Granit tubes replacement with UKSK of Kalibr/Onyx

Putting vertical launchers on the Soviet era cruisers is problematic, as they originally have installed angled launchers. Presumably, Kuznetsov will be able to receive one UKSK only due to this incompatibility.

kuz does have vertcal.launchers for the cruise.missiles...

They're angled like on Orlan.

I'm not sure if multiple Onyx missiles would fit in a single Granit tube, as their diameter is only 15 cm smaller (70 cm vs 85 cm).

Regarding hot launch - AFAIK all Russian missiles are cold launched...that's the definition of launch when missiles are in reusable tubes like anywhere in the RuN. If the missile started its engine in the tube already it could hardly be usable again. Let alone the danger of firing other missiles in neighbouring tubes.

Regarding extra missiles for Peter the Great, this would make sense because the modernization overall will be cheaper as it is in better condition as Nakhimov. So extra funds shouldn't be a problem. The ships is also much younger as Nakhimov so it would actually make sense to invest more in it. IMO such large ship can easily serve 50 years, so some 3 decades are surely in front of it. But leaving some space free also wouldn't be so bad, it's like the Americans and Zumwalt - just leave it for the future weapons. Then installation of new weaponry will be much faster and cheaper as the old ones won't have to be put out.

Nakhimov had 5*4 Granit launchers, is getting 5*2 8-cell UKSK modules, it leaves apparently unused deck area due to the angled volume under-deck but its still 2* side-by-side Granits -> 1* UKSK.

K has 6*2 Granits so should be able to upgrade that to 6* UKSK in terms of space but would need new aircraft-friendly hatches.

Nakhimov had 5*4 Granit launchers, is getting 5*2 8-cell UKSK modules, it leaves apparently unused deck area due to the angled volume under-deck but its still 2* side-by-side Granits -> 1* UKSK.

K has 6*2 Granits so should be able to upgrade that to 6* UKSK in terms of space but would need new aircraft-friendly hatches.

This is an interesting information. So if the navy decides that they need more Kalibr missiles, they can insert Kalibrs in Granit tubes. The question is, can they keep just one or two UKSK and take the aft ones away too free some space for increasing the air wing. IMO it would be worth giving up few missiles to get an extra fighter, especially now that they are producing blue water Kalibr carriers at higher pace.

On the OSCAR class subs they stated they were going to put liner tubes down the granit tubes for Calibr missiles... three per granit tube.... there are 24 Granit tubes on an OSCAR sub, and they stated that the upgrade would allow 72 Calibres or Onyx missiles to be carried instead... pretty clear that 24 + 24 + 24 = 72.

Now I checked too an it seems that Chelyabinsk and Irkutsk are actually getting 72 Onyx missiles each. So by the time Kuznetsov is back in service in 2021, those two project 949 AM subs should done, too. So the navy will probably have more than enough Onyx missiles. Where's the point of putting so many missiles on carrier anyway? On the other hand, if rearranging second deck could free up some space for extra aircraft, it would be a sensible change for me.

This is an interesting information. So if the navy decides that they need more Kalibr missiles, they can insert Kalibrs in Granit tubes. The question is, can they keep just one or two UKSK and take the aft ones away too free some space for increasing the air wing. IMO it would be worth giving up few missiles to get an extra fighter, especially now that they are producing blue water Kalibr carriers at higher pace.

Nakhimov Granit tubes were completely removed and VLS UKSK are going in their place, its the Oscars getting tube liners.
Presumably either could be done on K, the latter may be more attractive, being less work.

Would be done to maintain its design concept as having anti-ship missiles as main weaponry.
I don't think there is really such a thing as 'too many missiles'.

Look at the pic you posted a few back, 7 is the hangar and there is a bunch of stuff between it and the Granits, it'd be a huge effort to rework that interior to provide any more hangar space.
I could buy turning the volume (& mass allowance) into more tankage for avgas and/or bombs etc though.

Look at the pic you posted a few back, 7 is the hangar and there is a bunch of stuff between it and the Granits, it'd be a huge effort to rework that interior to provide any more hangar space.

Yes I realise that, but perhaps other stuff could be removed, too. They're modernizing 1980s ship and if done properly, a lot of things could be removed, automatised, so less crew is required, too. I believe the most expensive part of modernization is installing expensive new electronics and weapons and even missiles (remember 1 mio $ Zumwalt grenades for main guns)...changing interior organisation perhaps wouldn't be so hard/expensive.

Kalibrs are good, but having more deck fighters on their single aircraft carrier? It's like comparing S-400 and Su-35. The latter just offers so many options.