Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Firepower means nothing when faced with overwhelming numerical superiority. 2 Burk destroyers easily match that firepower. How many Burks are available to USN at any given moment?

How many anti ship missiles does a burk have? 0 oh well the Admiral Nakimov will have 80 zircons I do not see how that compares. And that is not mentioning the 6 Kashtans and abundance of mid range SAMs.

No it won't have 80. It will have 2 UKSK sets of Zircons which means 16 missiles. Rest of it will be Kalibrs and Onyx'. Again you ignore finances.

As for amount of anti-ship missiles on Burks they don't have them AT THE MOMENT. But they can easily be slotted in VLS cells should need arise.

The-thing-next-door wrote:....The thing is untill the Lider class destroyers start production Russia needs powerfull surface ships and the Kirovs will fill that role nicely.

Russia needs powerful submarines not some 30 year old relics of the past.

2 that are in good condition should be used, 2 piles of trash should be scrapped and new class should be built only after inventory of corvettes and frigates is fully stocked.

And throughout it all, submarines. This is one thing Russian Navy can always count on (and they do).

If they are trash they will be scrapped. Lots of opinions about their condition. Only the Russian Navy knows what their condition is.

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:..............
If they are trash they will be scrapped. Lots of opinions about their condition. Only the Russian Navy knows what their condition is.

Anything can be brought back into use if you throw enough time and money on it.

Problem with last two Kirovs is that amount of time and money required does not justify end result.

That may be the case but I doubt anyone on this forum has enough info to make that determination. So far the Nahkimov project appears to be painfully expensive and slow, *but* they are learning a lot that has been forgotten about these ships and rebuilding the industrial base. Once the parts are all designed and integrated your units costs fall and the speed of execution is much faster. If there is irreparable damage to the reactor that would represent a massive stumbling block...Can they grab a reactor from one of the subs they are scrapping? Each ship has 2. The Nahkimov will cost at crazy ton of money, the next will be much cheaper, and 3rd and 4th even cheaper still. As long as they commit to the full scope up front it may be viable.

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:..............
If they are trash they will be scrapped. Lots of opinions about their condition. Only the Russian Navy knows what their condition is.

Anything can be brought back into use if you throw enough time and money on it.

Problem with last two Kirovs is that amount of time and money required does not justify end result.

That may be the case but I doubt anyone on this forum has enough info to make that determination. So far the Nahkimov project appears to be painfully expensive and slow, *but* they are learning a lot that has been forgotten about these ships and rebuilding the industrial base. Once the parts are all designed and integrated your units costs fall and the speed of execution is much faster. If there is irreparable damage to the reactor that would represent a massive stumbling block...Can they grab a reactor from one of the subs they are scrapping? Each ship has 2. The Nahkimov will cost at crazy ton of money, the next will be much cheaper, and 3rd and 4th even cheaper still. As long as they commit to the full scope up front it may be viable.

From that article I just posted you can see that Nakhimonov is taking so long that they will send Peter the Great into overhaul before Nakhimonov is even finished (2 year before to be more precise)

By the time they are done with both it will be mid/late 2020s and they will need that industrial base and personnel with that specific experience to start working on Liders

To say nothing of the fact that by then Lazarev and Nakhimonov will be another decade older, that's 40 years

Yes but they were parked for 16 years....although that may be even worse. Who knows what the state of the ships are, considering their limited use the hulls may still be ok, then its the NPPs, everthing else is chuckable.

As are Russian allies now (what few there are left)

They don't need navy to reach them and unlikely that they will be bothering even if they get any new ones. Soviet geopolitical welfare services are failed concept.

You hit the nail on the head... Russia does not need to recreate the Soviet Union, nor the Warsaw Pact... what it needs are good open trade relations with countries that are also growing and wont try to screw it like the west does at every chance it gets. It needs a trading relationship with countries who don't feel superior and think it is their right to change governments in other countries but spits the dummy at the suggestion anyone else might influence their elections... even though they have been bought by big business for decades now. Imagine Russia thinking it has more say in a US election than Google or Microsoft...

New trade is not going to come to Russia... Russia needs to go to the rest of the world that is out of reach of a train because there are too many blockable routes... learn from the pipeline through the Ukraine.

