Russian Navy: Status & News #2

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:We will have to wait and see.

That is wait I've been thinking for a while now. Maybe the larger ships will have larger cells and vice-versa. Or, (this would be a down side)  they could use up 4 cells (space)?

The new RUssian destroyer  project 21956 here ...

is Rumored that will have up to...

-from 7500 to 14,700 tons,
-from 160m to 200 meters long, either gas turbine CODAG or  nuclear propulsion,
- top speed of approximately 30 knots  
-Equipped with 2x2x152mm guns, 4 CIWS complexes,
-32 to 64 universal shipboard firing complexes (Kalibr/Oniks) and
-64 to 80 Redut shipboard missiles,
- 2 Paket-NK anti-submarine torpedo systems,
2 helicopters"

by looking how moderately strong their best frigates Gorshkov will be when it comes to Sam defenses ,
we could guess their destroyer  SAMS will be also 150km range or 250km range. looks good but not impressive unless it can use
long range s-400 or s-500.

Well, that is what I've been asking. So far, it looks like none of us know if the S-400/S-500 systems are compatible with Redut VLS cells. (Please tell me/us if you have any info on that.)

If they do have that ability, it will be a game-changer. If they don't, that would be okay, but it would be missed.

64-80 Redut cells is a TON, by the way. Especially when you add in at least 32 UKSK (?) cells! 64+32 = 96 (duh...), which is more/as much as the Burkes. (Which should be called "cruisers".)

If it had the 80+64 configuration (which I doubt); I might just wet my pants in excitement......

Also, 150-250km is still decent. Both the Burke class and Ticonderoga class can't surpass 250km anyway. (The SM-3 can, but is really only intended for ASAT and ABM operations. The ERAM has a range of 240km, but costs an arm and leg; roughly $5,000,000.

21956 is an ancient paper project that has nothing to do "Leader".

I always suspected there might be more than one version of USUK and Redut launchers, and it isn't practical to have S-400 missiles in boats with small displacements such as corvettes due to the fact that they wouldn't have the corresponding radar.

The concept of standardisation and unification of weapons and sensors and propulsion is simple and straight forward.

Having different versions of universal launchers... whether they are for SAM or for heavy cruise missiles/anti ship weapons.

Very simply by putting the UKSK launcher in every boat the Russian military have when they develop new weapons, like the hypersonic Zirconium, they can fit it to every vessel in their fleet simply by loading it on board. Previously they would develop a new weapon... say Moskit, and then produce a few patrol boats and a few Sovremmeny class destroyers to carry it so its introduction depended on how fast they could make destroyers.

Universal launchers makes enormous sense in terms of maintainence, production, and support... even design is easier when you have fixed design modules that can be placed on ships in various configurations.

Having three different types of UKSK launcher and two different Redut launchers makes little sense.

Corvettes might never need to use 2,500km range Kalibr land attack cruise missiles but most of the weapons that fit the UKSK launcher are the same size roughly so there is little benefit to having different versions tailored to different missions... the new boats are supposed to be multirole so having tailored weapons is dumb.

Equally every Russian ship from corvette to carrier has Sigma, which is an advanced C4IR system like AEGIS, so even if a corvette can't see its aerial target 300km away, or indeed cannot detect a pin point ground target 2,500km away, that doesn't mean it can't get the target information from another platform and still fire a weapon at the target. A stealth corvette should be able to get closer to an enemy coastline undetected than a much larger ship.

Bigger ships could have launcher cells that accepts 4 USUK tubes or one larger missile tube with the capability to use larger missiles built in the Soviet Union.

Why? Granit is out of production. Zirconium has the potential to be vastly superior to anything the Soviets even thought of... a mach 7-8 anti ship missile...

That is wait I've been thinking for a while now. Maybe the larger ships will have larger cells and vice-versa. Or, (this would be a down side) they could use up 4 cells (space)?

