Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

1. You will not be destroying the port, you will capture the ports to use them. Only a moron would cause heavy damage to the ports. The only time destroying a naval point is acceptable is if you are retreating from it or if the enemy is dug in and refuses to leave but if you try and use those guns for that, then you don't know what your doing at all. So bringing up "let's bombard the ports" shows a clear lack of understanding of procedure on your end. Keep reading them internet articles.

He said Ports were on the coastline... he never said landings would be performed at ports... which ports did that land in in D day?

Ports are generally too heavily defended to attack directly with a landing force, but certainly ports can be attacked to disrupt the activities of the enemy... shelling a military navy port can do all sorts of damage beyond just sinking ships... if you sink one enemy refuelling tanker then you effect their ability to operate away from home port but if you shell their refuelling infrastructure in their port then the effects are vastly more damaging...

Why would Russia not want to cause heavy damage to HATO ports during WWIII... it is not like they will want to use them later... and restricting the ability of the HATO navies to operate from home ports is good for Russia in such a situation...

2. Bridges? that greatly depends on what country you are talking about and most small bridges can easily be bypassed lol. I find it funny when people try and bring up oddly specific points that really may or may not have any meaning depending on geographic location to argue. Unless it is a massive bridge it won't matter, this isn't WW2 lol.

It of course depends on the location, but in some places bridges are critical for mobility and transport... destroying them restricts the enemy mobility, but you brought your own engineers to put up temporary bridges so your mobility wont be effected as much. Preventing the enemy from being mobile during a landing is critical to the success of any landing.

They said many things 20 years ago they said they will have 20 Stereguschy class but still they do not have them.

Did they give a timetable?

Are you suggesting they collaborated with the Army to develop a new long range 152mm gun but are going to stick with 130mm guns instead... because they are much shorter ranged and fire a much lighter projectile...

Testing of Zirkon is not secret I do not see why it would be secret testing of new naval gun.

Everything is secret, but they do periodically announce certain things... mostly for political reasons... the US will be scared of Zircon entering service because of its performance, so there is value in announcing that... 152mm guns not so much.

I saw lot of drawings, but what matter is real project, which passed stage of drawings and enter production.

Do you think they intend to put drawings into service?

So you think that they modernize biggest warship in world armed with most advance missile systems, in order to close him to well defend enemy shores and to provide arty support????

The plans are for a 170km range with guided shells... why would they not want that on ships? That would outrange early model SS-N-22 Sunburn anti ship missiles... even a modest rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute would be pretty overwhelming for most small and medium sized ships...

That was newer role of Kirov class even in days of huge Soviet navy.

Rubbish... any landing force would require air cover so the Kuznetsov would be there to provide that and the Kirovs would be operating with the Kuznetsov...

So what is point of stating well known and undisputed facts? My point was that development of new 57 mm gun is known project that last for years and that they still do not use it. And you claim that they will use NOW gun whose development is not known or at least not for public.

They don't have any Mistral type ships in service so any landing force will be tiny at the moment so having 152mm guns is not needed right now... but they are laid down so in 5-8 years time they will need heavier naval gun support and an obvious way to get that would be to fit it to their current cruisers in the form of a gun upgrade from 130mm to 152mm. The gun itself is already developed... which is the hardest part... they always had plans to introduce it... that is why they developed it...

I am stating facts you seem to be ignoring.

New 32 ton HATO IFVs are not likely to be penetrated by 30mm cannon shells of any type at normal combat distances, which means the 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 and BMP-3 has been rendered redundant, they have developed the replacement in the form of two different 57mm guns... one being a former AA gun round and the other a clever use of a 57mm grenade launcher... I suspect the former will be a new AA type used on land and at sea effectively as a CIWS with guided and air burst shells, and the latter will likely be used as a standard BMP calibre gun with APFSDS rounds and large HE rounds... the fact that they are not in service right now is irrelevant... they also have 152mm tank guns which are also not being used because the 125mm seems to be effective enough right now.

The difference for the Navy is that the helicopter carrier landing ships have been laid down so it makes sense to get a 152mm gun on a ship and operational.

As the ammo develops it will only become more and more useful.

Try to be consistent it is not very hard......


Weight that you posted is weight of dual gun. Single gun is ofcourse always much lighter.

Just as example:

Single mount:B-13: 11.8 tons (12.0 mt)
duble mount: B-2LM: 48.23 tons (49 mt)

WHAT!!!!