And they will be conneted to all of them via land or air. Unless you are one of those who entertain fantasies that Russia will be establishing foothold in South America?

What the fuck are you smoking.... Russia couldn't even secure a land or air route to Serbia when your NATO friends were stealing Kosovo from you... if they can't even reliably get to such a close country without EU permission what chance do they have with the rest of the world... and yes, I am including Asia, Africa, and central and south America.

Fuck the US... they have taken away eastern europe and parts of the former soviet union and have told Russia to forget about any influence in the Ukraine... why would you listen to them and ignore the people of central and south america?

There are countries there that don't even know what a normal trade relationship is because the US has screwed them over so many times...

If Russia wants to get pissed onby West then getting involved naval dickwaving is exactly the right way to do it.

Wake up... Russia is getting pissed on by the west ANYWAY.

A powerful navy means they will aim wide and miss your shoes... I am not saying they need to be the new super power and have a navy bigger and more powerful than NATO and the US and China combined. What they need is a powerful relatively small navy that can look after itself and no one will mess with.

Corvettes able to carry Zircon missiles is a great start.

Need I remind you that it will be 1 Russian naval budget and industry versus 20 Western ones?

And there you go making it a dick measuring competition... who gives a fuck how big US carriers are... note I am not saying the US has 100K ton carriers so Russia needs 200Kton carriers. I am saying Russia needs air support where ever they go and an air defence system able to protect a range of ships, which all the ships of the group can contribute to.

I don't care how fast the Chinese or South Koreans can build ships either.

Making craps old tech ships would be easy for the Russians too.

They already have plenty of old vessels.

Even corvette is enough to get the point across if other side knows that SSGN could be lurking nearby. WW1 is long over.

Against any decent country, no it would not be... how is an SSGN going to stop you sinking a corvette? What is an SSGN going to do anyway... what it could do whether that corvette was there or not... so the corvette does nothing except when more cruise missiles are fired than that corvette could carry reveal there is an SSGN there too.

Having a battlecruiser there and a few destroyers shows you mean business and you wont put up with a blockade on country x whose only crime was trading with Russia.

Against Russian navy stocked with SSGNs they definitely wont.

Of course.... all Russia needs to defeat these super berks is submarines... just like it has always been... funny thing is that the Soviet Union had SSGNs when the US blockaded Cuba... why didn't they break the blockade then?

Perhaps because to actually break a blockade with an SSGN you actually have to use a real anti ship missile, which means pretty much an act of war... of course you could argue the blockade in the first place was also an act of war but try arguing with words with the west... they always win those because they are lying who don't know the meaning of words in the first place.

Then how should we call your constant ranting about Russian non-existant naval power?

I have made my position quite clear. Russia does not need nor would benefit from a huge powerful navy right now... they are not in an economic position to exploit the opportunities it would create and the larger sized force would be a burden that held them back rather than promote growth.

In 15-20 years time however a strong navy will allow them to become a true global power... something they have never really been in the past because they have been contained during the cold war by the western enemy and post cold war by an evil western enemy that does not like competition.

Problem with last two Kirovs is that amount of time and money required does not justify end result.

Is your opinion, which I do not agree.

Big ships are generally very solid and unless there were collisions or neglect they can usually be kept going for decades,

The argument that they would need to be completely stripped down and you might as well start from scratch holds no water... the majority of components and equipment will need to be fully replaced anyway, but building the hull would require a shipyard space better used for other vessels and other programmes.

Can they grab a reactor from one of the subs they are scrapping?

They have no doubt been developing new generation equipment to go into new build ships... just like they are testing equipment from the Su-57 into the design of the Su-35 it makes as much sense to do the same with ships as well... you can piss around with computer models all you like but the only way to be sure is put it in a real ship. They have five Orlan hulls to play with... wasting a billion dollars on a Kirov upgrade makes rather more sense than spending 5 billion on a brand new cruiser and having a Zumwaltski that does not come cheap either but does not fucking work.

They have developed new marine reactors... I would remove the reactors from the two Kirovs with potential anyway... it is just like Robocop... don't save the fucking arm... what is the point of body armour if you have a weak human arm left in the mix?