Personally I am hoping they have used a special liner for the launch tests that contains testing and telemetry equipment and the final operational system will have better missile capacity... and one unified launcher.

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:We will have to wait and see.

That is wait I've been thinking for a while now. Maybe the larger ships will have larger cells and vice-versa. Or, (this would be a down side)  they could use up 4 cells (space)?

The new RUssian destroyer  .

--------------------------------

My reply:

Love the "hot air" discussions about "cruisers" in a Gorskhov thread where not even ONE Gorshkov is ready yet. Now, wet dreams about "heavy destroyers" with 96 cells. Stop the dreaming, will ya ?

RussiaMil which you refer to by the way, is a great blog I love to read. As you can see from his blog, there hasn't been any "concrete" news on this since last year. Just some theoretical dreaming about upto four different versions where one of them will be chosen at the "end". Whenever that might be, lol.

I recommend you to read a good article also posted on PRAVDA. Can't post links yet, but read it. It's written by Will Hart, and the article is on PRAVDA, called "Hiding the US-NATO military overkill". It was posted on 18th of April 2014.

You should read it to get a dose of reality.

Also, the blog you have referred to is great in keep reading military updates in regards how almost every single target for 2020 re-armament has "failed", in a sence that it takes too long; is more costly that originally calculated while at the same time numbers being reduced.

There is already a cruiser project, is is called "Leader".
Why the hell should we not talk about it? If it ends up (as rumored) to be a 11-13k ton ship, it will have more than 96 cells.

Nothing to dream about. It will happen eventually.

Also, bringing up PRAVDA and reality LOL. You realize how dumb that sounds?

You didn't come here and enlighten us to the state of Russian military shipbuilding, sorry.

TR1 wrote:There is already a cruiser project, is is called "Leader".
Why the hell should we not talk about it? If it ends up (as rumored) to be a 11-13k ton ship, it will have more than 96 cells.

Nothing to dream about. It will happen eventually.

Also, bringing up PRAVDA and reality LOL. You realize how dumb that sounds?

You didn't come here and enlighten us to the state of Russian military shipbuilding, sorry.

Rumored as in "hot air" ?    Where is the thread about the "Leader" ?

Lol, so Pravda is now a "West StronKK newspaper" ? Besides, the article was also on NYT.

It is much more "lol" when people on here talk about Russia "being superpower" able to "crush U.S. and rest of the NATO-allied forces, now that's LOL.

I actually confirmed that I like to read the blog "he" linked to. Maybe "he" and you should read it each time new posts are posted. I like always when he sums up how looooooooong everything takes and is way BEYOND projected "timelines".

Rumored is the size (they have two projects for Leader of different displacement). The actual Leader program is nothing rumored, it has been in the planning phase for some time.

Pravda is not "West stronk". It is just yellow press and is trash.

I don't give two craps about what someone says about Russia being or not being able to crush NATO. The cruiser discussions are not hot air in any sense.

New missile tracking ships in development !


Russian ships to missile tracking systems

I wonder what stop Russia for equipping their Mistral carrier warships ,with S-400s and S-500s. ?
That transport warship could be turned into a super heavy Cruiser or mobile S-500s defences..
For example why an S-400 or S-500 will not work on the surface of the mistral class without any modification or change?
The mistral i believe could easily used to carry 200 x S-400s /S-500 Long Range missiles from 400km-600km
without much modification of the ship.. and with 4x Pantsir-S1 defenses around the ship.

Love the "hot air" discussions about "cruisers" in a Gorskhov thread where not even ONE Gorshkov is ready yet. Now, wet dreams about "heavy destroyers" with 96 cells. Stop the dreaming, will ya ?

Hahahaha... the only people wet dreaming on this thread about 96 cell launchers on Destroyers include YOU. Or do you deny you were talking about the Arleigh Burke class and bemoaning why the new ships that are the actual subject of this threat don't compete directly with 10,000 ton destroyers build during the height of the cold war?

