ago, there was some preservation work done on the hull. It is speculated that the ship will be sold overseas after removal of nuclear reactors."

http://www.military-today.com/navy/ural_l1.jpg
http://www.military-today.com/navy/ural_l3.jpg

50 billion?

Sheeeesh.

50 billion roubles is not that much money for the modern capable cruiser that will result.

There is, and its rusting away in the far east, no way such a large ship can be economical vial to perform EW/ Intel operations.
"
Due to high operating costs, SSV-33 was laid up.[2]

It is largely just a hull and major structure... It was laid up for the purpose that it might be useful in the future.

As for him, other two ships of this project, Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov are non-repairable and will be dismantled.

Which leaves the Admiral Nakhimov and the Peter the Great.

Using the hull of the SVV-33 means they have the potential for three upgraded vessels.

With unified sensors and weapons and machinery it should be much cheaper and easier to operate these vessels than before as the equipment and weapons and machinery is standardised throughout the navy. The same UKSK launch bins on a Russian corvette will be the same as the UKSK launch bins on Peter the Great.

The difference is that the Corvette might have one UKSK launcher, while the PTG might have 10 or more.

However, naval arms expert and chief editor of Arms Export magazine Andrei Frolov says feasibility of Admiral Nakhimov's recovery is quite questionable. He emphasized that the money planned for retrofitting of the cruiser is well enough to buy a new Mistral-class French amphibious ship.

But they are already buying 4 Mistrals... they have no need for another.

What they lack are cruisers to escort and protect the Kuznetsov or the Mistrals, so it makes sense to upgrade two Orlan class vessels.

"These large ships are pretty vulnerable to present-day weapons. Besides, they were built in Soviet era, so will serve no longer than 15 years even after modernization. After that, the cruisers will be decommissioned anyway", explained Frolov.

A full overhaul should enable these vessels to operate for another 30-40 years and the new sensors and weapon systems will dramatically improve their ability to defend themselves and other vessels near them, and their ability to attack.

According to Northern Fleet HQ, after recovery Admiral Nakhimov will need large crew, but it is not clear wh ere to find personnel.

There is huge potential for automation to reduce crew requirements. The vast reduction in the use of single use sensors and equipment should make it much more effective and require a lot less crew to operate.

At present, there are three Project 1164 Atlant cruisers in Russian Navy; they are Moskva, Varyag, and Marshall Ustinov. In addition, Russia hold talks with Ukraine regarding purchase of similar cruiser Ukraina (former Admiral Flota Lobov). By the way, Atlant-class cruisers are designed for the same tasks as Admiral Nakhimov, writes Izvestiya.

They are the much less capable Slava class vessels that have external missile launchers. The upgrade of the Slava class is much more problematic because the new missile launchers are vertical launch bin launchers. On the Orlan it is a case of newer more compact vertical launch bins replacing vertical launch rotary launch systems and inclined vertical launch bins. Removing the old systems leaves plenty of space for the new systems. On the Slava removal of the old missiles from on top of the deck leaves no room for UKSK vertical bin launchers or Redut SAM launchers.

Slava class boats are also much smaller, with a lot less room for systems and weapons and sensors.

50 billion?

About 1.5 billion US... about 1/10th the cost of a new US carrier.

It is actually pretty cheap as it includes both a thorough overhaul and full upgrade of sensors, electronics, weapons, and machinery.

To scratch build an equivalent (which admittedly would be better) will take at least 10 to 15 years instead of the 5 this will take... and in 15 years it will likely make 1.5 billion US look cheap.

it would be better to proceed with the next cruiser class

Things are improving but at the moment they can't even manage a destroyer let alone a cruiser. The upgrade makes sense for now.

GarryB wrote:What they lack are cruisers to escort and protect the Kuznetsov or the Mistrals, so it makes sense to upgrade two Orlan class vessels.

Agree, there is simply no choise. When they decided to buy Mistrals they also guaranteed the recovery of one or two Orlans. Simply because no other ship will have the endurance and capability to follow and protect high value assets in blue ocean.
The same can be said about K, no corvette or frigate can escort or protect her to a high level.
Not much much point having Mistrals and K, but cant send them anywhere cose they cant be protected. Then they have a toy navy for admiral brass to play with.

Also iam concerned about Atalant, Slavas. How to install modern USUK on this class?
That is a near impossible task, and regretteble i see no future plans for these ships.

The Orlans however, can be rebuilt and modernized for a very long time. And they have much greater potential in that that the Iowas ever had.

I can predict that if they want to base 1 or 2 Mistrals in Pacific, they will have to modernize Nakhimov and base her there too. And as Gary said, with new systems on board, automation can lower her crew number alot.

Now the Frunze and Kirov, i suspect Frunze or Lazarev as it is called will also be called back to ranks. The first Kirov i suspect will face scrapping.
Simply, if u want to have one or two Orlans in service, u need three to guarantee they will be operational when they are nedded, and not in a refit.