Saying they should just build more subs is simply not realistic. Each of their yards has clusters of expertise. You can't just have any yard build a SSN, or SSBN. Also their supply chain has the same restrictions, and then there is the need to create jobs, preserve jobs, preserve expertise etc etc etc. Its hugely complicated. They want more ships, they have certain shipyards that build certain types of ships so to a degree they will buy the types of ships the yards can build. They have laid down a lot of nuclear subs, and I honestly highly doubt they can build them at a much higher rate unless they ramped up the supply chain over 4-5 years. What you are seeing is the result of rebuilding the shattered supply chain for over 10 years.

People still bitching that Russia needs to modernize the Laza and Uka?.

those ships are going to be scrapped, christ stop talking about them, It's getting old.

Only two of the four will remain in service accept that fact or go cry your tears some place else.

People who say that the lazarov will be scrapped are like the people who said that the unbuilt tu-160s were worthless junk that will surely be thrown away. Before you say that the Tu-160s were a nuclear triad priority, they aren't because Russia doesn't care that much for nuclear capable aircraft. The kirovs are also of equally extreme importance since theyre some of the only ships in the RuN that have plentiful working area AD.

BTW for those saying that corvettes will do the job, what will happen when said corvettes encounter sea state 7? Will corvettes be able to interdict US shipping in the middle of the atlantic?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:People who say that the lazarov will be scrapped are like the people who said that the unbuilt tu-160s were worthless junk that will surely be thrown away. Before you say that the Tu-160s were a nuclear triad priority, they aren't because Russia doesn't care that much for nuclear capable aircraft. The kirovs are also of equally extreme importance since theyre some of the only ships in the RuN that have plentiful working area AD.

BTW for those saying that corvettes will do the job, what will happen when said corvettes encounter sea state 7? Will corvettes be able to interdict US shipping in the middle of the atlantic?

Ahuh Look you can make up all the excuses you want, Lazarov isn't going to be modernized. No matter how much you wish or pray to whatever god you believe.

Lazarov also isn't part of any nuclear triad never was even in the Soviet days. The ship is done, I am not going to pretend otherwise.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:People who say that the lazarov will be scrapped are like the people who said that the unbuilt tu-160s were worthless junk that will surely be thrown away. Before you say that the Tu-160s were a nuclear triad priority, they aren't because Russia doesn't care that much for nuclear capable aircraft. The kirovs are also of equally extreme importance since theyre some of the only ships in the RuN that have plentiful working area AD.

BTW for those saying that corvettes will do the job, what will happen when said corvettes encounter sea state 7? Will corvettes be able to interdict US shipping in the middle of the atlantic?

Ahuh Look you can make up all the excuses you want, Lazarov isn't going to be modernized. No matter how much you wish or pray to whatever god you believe.

Lazarov also isn't part of any nuclear triad never was even in the Soviet days. The ship is done, I am not going to pretend otherwise.

You do realise that repeating the same thing over and over without any evidence to support it does not make it true.

And your claims to have been a political assassin and a marine certainly do not help your case.

Can provide evidence as to why Russia would rather waste money scrapping a large nuclear powered ship rather than invest in restoring and modernising it into one of the worlds most powerful warships or are you just trying to make yourself feel better because you cannot stand the though of Russia having 4 Kirov class cruisers?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:People who say that the lazarov will be scrapped are like the people who said that the unbuilt tu-160s were worthless junk that will surely be thrown away. Before you say that the Tu-160s were a nuclear triad priority, they aren't because Russia doesn't care that much for nuclear capable aircraft. The kirovs are also of equally extreme importance since theyre some of the only ships in the RuN that have plentiful working area AD.

BTW for those saying that corvettes will do the job, what will happen when said corvettes encounter sea state 7? Will corvettes be able to interdict US shipping in the middle of the atlantic?

Ahuh Look you can make up all the excuses you want, Lazarov isn't going to be modernized. No matter how much you wish or pray to whatever god you believe.

Lazarov also isn't part of any nuclear triad never was even in the Soviet days. The ship is done, I am not going to pretend otherwise.