I recommend you to read a good article also posted on PRAVDA. Can't post links yet, but read it. It's written by Will Hart, and the article is on PRAVDA, called "Hiding the US-NATO military overkill". It was posted on 18th of April 2014.

I can tell by the title it is NATO propaganda.

Lol, so Pravda is now a "West StronKK newspaper" ? Besides, the article was also on NYT.

Oh, well if it was in the New York Times then it must be factual and not biased at all... was it funded by the Jamestown institute?

It is much more "lol" when people on here talk about Russia "being superpower" able to "crush U.S. and rest of the NATO-allied forces, now that's LOL.

Yeah... of course... with all those nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them... they are minnows... that is why NATO and the US expends so much effort to destabilise and isolate them...

Maybe "he" and you should read it each time new posts are posted. I like always when he sums up how looooooooong everything takes and is way BEYOND projected "timelines".

But all US military programs are on time and never cut back... the 25 years the F-22 has been in service has been amazing really hasn't it... I mean those 1,000 F-22s have really proven their worth... along with those 15 Virginia Class SSNs and 30 Zumwalt destroyers...

I wonder what stop Russia for equipping their Mistral carrier warships ,with S-400s and S-500s. ?
That transport warship could be turned into a super heavy Cruiser or mobile S-500s defences..
For example why an S-400 or S-500 will not work on the surface of the mistral class without any modification or change?
The mistral i believe could easily used to carry 200 x S-400s /S-500 Long Range missiles from 400km-600km
without much modification of the ship.. and with 4x Pantsir-S1 defenses around the ship.

The problem there would be that with 200 S-400s or S-500s it would no longer be able to carry helicopters and landing forces, which is its primary role.

What would be more interesting would be to fit an Akula class (Nato codename Typhoon) with 200 launch tubes for S-500.

the Akula was design to surface in areas of thin ice in the Arctic to launch ICBMs from places you couldn't normally launch ICBMs from.

Now imagine having 200 interceptor missiles able to shoot down ICBMs and satellites under the ice in the north pole... very interesting.

Hahahaha... the only people wet dreaming on this thread about 96 cell launchers on Destroyers include YOU.

I can tell by the title it is NATO propaganda.

Yeah... of course... with all those nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them... they are minnows... that is why NATO and the US expends so much effort to destabilise and isolate them...

But all US military programs are on time and never cut back... the 25 years the F-22 has been in service has been amazing really hasn't it... I mean those 1,000 F-22s have really proven their worth... along with those 15 Virginia Class SSNs and 30 Zumwalt destroyers...
------------------------------------------------

My reply:

Lol, what "arguments" you have. Ya, because everything RT says is true, and when good analysis comes along, then it must be "funded by some Jameston" whatever Foundation. These analysis is based on pure facts.

You call it "NATO propaganda". On the contrary, my "friend", you are the best tool for NATO, they can ever have. You re-inforce the image of Russia being so StrooooNk "big bad bear" that "threatens its neighbours", the same way NATO WANTS to portray Russia to the outside world which they have succeed with.

But the fact is Russia is not the aggressive part here and Russia is NOT strong. You can babble as much as you want about nuclear weapons, while the U.S. and its allies rolls back Russian influence everywhere and continue to increase NATO presence around Russia's borders.

F-22 has been in operational service since 2005 - not for 25 years. The U.S. doesn't have 1,000 of them, but they have 187 of them which is 187 more compared to PAK FA which has a number of ZERO operational aircraft.

So ya, 187 vs 0.

The U.S will soon have 15 Virginia class. They already have 10 of them and building another 15. The U.S. will most likely build at least 30 of them.

The number of Zumwalt went down from 30 to 3, yes, but those 3 Zumwalts are still miles ahead of what Russia thinks they can field. Even A-Burkes are way ahead of any "fantasy" Gorshkov, where some people on here dream about how and what they will fill its 32 cells with,   Wet dreams all the way.