You were the one saying the new gun was just an old gun with a different shaped turret... did you even notice it had one less barrel when you said that?

A192M is not actually new as, afaik, under the surface that is same old AK130, they made new turret for stealth ships. But maybe that will be the case now that they just give reshaped turret for old ak130 but from my point of view having in mind that Kirov is not stealth that is nonsense.

The fact that it is 98 tons vs 30 tons AND a twin barrel gun vs a single barrel gun backs up my case that they are not the same gun with a different outer cover...

Ok, i wasnt precise enought i had dual mount in mind.

The land based dual mount gun adds too much weight and physical space to the design so they could no longer be carried in standard aircraft/train cars.

The second gun had its own fully automatic dual ammo feed system, which for two guns means four feed channels... which just takes up too much space and adds too much weight.

The naval version will almost certainly retain twin barrels because it does not need to fit in a plane or through a train tunnel.

And rate of fire would be useful.

The other advantage is that with guided long range rounds you need 1 or 2 rounds per target. So you can allow yourself to carry less rounds and it's then better to carry bigger rounds to destroy more easily the targets with a bigger warhead.

Imagine the situation from the perspective of the enemy... emissions are detected from over 100km away but you can't be sure what it is... it might be an airborne Ka-31... then a few minutes later tiny ballistic projectiles start arriving... they are only about 150 or 160mm in diameter and are ramjet or possibly scramjet powered... they have a 30kg HEI warhead and have an optical seeker that uses IIR sensors to target specific parts of your ship.... and they are arriving two at a time at a rate of 50 shells a minute... you can't ignore them because while each is not anything like what would be needed to sink your ship each projectile can serious damage the system it hits and it seems to be targeting your guns and missile mounts and your radar antenna and your bridge....

Being scramjet powered they might be coming in rather fast too...

And in last 50 years just one ship was designed having in mind such advantage... and that didn't went well

The Americans and the French also tried to make tank gun fired anti tank missiles... the American Shillaylah (Spelling) in 152mm calibre and the French system I think was 142mm calibre. To their credit the French didn't actually make their weapon or deploy it but the Americans deployed their system in large numbers on the Sheridan and a model of the M60 tank and they were awful... widely deployed in several conflicts and not a single example of a successful use despite all the money wasted the system was totally inferior to the much cheaper TOW mounted on an M113... which was used successfully.

But there is no way the backward Soviets or Russians could succeed where the west had failed right?

I would like to see 203mm gun on new big Russian ships with range 60km or more and smart munition. But now I just do not have any reason to believe that they have 152 or 203 gun in acceptance stage.

Their 152mm gun already reaches 70km and they are expecting ranges of 170km to be achieved with "boosted rounds".

Now long range guided rounds offer much more capabilities against new threats and the 152mm guns are already in mind of conceptors.

New higher pressure barrels and new propellents and terminal guidance to make the extra range useful as well as new projectiles with built in propulsion should allow enormous increases in range and performance....

So what? No-one knew the Russians were actively developing an air-launched anti-ship version of Iskander until it was announced. No-one knew they were actively developing an a nuclear-powered CM until it was announced. No-one knew they were developing a tactical laser platform for point defense of ICBM bases until it was announced.

And ironically the west knew for a very long time about Klub and its various different models, yet was still shocked at the long range cruise missile attack capability the Russians showed in Syria... it seems they are reactive rather than proactive... perhaps in 5 years time they will start to develop 155mm naval guns...

When the Nahkimov finally departs the fitting-out quay for state trials, I reckon its even money that she will be sporting a navalised 2S35 Koalition 152mm arty, notwithstanding the lack of any public admission of such a program or manufacturer promos.

I agree, and it will likely be a twin barrel version as originally designed... the ground based model probably does not have a good enough rate of fire though so it might be a more navalised turret and ammo handling system they use to benefit from the advantages of space and recoil absorption that ships offer...

Because a new arty can be tested in the manufacturers testing ground without prying eyes and with minimal ground preparations (and thereby covertly), while Zirkon needs a cast of hundreds and extensive ground launch prep at a known launch site that is routinely monitored by the enemy, needs a clear airspace to test, and can be detected by radars and spy stats.

You can string a net above a 152mm gun turret to hide it from satellite view as well as Open skies monitoring aircraft, but with Zircon, you need an area a thousand kms long...