At the end of the day your speculations about the lazarev are just that: speculations. We haven't had any definitive statement regarding whats actually wrong with it.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:People who say that the lazarov will be scrapped are like the people who said that the unbuilt tu-160s were worthless junk that will surely be thrown away. Before you say that the Tu-160s were a nuclear triad priority, they aren't because Russia doesn't care that much for nuclear capable aircraft. The kirovs are also of equally extreme importance since theyre some of the only ships in the RuN that have plentiful working area AD.

BTW for those saying that corvettes will do the job, what will happen when said corvettes encounter sea state 7? Will corvettes be able to interdict US shipping in the middle of the atlantic?

Ahuh Look you can make up all the excuses you want, Lazarov isn't going to be modernized. No matter how much you wish or pray to whatever god you believe.

Lazarov also isn't part of any nuclear triad never was even in the Soviet days. The ship is done, I am not going to pretend otherwise.

If the modernization costs as much as a brand new lider then they shouldn't modernize it. Lider will be much better in terms of electronics, radars and integration ... maybe it will carry less weapons but it will still be armed very well compare to western ships.

I think they should buy the ukrainian slava and modernize it. But they said it won't happen so ... let's wait for super gorshkovsand liders.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:People who say that the lazarov will be scrapped are like the people who said that the unbuilt tu-160s were worthless junk that will surely be thrown away. Before you say that the Tu-160s were a nuclear triad priority, they aren't because Russia doesn't care that much for nuclear capable aircraft. The kirovs are also of equally extreme importance since theyre some of the only ships in the RuN that have plentiful working area AD.

BTW for those saying that corvettes will do the job, what will happen when said corvettes encounter sea state 7? Will corvettes be able to interdict US shipping in the middle of the atlantic?

Ahuh Look you can make up all the excuses you want, Lazarov isn't going to be modernized. No matter how much you wish or pray to whatever god you believe.

Lazarov also isn't part of any nuclear triad never was even in the Soviet days. The ship is done, I am not going to pretend otherwise.

If the modernization costs as much as a brand new lider then they shouldn't modernize it. Lider will be much better in terms of electronics, radars and integration ... maybe it will carry less weapons but it will still be armed very well compare to western ships.

I think they should buy the ukrainian slava and modernize it. But they said it won't happen so ... let's wait for super gorshkovsand liders.

They should modernise their own Slavas and Sovremennys before they think of buying someone else's.

The-thing-next-door wrote:They should modernise their own Slavas and Sovremennys before they think of buying someone else's.

Yes to the Slavas, but forget the Sovs as their propulsion are troublesome and they are simply less useful than the Udaloys.

Big_Gazza wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:They should modernise their own Slavas and Sovremennys before they think of buying someone else's.

Yes to the Slavas, but forget the Sovs as their propulsion are troublesome and they are simply less useful than the Udaloys.

They are not less usefull but way harder to modernize and it's not worth the money as they get gorshkovs.

Slavas should be upgraded with inclined oniks lunchers like the one we saw on the nanushka corvette. It shouldn't be costly to do so. And having 2+2 in north and pacific fleets plus 1 kirov each would be really nice instead of just 3 with 1 in each fleet.

Slavas and kirovs are the best ships available today in the world. If they can upgrade them and use them, they should go for it.

I would like to see them upgrading all ships above Frigate size with nuclear propulsion...

Converting them to suit modular weapons and modular sensors should allow cheaper simpler future upgrades and adaptations.

A good example is the UKSK launchers... their addition means any ship fitted with them... new or upgraded... can use any new Russian cruise missile weapon.

When the universal SAM component is finished then that will be sorted too, so any upgrade to a SAM or cruise missile can immediately applied to most of the fleet... ie with 50 ships carrying UKSK launchers then introducing Zircon does not mean building new ships to carry it... it can already be widely deployed once the software upgrades have been done.

For this reason and others money spent on upgrades is not wasted as it will make them more modular and they can be upgraded along with the new vessels.

Having more systems in service means reduced costs and easier maintainence and training...

GarryB wrote:I would like to see them upgrading all ships above Frigate size with nuclear propulsion...