That's why I react, because there is no realism or reality on here. Just spewing of hot air and personal attacks. I have had to accept several personal attacks on here while I haven't called anyone anything compared to what I've been called.

Also, another fact, the U.S. has already 62 Burkes and plan to increase the number to 75 because of the number for Zumwalt being reduced. So the U.S. number, its forces and tech in addition to experience are on totally another level compared to Russia, unfortunately.

But, please continue to tell everyone how "strong big bad" Russia is - which is exactly the type of propaganda NATO wants the rest of the world to believe, which is Russia being the "aggressor", while the alliance (NATO) that is condemning Russia, spends 12 TIMES more on WEAPONS than Russia does.

So, can we finally expect 1st Gorshkov to meet against 62 A-Burke "buddies" from next year, along with 70 U.S. SSN/SSBNs, 22 Ticonderogas, 1st Zumwalt 3,000 fighters or it is gonna be another delay AGAIN ?

I hope you realize the U.S. is only building 5 Virginia class subs at the moment. Not only that, but the "next" versions will be stripped down junkers built to hoard missiles.

Tell me how the PAK-FA is relevant on a thread about a frigate. Besides, the reason they have "0" in service is because they aren't in production!

Zumwalts are pure junk, not kidding. I posted a large thing on them I will post here;



"It can't fire the SM2, SM3, and SM6 missiles. All of which are very capable in their own right, and are arguably the best missiles in the Navy's inventory. Not only that, but the Zumwalt class can only hold 80 VLS cells. - Which happens to be 42 less than a Tico which weighs 5,000 short tons less, and which also costs less. (Burkes carry at least ten more than the Zumwalt class.) (Also, these VLS cells are shared between all the missiles.)

As if that is bad enough, Zumwalts do not support CIWS. This basically means they rely on their computing to disable missiles and projectiles, the designers must be crazy! A single modern ASM would be able to sink this relatively unarmored ship. (Brahmos comes to mind, as do many others.)

Zumwalt class ships also do not have torpedo tubes, what the heck! They should at least have some ability to fire them.

The two 155mm "Advanced Gun Systems" are a complete laughing-stock. How are we supposed to believe that they can shot the LRLAP rounds 150km! Rocket assisted projectiles have never gotten near that far, even more so out of a 155mm gun. Even if it could shot that far consistently, the warhead is only 11kg. So these "special" cannons are practically useless.

The 57mm guns are nothing special, to say the very least. 

Besides that, there are no more weapons to speak of! Not even a chaingun like on the Burkes and Ticos. (They can carry armed helicopters, but so does every other competing ship.)

                                   Next section, so called "features";

People seem to love the Zumwalt classes "speed" at a whopping 30kn. The Ticonderoga's are capable of 32kn, while the Burkes are tied with a rating of 30kn.

"Stealth" is also loved by fans of the Zumwalt. While the "fishing boat" RCS may be impressive, it is certainly not undetectable. The " Los Angeles class" noise levels are also an improvement, but not good enough to go crazy over. After all, the LA class was first built in 1972. The drawbacks of the "stealth" design far outweigh its advantages. (Armament problems primarily).

What about the state-of-the-art radar sensors. Oh wait, the AN/SPY 3 is simply an update to the earlier models found on the Burkes and Ticos among other ships... The Zumwalt class was supposed to have both X and S band radar systems, but the S band system was rid of. This renders the Zumwalts vulnerable to "stealthy" aircraft, like the soon to be in service PAK-FA and J-20. (Stealth aircraft are only really "stealthy" to X band waves, which the Zumwalt uses.) At least the older AN/SPY 1 systems were more "flexible" using a S-band frequency. (L band would also be nice to have.)

Maybe its ability to attack land (which it was built for) is enough to overcome its shortcomings? Nope, would be any educated persons answer. As mentioned before, it has a wimpy armament, with only 80 VLS cells. Not only that, but the cannons are practically useless as well! - (Also mentioned before) Another shortcoming is the Zumwalts lack of RHIB (Rigid hull inflatable boat) storage. So it cannot land men
and supplies except by air, which is much more dangerous in guerrilla situations. (It will eventually have a stern mounted boat holder, even further adding to the bloat of the ship.)