Ok, there is no point for further discussion, you believe that they will put 152 mm gun I think that will not be case. We will see... Any way when modernization should be completed?

I think it will be more than just a case of a land based turret being put on a ship, but there is no reason to believe they have not been working on a naval turret for some time now... they don't export cruisers so there is no value in advertising it for export like they do with their smaller calibre guns... they don't advertise Yasen or Borei class Subs either...

The facts are they have said the 152mm Coalition gun will be used by the navy... they have just laid down two helicopter landing ships and they are upgrading their cruisers... if the new 152mm gun turret is ready they will likely want to test it by putting it on an upgraded Kirov... it would be the ideal low risk opportunity to iron out any bugs and take new rounds to sea for testing and use.

They should certainly use the land based Coalition turret to replace the Bereg 130mm coastal gun system simply because it has a heavier shell and much much longer range.

As you point out the new 130mm gun is a single barrel weapon designed to be as light as possible... at the cost of a barrel which will reduce the rate of fire... surely if it is for Cruisers why bother?

There is no advantage overall in making it 60 tons lighter... especially at the cost of reducing its rate of fire.

You would make it smaller and lighter to fit on smaller ships that can now carry more ready to use ammo with it because it is smaller and lighter, but for a cruiser or destroyer the difference would be unimportant... but the reduction in rate of fire would be a pain in the ass.

For a Frigate sized ship it is huge, because the 130mm gun has better range and more effective heavier projectiles that do more damage... a full weight gun wouldn't fit and this reduced size gun probably means it can fit where a 76mm gun would have gone... perhaps with a similar number of rounds... but rounds with much better range and impact.

The Kirovs really are pretty ships, they remind of of the Scharnhorst

They were quite a revolution when they came out for a Soviet ship because normally their decks are covered in weapons and sensors and enormous missile tubes.... a bit like the Slava class, but the Kirovs had these vertical launch systems with just hatches on the deck... they were still covered in antennas and sensors and stuff and other weapons and things, but they looked much less cluttered and more dangerous.

The British said their radar return is much less than they were expecting for a ship that size and the fact that it is a cruiser is revealed by the size of its wake when it is running...  it has a full sized wake with a smaller radar return...

BTW I want them to fit a 203, I have never heard any mention of any 203 gun in development by their Army or Navy. I know the 203mm guns the Army has are out of storage and are in use in active units and I would assume new ammo is being developed but I don't know of any new guns with improved range being made or planned... just my wishful thinking.

The 152mm guns on the other hand are on parade and are being talked about by Navy officials... I would think as I said at the very least a replacement for the Bereg 130mm land based coastal gun battery system that operates with the Bal coastal missile system... but then as I have just mentioned they have lightened and likely reduced the rate of fire of their new 130mm guns, which is largely irrelevant and counter productive respectively for a cruisers gun.

Brilliant if you want a cruisers gun on a Frigate, but not ideal for a cruiser... a 65 ton weapon with two guns would make much more sense for a cruiser or destroyer... but of course would be less good for much lighter vessels.

Have no idea if the gun is improved or changed on the A192 or not... probably not so they can keep their ammo stockpiles because the only ships that had the 130mm guns were the Kirovs and the Sovremmenys and it seems they are going ahead with upgraded Udaloys with 100mm guns and upgrading their Kirovs with much lighter lower rate of fire guns seems like a step backwards...

BTW the single barrel 100mm gun turret the first Kirov had (two of) weighs 49 tons without ammo... the upgraded A-190 single barrel gun has a rate of fire of over 80 rounds per minute compared with the old guns 30-50 rounds per minute and it weighs just under 19 tons.

So they actually are new guns...

The large cannons have gone the way of the Dodo since they have been replaced by missiles.

The ridiculous ones like the 16 inch guns etc then yes I would agree... but that is because the thickness of armour on modern ships is nothing like the armour of ships from WWII so the extra weight is not necessary... and of course missiles are more efficient at sinking ships than shells are.

Having said that, the Russians have not abandoned guns... whether that is land based artillery or coastal defence they have rockets and missiles and guns... Smerch, Iskander, Coalition and 2S7.... for coastal they have Bereg and Bal (Kh-35), and for air defence they have 23mm guns and 30mm guns and are looking at reintroducing 57mm guns together with an enormous range of missiles.

If their guns were 130mm and had their range of about 26km then I would agree... there is not much point in having lots of guns... but with airburst shells able to be used against incoming threats... they become much more interesting.