Converting them to suit modular weapons and modular sensors should allow cheaper simpler future upgrades and adaptations.

A good example is the UKSK launchers... their addition means any ship fitted with them... new or upgraded... can use any new Russian cruise missile weapon.

When the universal SAM component is finished then that will be sorted too, so any upgrade to a SAM or cruise missile can immediately applied to most of the fleet... ie with 50 ships carrying UKSK launchers then introducing Zircon does not mean building new ships to carry it... it can already be widely deployed once the software upgrades have been done.

For this reason and others money spent on upgrades is not wasted as it will make them more modular and they can be upgraded along with the new vessels.

Having more systems in service means reduced costs and easier maintainence and training...

To do so you need to replace basically everything in the ship: wires, radars, computers, engines, weapons ... so you will need to "open" the ship and rebuild it totally. It is a heavy modernization.

It's not like just adding uran luncher. It will cost as much as new ships. Kirovs and slava are worth it because they are big and you can put a lot of things like VLS or big radars. The superstructure will handle everything.

For exemple someone said here that grigorovich class can't carry the big VLS system with 12 shtill or something like that because it was to heavy.

For the rest Gorshkov and super gorshkov are better choices if they build them in great numbers the price will fall down and they will have all new systems not some mix of old and new.

Nuclear propulsion is not magical neither. It is costly and it needs to be implemented since the design. Upgrading from normal propulsion to nuclear was never done and can be problematic.

GarryB wrote:I would like to see them upgrading all ships above Frigate size with nuclear propulsion...

Converting them to suit modular weapons and modular sensors should allow cheaper simpler future upgrades and adaptations.

A good example is the UKSK launchers... their addition means any ship fitted with them... new or upgraded... can use any new Russian cruise missile weapon.

When the universal SAM component is finished then that will be sorted too, so any upgrade to a SAM or cruise missile can immediately applied to most of the fleet... ie with 50 ships carrying UKSK launchers then introducing Zircon does not mean building new ships to carry it... it can already be widely deployed once the software upgrades have been done.

For this reason and others money spent on upgrades is not wasted as it will make them more modular and they can be upgraded along with the new vessels.

Having more systems in service means reduced costs and easier maintainence and training...

That will never happen, nuclear propulsion in ships less than 10k tons? are you high.

Come on man even for you that's a rather outlandish day dreaming fantasy

To do so you need to replace basically everything in the ship: wires, radars, computers, engines, weapons ... so you will need to "open" the ship and rebuild it totally. It is a heavy modernization.

I find integrating 21C computers with computers from the 1980s is really not as easy or as useful as it might sound.

By making new systems modular you reduce the wires and chaos by quite a degree... that was the revolutionary thing the Soviets learned when they finally got a look at an American sidewinder missile... it was not more sophisticated, but its modular design made it much much better in terms of manufacturing and design and maintenance.

In comparison the AA-1 Alkali is a complex mess of wires and components all mixed together...

Simplifying and modularising the designs makes them easier to do further upgrades and keep them up to date.

It's not like just adding uran luncher. It will cost as much as new ships. Kirovs and slava are worth it because they are big and you can put a lot of things like VLS or big radars. The superstructure will handle everything.

Actually the size of the old systems and components means new items should be able to be fitted in... the problem areas will be large external structures like the anti ship missiles on the Slava class ships... but for example the Shtil launchers on the Sovs could easily be swapped out for redut launchers... the space taken internally for the missiles to be held vertically and moved to the single arm launcher can be replaced by a large number of vertical launch bins with no moving parts all ready to fire at targets from any direction.

The new 130mm guns are half the weight of the old models.

New build vessels will have all new systems... why not test them now on real ships by fitting them to older vessels as test systems... get all the problems worked out now. Increase the number of capable weapons at sea and reduce the different weapon types you need to keep operational...

For exemple someone said here that grigorovich class can't carry the big VLS system with 12 shtill or something like that because it was to heavy.

The Shtil seems to be for export, Redut and S-400F/500F would be more useful for the Russian navy.

For the rest Gorshkov and super gorshkov are better choices if they build them in great numbers the price will fall down and they will have all new systems not some mix of old and new.