                                                     Conclusion;

All of this for a multiple billion dollar price-tag? The Zumwalt class is (literally) a downgrade to our current equipment, all while adding cost and wasting time! Keep in mind this is a substantially larger ship, and that it has been in development for 20 years.

Not only has this "super advanced" ship so far been a flop (32 were supposed to be made, now only 3), but it has failed its goal! (Which was to help replace both the Burkes and Ticos, now that is not only not happening, the Navy is considering buying Burkes up to the 2040s!!! Ticos are also staying in service for longer than planned.) This has helped significantly deplete our once supreme Navy, which is a shame to say the least. (While the Burkes and Ticos are great, they are becoming outdated and really aren't all that potent anymore.) The LCS project is also a complete joke, so combined with this waste called the Zumwalt, we might not even be have a dominating power (navy wise)!

                                                         Extras;

In order to fire and stay stabile at the same time, the Zumwalt class ships will need to fill up ballast tanks. Which slows them down and forces the engines to work harder etc.

The AGS guns using LRLAP rounds have a CEP of 50m, which is ok at best. The explosion of the measly 11kg charge is not anywhere near close enough to destroying these 7853.98 sq meters. (Which means the estimated up to $200,000 price-tag shell will not guarantee results.) Might as well launch missiles at that point.

The farthest the LRLAP shell has been fired is 59nm (108km) well short of the 83nm (150km) goal.

Zumwalt ships can not be used in anti-ballistic missile situations, as it lacks the SM-3 missile.

The Zumwalts also do not use the proven AEGIS system, which could have simply been updated to the needed specifications.

The primary anti-air missile held by Zumwalts will be the ESSM (RIM-162). Though this appears to be a decent missile, it has a rather small range of 50km, and is thus a "point defense missile". Compare this to the SM-2's 185km range, SM-6's 240km, and the SM-3's ~2500km range, and you get the idea.

Also, the ESSM is the only physical defense against ASM, but isn't really built for this job. It costs $800,000 a pop, which might more than the incoming missile itself in certain situations. (If it can even destroy it in the first place) It is also important to note that 4 ESSM missiles can be held in a single cell. In my opinion it is simply retarded putting all your hopes in a single missile, but that is beyond by "power" to stop that. 

With the armaments them selves costing so much, the ships lack of CIWS like protection cut really "bite it in the butt".

Finally, the ships computing software is based on Linux. While I myself am a huge fan of Linux, I realize with the proper equipment it could be corrupted."

 - There you go.


Wow! The U.S. is building more soon-to-be-outdated "destroyers"! I'm impressed!

The U.S. only has 10 good attack subs, and those are the current Virginias. The Ohio class is outdated. As is the L.A. class.

All news can be propaganda, as propaganda can be the truth.

Russia is strong. Very strong. Big penis too.

What happened to the forum airbase.ru site? It has been down with me for a few days.

TheArmenian wrote:What happened to the forum airbase.ru site? It has been down with me for a few days.

Down till the 19th.

F-22 has been in operational service since 2005 - not for 25 years.

But hang on... the F-22 program was started in the early 80s... it wasn't delayed at all was it? How could it have been operational only since 2005... it was formulated in 1981, and in 1991 or so they had the fly off between the competitors and the F-22 won... so why did it take 15 years to get it operational? Surely the last superpower could get a 5th gen fighter into service faster than that...

The first flight of the prototype of the PAK FA was in January 2010, so giving them 15 years that means first in service by January 2025. In November 2012 all the F-22s that were going to be made were made, so by November 2028 there should be about 190 PAK FAs in service... which would be poor backward Russia matching the performance of superpower united states of murica.

The U.S. doesn't have 1,000 of them, but they have 187 of them which is 187 more compared to PAK FA which has a number of ZERO operational aircraft.