More importantly a 152mm calibre gun firing guided rounds to 70km is already an option with the promise of 170km in the near future, together with work on EM catapults which might lead to new solutions for throwing projectiles to greater distances... why on earth would you ignore that sort of potential?

The Russians have a rich history of applying lots of different solutions to problems... ERA on its own is OK, but add an APS, and composite armour and of course EW systems like Shtora, and of course Nakidka IR and radar camo... and you start to get a very well defended tank that is much lighter than western tanks that have not bothered with ERA or APS till they were forced to do something...

ERA has evolved into NERA which is even better and their APS now effects APFSDS rounds as well as HEAT... who knows how far they have progressed in other areas... but they all work together to make their tanks safer.

A guided missile with a high explosive warhead is more effective
than the WWII era "car sized shell" lobbers which do not have the accuracy and the range.

I am talking about 152mm guns... not 406mm.

I know the Kirov class did not have the monster guns of the WWII period but it was designed in a transition period. Replacing the
oversized guns with missile launchers updates them to modern needs and standards.

It was the first ship to use vertical launched missiles, yet they still put guns on it.

Guns are a very cheap and simple way to deliver HE to places very rapidly that jammers and chaff and flares and smoke wont stop.

Day night and all weather capable...

For individual point targets guns make sense... if you want a deluge then unguided rockets make more sense... but missiles are not as flexible.

It is not like I am suggesting replacing all the missile systems with 6 or 8 Coalition gun turrets... I would think one gun turret with extra rounds makes more sense than two turrets with fewer ready to fire rounds just makes sense... it does not compromise the design nor does it take up a lot of room, while adding something that can be used together with missiles to defeat a range of targets.

In the case of a swarm attack a 152mm shell lobbed in the middle with an air burst fuse and a light ball bearing filler to spread the damage... most flying things wont fly with a bit of damage and small flying things are fragile...

For very low flying missiles landing shells in the water than then explode sending water up into the air in the path of the incoming missiles can be as effective as hitting them directly... Il-2 pilots mentioned flying very low over water was dangerous when enemy shells were creating water plumes... flying into water at 200km/h plus will take out most aircraft... and flying faster just means it does more damage....

Right now the gun technology at 70km range GLONASS guided shells is useful... the expectations for 170km rounds is even more useful, so I would say go for it... half the funding is being paid for by the Army so adding Navy funding just means getting a much better product for less outlay... and if they can manage 170km range rounds in 152mm I would seriously look in to the potential of 203mm guns as well.

If memory serves me problem with Lazarev was cracked reactor not hull

It doesn't really matter if the upgrade costs equal one or five Frigates... it is not like or or even five Frigates will be able to do what two or three cruisers can do.

More importantly even if you diverted the money for the upgrades to buy those five frigates, you wont get them in the same time frame as upgraded cruisers.

The five new frigates would most likely be tacked on the end of existing orders so in 15 years time when they have made the 20-30 they planned to make they could then make the extra five from the saved money... except that money would be gone by then and anyway they probably spent half the money scrapping the Orlans... and by the way in 15 years time those Frigates are twice the price, so you can afford to buy 1 and three quarters of a new Frigate which will be operational in about 2038... how can that be better than three upgraded cruisers over the next 10 years that can operate with the upgraded Kuznetsov...

They don't need to make them super arsenal ships, but it would be an excellent opportunity to test new stuff like take out that faulty reactor and put a brand new type they want to use in their new cruisers and new carriers... it will be expensive, but the experience of using a new reactor would be valuable and might allow for serious design changes and improvements so the new cruisers are less Zumwalt and more useful.

Large radar arrays can be tested and new versions of Pantsir and TOR could be used as well.

From what I can tell from the Roscosmos site the old Rif system can be used for the new long range S-400 missiles, but they have already mentioned the Redut will have 400km range missiles too, so the mechanised Rif launcher could be replaced by a much smaller and more compact cell based Redut system.

And a 152mm gun would be good too...

It would make sense, if it is not a total nightmare in terms of hidden damages and unknown scope of jobs, to modernize the Lazarev, if they get the Nakhimov and PV it is just two nuclear cruisers and that number is very short to guarantee availability in both oceanic fleets at the same time. A third unit would allow repairs on one of them without any of the fleets loosing capability. Nevertheless I doubt any decision is made until the Nakhimov returns to service and its new capabilities are evaluated.