Who is talking about a mix of old and new?

Test everything... replace everything...

End up with something more useful for the next 20 years or so.

Nuclear propulsion is not magical neither. It is costly and it needs to be implemented since the design. Upgrading from normal propulsion to nuclear was never done and can be problematic.

I never said it would be easy or cheap... just like developing four land vehicle families to replace all existing land vehicles for the Army is not simple or easy or cheap... but it is logical and practical... and can be affordable if spread out over a decade or so.

That will never happen, nuclear propulsion in ships less than 10k tons? are you high.

They have already developed small compact nuclear reactors for conventional subs as an aerobic power supply that needs little to no maintenance and can sit unused for years.

Hell they even developed nuclear powered trains and aircraft...

Come on man even for you that's a rather outlandish day dreaming fantasy

They wont have a huge navy, so it would make sense to make it as powerful as possible...

Nuclear reactors will ever go in ships that small, please don't try and sell that like it's going to happen because you are crazy if you think so.

also going by your logic there is zero point in making new vessels learn about shipbuilding once ships get a certain age modernizing them is pointless

Isos wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

...forget the Sovs as their propulsion are troublesome and they are simply less useful than the Udaloys.

They are not less usefull but way harder to modernize and it's not worth the  money as they get gorshkovs.

Slavas should be upgraded with inclined oniks lunchers like the one we saw on the nanushka corvette. It shouldn't be costly to do so. And having 2+2 in north and pacific fleets plus 1 kirov each would be really nice instead of just 3 with 1 in each fleet.

Slavas and kirovs are the best ships available today in the world. If they can upgrade them and use them, they should go for it.

Being a large ASW ship, the Udaloys have a capable (though bulky) bow sonar which the Sovs lack, and they have 2x helos as opposed to 1 on the Sovs .  Also their gas turbine powerplants give them a greatly improved reaction time. compared to the Sovs boilers & steam turbines.  The Udaloy main failing is lack of a medium-long range SAM system and radars, though it has navalised Tor/Khinzhal so has decent medium-short-range air defense.

Yep, I'd plug for the Udaloys over the Sovs, and given that both Shaposhnikov and Chabanenko are both currently under refit, it seems the RuN concurs.

BTW regarding the Slavas, I'd rather see them retain the P-1000 Vulkans than spend money fitting with inclined UKSK.  The RuN has other UKSK ships coming on line, and the Slavas are useful for being able to deliver a killer punch to carrier with a single missile.  Regardless of any shit-posting from Atlantacist twerps, any hit by a Vulkan on a CGN will reduce a significant portion of the ship into a tangled flaming wreck and will certainly put an end to any air operations, ie mission kill.  Use Onyx & AShM versions of Kalibre (& Zircon ) simultaneously with missile attacks from land-based aviation to overwhelm and degrade enemy defense, then launch Vulcan wolfpack to hit the flat-tops.

For exemple someone said here that grigorovich class can't carry the big VLS system with 12 shtill or something like that because it was to heavy.

The original display model shown had 36 missiles forward, Kashtans aft beside the hangar.
Later model switched to 24 forward, Ak-630s aft as in completed ships.
Weight is the suggestion given by some over at Balancer forums, specifically that the absence of Kashtans aft would mean 36 missiles forward would be bow heavy.
I'd been of the understanding that Talwars have 36 missiles in the magazine for the single-arm launcher presumably balanced by the Kashtans aft, though looking again for that I'm seeing only references to 24 & its notable that only the first 3 had Kashtans, the 2nd 3 only have AK-630s aft like Grigorovich.
Could be mainly just cost saving too.

That will never happen, nuclear propulsion in ships less than 10k tons? are you high.

Technically quite possible, a couple of US nuclear Cruisers were less than 10,000ton & many nuclear subs have been smaller than 5,000ton, even down to ~2,000ton.
But retrofitting existing old ships to nuclear? Nope nope nope.

I would understand Nuclear for new Liders & CV but would not want to see it on smaller surface ships nope.
I think that 'all nuclear' suggestion was in response to the shipbuilding delays associated with waiting for Saturn to get upto speed with domestic naval gas turbines, should be not necessary now that they are ready for production.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Isos wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

...forget the Sovs as their propulsion are troublesome and they are simply less useful than the Udaloys.