187 15 years after it was selected... I am pretty confident the PAK FA can exceed that sort of performance... even if Russia is not a super power with a budget of half a trillion dollars a year.

The U.S will soon have 15 Virginia class. They already have 10 of them and building another 15. The U.S. will most likely build at least 30 of them.

Yeah, the cheaper smaller sub when they found Seawolf too expensive... not really something to be proud of IMHO.

The number of Zumwalt went down from 30 to 3, yes, but those 3 Zumwalts are still miles ahead of what Russia thinks they can field. Even A-Burkes are way ahead of any "fantasy" Gorshkov, where some people on here dream about how and what they will fill its 32 cells with, Very Happy Wet dreams all the way.

The irony is that you believe it. Gorshkov is a Frigate, Arleigh Burke is a cruiser. Why don't you bitch about how the Mistrals are no where near as powerful as the new US carriers.

BTW 96 Harpoons vs 32 Onyx missiles... hahaha... the frigate is better armed!

And in 10 years time when Zirconium is in service 32 x Mach 7 scramjet powered anti ship missiles are going to be even more powerful than Harpoon.

That's why I react, because there is no realism or reality on here. Just spewing of hot air and personal attacks. I have had to accept several personal attacks on here while I haven't called anyone anything compared to what I've been called.

Well if I went to F-16.com and said a Yak-52 trainer is better armed than any model F-16 should I expect some ridicule?

Also, another fact, the U.S. has already 62 Burkes and plan to increase the number to 75 because of the number for Zumwalt being reduced. So the U.S. number, its forces and tech in addition to experience are on totally another level compared to Russia, unfortunately.

So what? You can talk about game changers and other levels and all sorts of cliche BS, but what difference does it actually make?

What do you expect Russia to do?

Should they build 50 carriers and 1,000 heavy cruisers... will that solve the problem?

How old are you? 5?

Russia needs frigates for general duties and patrolling its sea territory.

It does not need them to take on and defeat the US Navy and never will.

But, please continue to tell everyone how "strong big bad" Russia is - which is exactly the type of propaganda NATO wants the rest of the world to believe, which is Russia being the "aggressor", while the alliance (NATO) that is condemning Russia, spends 12 TIMES more on WEAPONS than Russia does.

And since neither can afford to spend enormous amounts on weapons... who do you think is getting the better deal? NATO countries forced to spend billions on ships they hardly ever actually use, or Russia not spending enormous amounts on a uber navy to take on all of NATO and the US single handedly... Instead Russia is spending money on new boats to replace obsolete types that are multirole and capable but also affordable and effective.

So, can we finally expect 1st Gorshkov to meet against 62 A-Burke "buddies" from next year, along with 70 U.S. SSN/SSBNs, 22 Ticonderogas, 1st Zumwalt 3,000 fighters or it is gonna be another delay AGAIN ?

It will be delayed till it is ready. Once it is ready, it is a frigate and should be able to be produced fairly rapidly and efficiently and cheaply so the 20 odd that they will make will not cost the Russian taxpayer an arm and a leg, yet it will be perfectly capable of performing all the roles Russia requires of it.

No, it wont be a new generation game changer, but it will be an excellent replacement for the Krivak frigates they had previously.

Another logistic ship for Russian Navy laid down   

Planted logistics ship "Captain Shevchenko" for the Russian Navy

Russian-Italian submarine project suspended

MOSCOW, July 25. /ITAR-TASS/. The Russian-Italian work to develop an S-1000 small submarine was suspended indefinitely, the director-general of Russia's Rubin design office, Igor Vilnit, told ITAR-TASS.

“Unfortunately, the implementation of the project has been suspended because of the known political situation,” he told ITAR-TASS. The task group planned to meet in the first half of 2014, but Italy requested an indefinite postponement, Vilnit added.

Russian and Italian specialists had developed a cheaper project with foreign equipment but without the Russian-built Club missile system and associated radio electronics, Vilnit added.