They are not less usefull but way harder to modernize and it's not worth the  money as they get gorshkovs.

Slavas should be upgraded with inclined oniks lunchers like the one we saw on the nanushka corvette. It shouldn't be costly to do so. And having 2+2 in north and pacific fleets plus 1 kirov each would be really nice instead of just 3 with 1 in each fleet.

Slavas and kirovs are the best ships available today in the world. If they can upgrade them and use them, they should go for it.

Being a large ASW ship, the Udaloys have a capable (though bulky) bow sonar which the Sovs lack, and they have 2x helos as opposed to 1 on the Sovs .  Also their gas turbine powerplants give them a greatly improved reaction time. compared to the Sovs boilers & steam turbines.  The Udaloy main failing is lack of a medium-long range SAM system and radars, though it has navalised Tor/Khinzhal so has decent medium-short-range air defense.

Yep, I'd plug for the Udaloys over the Sovs, and given that both Shaposhnikov and Chabanenko are both currently under refit, it seems the RuN concurs.

BTW regarding the Slavas, I'd rather see them retain the P-1000 Vulkans than spend money fitting with inclined UKSK.  The RuN has other UKSK ships coming on line, and the Slavas are useful for being able to deliver a killer punch to carrier with a single missile.  Regardless of any shit-posting from Atlantacist twerps, any hit by a Vulkan on a CGN will reduce a significant portion of the ship into a tangled flaming wreck and will certainly put an end to any air operations, ie mission kill.  Use Onyx & AShM versions of Kalibre (& Zircon   ) simultaneously with missile attacks from land-based aviation to overwhelm and degrade enemy defense, then launch Vulcan wolfpack to hit the flat-tops.

Well maybe they could just modify the P-1000 Vulkan so that it takes an evasive course like the Iskander.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:
Being a large ASW ship, the Udaloys have a capable (though bulky) bow sonar which the Sovs lack, and they have 2x helos as opposed to 1 on the Sovs .  Also their gas turbine powerplants give them a greatly improved reaction time. compared to the Sovs boilers & steam turbines.  The Udaloy main failing is lack of a medium-long range SAM system and radars, though it has navalised Tor/Khinzhal so has decent medium-short-range air defense.

Yep, I'd plug for the Udaloys over the Sovs, and given that both Shaposhnikov and Chabanenko are both currently under refit, it seems the RuN concurs.

BTW regarding the Slavas, I'd rather see them retain the P-1000 Vulkans than spend money fitting with inclined UKSK.  The RuN has other UKSK ships coming on line, and the Slavas are useful for being able to deliver a killer punch to carrier with a single missile.  Regardless of any shit-posting from Atlantacist twerps, any hit by a Vulkan on a CGN will reduce a significant portion of the ship into a tangled flaming wreck and will certainly put an end to any air operations, ie mission kill.  Use Onyx & AShM versions of Kalibre (& Zircon   ) simultaneously with missile attacks from land-based aviation to overwhelm and degrade enemy defense, then launch Vulcan wolfpack to hit the flat-tops.

Well maybe they could just modify the P-1000 Vulkan so that it takes an evasive course like the Iskander.

Vulkans are an advanced weapon, and although the airframe is evolved from the old 1960s P-5/P-35 "Shaddock", they are entirely a different beast.  A Bazalt/Vulkan salvo functions as a wolf-pack:  

The missiles were intended to be used in salvos; a submarine could launch eight in rapid succession, maintaining control of each through a separate datalink. In flight the group could co-ordinate their actions; one would fly to a higher altitude and use its active radar to search for targets, forwarding this data to the other missiles which remained at low altitude. The missiles were programmed so that half of a salvo would head for a carrier target, with the rest dividing between other ships. If the high-flying missile was shot down, another from the salvo would automatically pop up to take its place. All of the missiles would switch to active radar for the terminal phase of the attack  
Source is wikipedia (a shit source but useful sometimes...)

I think you can take for granted that final attack run isn't performed in a straight line to assist the enemies defenses...