“If the next annual meeting in the autumn does take place, it will mean that the situation is going back to the normal course, and we’ll be happy to continue cooperation with Italian partners,” said head of Rubin.

The joint project was launched by the Italian shipbuilding company Fincantieri and Rubin in 2004. S-1000 is a highly efficient, easy in operation and cheap submarine equipped to work in the tropical regions, among the islands, mainly in shallow waters.

If Russia can fight the urge to get revenge then this political BS driven from Washington and London will eventually blow over and things can get back to normal rather rapidly.

Perhaps if retaliation makes them feel better then a few things against the US might be in order, but even then in the long term such actions would be counter productive.

Of course counter productive in a disfunctional system makes sense... no point building long term plans with a group of countries that are clearly not ready for a reset with the real Russia and just want a compliant zombie for a trading partner... there is little point in making efforts to create a future with such "partners".

Where is the third and congrats for spectatular event that is about to take place   

Just two nuclear submarines lay on the "Sevmash" in Russian Navy Day

Three new nuclear subs laid in one day

Laid nuclear submarines "Prince Oleg", "Krasnoyarsk" and "Khabarovsk"

Viktor wrote:Three new nuclear subs laid in one day

Laid nuclear submarines "Prince Oleg", "Krasnoyarsk" and "Khabarovsk"

hmm Borei class.

4 decks, meaning that section is around 8 meters tall (Typical submarine deck height is 2.1 m)

With construction startup of the three new, not less than ten nuclear powered submarines will then be in pipe from the naval yard on the coast of the White Sea. Not since the breakup of the Soviet Union back in 1991 has so many submarines been under construction at the same time.

 Nuclear subs construction hits post-Soviet peak

Potential nuclear threat to be eliminated

Severodvinsk can soon get rid of one of the town’s potential nuclear threats. The battle cruiser “Admiral Ushakov” is to be scrapped. Money for the project has been allocated in next year’s budget.

“A principal decision to decommission the vessel has been taken and Rosatom has been ordered to include the cruiser in their plan for utilization,” spokesperson Yevgeny Gladyshev at Zvesdochka shipyard says to ITAR-TASS.

The budget for 2015 provides funds to finance the development project on utilization of “Admiral Ushakov” and scrapping can earliest start in 2016, B-Port writes.

The huge battle cruiser “Admiral Ushakov” has been lying idle at the Zvezdochka shipyard since 1997, first awaiting repairs, and since 2012 waiting to be scrapped. The vessel was taken into service in 1980 and has not been to sea since 1990, because of problems with one of the ship’s two reactors.

The spent nuclear fuel has never been changed or removed since the vessel originally was commissioned back in 1980, then under the name “Kirov”. In January, Zvezdochka CEO Vladimir Nikitin expressed concern with the safety of the vessel. “One can say that this vessel constitutes a definite threat to Severodvinsk and its inhabitants. The deadline for docking and repairs of this vessel is long gone and keeping it afloat in the harbor is not only expensive, but also rather dangerous,” he said to 7x7.

Although both reactors are switched off, the state of the spent nuclear fuel is unknown. The cladding around the uranium fuel can be partly corroded or damaged during the years, and the reactors themselves are also likely contaminated with high-level radioactive compounds. An unloading operation of such old nuclear fuel is a risky operation, including scenarios like steam explosion and uncontrolled chain reaction.

Zvezdockha specialists estimate that decommissioning of such a huge nuclear-powered battle cruiser could be 10 times as costly as a traditional decommissioning of a submarine, since Russia has neither the technology nor the know-how to scrap surface vessels of this kind, ITAR-TASS writes.

Russia has one other vessel called “Admiral Ushakov”, which is still in active service in the Northern Fleet. It is a Sovremenny-class destroyer formerly known as “Besstrashny”.

The third nuclear sub laid down yesterday   

The nuclear-powered submarine "Khabarovsk"