Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov] #2

Man ealier in the year I was looking forward to see her under way on her own power. Now I am back to looking forward to see the scaffolds removed this is one star crossed ship.

It is a recent photo.
It will have 6 x Pantsir-M systems.
The 3 on the starboard side are clearly visible.
Most radars and electronics are already mounted.
the 130mm aft gun is not visible! Maybe it is covered by other stuff.

Other notable changes are the new tracking/guidance radars and the much smaller VDS door at the rear.

Now I am back to looking forward to see the scaffolds removed this is one star crossed ship.

Everyone has heard of the successful British expedition to climb Mt Everest, but fewer people have heard about the Irish expedition. It failed because they ran out of scaffolding...

A bigger phot and the location of the 6 Pantsir-M systems. Some are still missing their radars.

The Kingisepp Machine-Building Plant has produced a heraldic coat of arms of the Russian Federation for the Admiral Nakhimov. It replaced the coat of arms of the USSR as previously installed on the VDS door.

The shield weighs 500 kg with a diameter of more than 2 meters made of brass alloy formed by gravity cast.

Nakhimov scaffolds are down and she is being transferred by tugboat

Where did the AK130 go?

Hopefully they removed it. Its shells are to dangerous in case of a successful missile hit.

Two 57mm should be better for drone warfare and assymetrical threats.

We still don't know if the gun is fitted or not, but if I had a choice I would drop the gun for more air defense missiles.

I think the Pantsir should be able to deal with any type of drone fairly comfortably and there will probably be several Kords available as well.
A couple of marines or sailors will also be assigned on deck armed with ECM- and shotguns.

The upside to this long wait is that she will serve for many more years to come  

Where did the AK130 go?

The gun is at the stern of the ship.

I would say a weapon of this range, fire rate and ammo size would be ideal against UAV and USV. I am not aware about the existence of guided ammo for it, but it would make a lot of sense in the AA role.

Where did the AK130 go?

The gun is on the back of the Kirovs... the first one had two 100mm gun turrets and the rest had the twin barrel 130mm gun turret like the two fitted to the Sovremmeny class destroyers.

Hopefully they removed it. Its shells are to dangerous in case of a successful missile hit.

Actually with improved accuracy aiming systems and stabilisers in addition to modern radar a decent large calibre gun could carry quite substantial air burst shells that could be fired in the path of incoming missiles and shells and drones and form a barrage of fragments that could take down quite a lot of threats.

I would love to see they replaced the old 130mm guns with new 152mm guns they were working on with the Russian Army.

70km range guided shells are as useful at sea as on land.

Or are you saying artillery is useless in modern war?

Two 57mm should be better for drone warfare and assymetrical threats.

They will likely have 57mm gun turrets too.

130mm guns were designed as a landing operation supportive weapon, the same way as Ovod system etc.
Russkie are not going to make any landings soon, so the thing became a relict.

They were intended for landing operations but were not really considered successful so they brought a Sverdlov destroyer out of retirement with its 152mm guns... which was not very successful.

If they don't intend to perform landings then why are they building two 40K ton helicopter landing ships?

The current 130mm gun is a much smaller and more compact mount with a single barrel which I suspect would not be great for sustained fire support.

A 152mm Coalition based gun would make a lot more sense in terms of range and accuracy... and in terms of getting HE on target for air and sea surface and land based target it is tough to beat a good Russian artillery piece.

We still don't know if the gun is fitted or not, but if I had a choice I would drop the gun for more air defense missiles.

Guns make more sense than an extra AD missile mount, there are already plenty of AD missiles on board... a 152mm gun with a range of 70km with current ammo and future low drag shells with ranges of 180km plus which they are planning would be even more valuable.

Having a 152mm gun firing guided shells at western destroyers at a rate of 60-70 shells per minute from 120km range would be a very potent way of defeating an enemy ship... in fact it solves the biggest western problem of how to build up a swarm quickly... a fast firing gun would be ideal.

A 203mm gun for future destroyers could extend that range even further and with that sized round you could add some useful rounds including EMP for stopping drone swarms 100km plus away from your ships.

I would say a weapon of this range, fire rate and ammo size would be ideal against UAV and USV. I am not aware about the existence of guided ammo for it, but it would make a lot of sense in the AA role.

The new 130mm gun mount is smaller and lighter by a wide margin compared with the old gun, but it is also only a single barrel weapon and I would not expect it to cope well with long term sustained fire roles.

A 152mm Coalition based gun would make more sense... something like this...

People that want to get rid of the gun should remember that you are not always at war.
You can´t give a shot across the bow with a missile system.
You are not always fighting other naval powers at long range, stopping some pirate boat with a Zirkon missile is f...ing expensive.

Hole wrote:People that want to get rid of the gun should remember that you are not always at war.
You can´t give a shot across the bow with a missile system.
You are not always fighting other naval powers at long range, stopping some pirate boat with a Zirkon missile is f...ing expensive.

Was going to say exactly the same thing.  Not sure why the answer wasn't completely obvious  

Shells for the old RBU ASW systems were stored in a heavily armoured magazine located below the water line and brought to the gun by a lift mechanism operating through an armoured shaft. Collectively such rockets had a huge amount of HE, the detonation of the magazine would likely result in the total loss of a vessel.  I'd imagine the shells for the 130mm arty would have been stored in a similar magazine? ie just like the old gun-armed cruisers and battleships of old.

To all those who said "it is at the back" congratulations on pointing out the obvious as if the layout of Orlan class missile cruisers was unknown.

Consider it from the other way around - imagine if Nakhimov encounters a pirate vessel and can't effectively deal with it due to an absence of an artillery weapon.

Dunno why we are even having this argument. Did the US omit artillery from their ABs? FFS get a grip.

BTW not sinking a UK warship cuz it buzzes Crimean seaspace is called just being sensible. They may be pi$$ant little retards playing stupid games but military profesisonalism demands a higher level of conduct than rising to a bait like a juvenile with temper-control issues. They make their silly gesture, then return to their shitty island and continue to be a 3rd rate power with wet dream delusions of grandeur.

The-thing-next-door wrote:To all those who said "it is at the back" congratulations on pointing out the obvious as if the layout of Orlan class missile cruisers was unknown.

Wut? The fault lies with those who make stupid comments of a vessel based on a single pic taken from port-starbrd when the arty is known to be located aft. The commenters displayed their profound lack of knowledge, but somehow the problem is those who speak up to correct them?

Which new advanced systems were installed on the ship besides the upgarde to pantsir and the change of the strike missile complex?

People that want to get rid of the gun should remember that you are not always at war.
You can´t give a shot across the bow with a missile system.
You are not always fighting other naval powers at long range, stopping some pirate boat with a Zirkon missile is f...ing expensive.

Plus you could have a dozen different types of shells for the gun... including a jammer shell you could fire away from the ship to distract home on jam anti ship missiles.

You could even develop a round that acts like a depth charge to distract or destroy incoming torpedos and sea surface drones.

Smoke and chaff dipole rounds could also be used as well as IR shells with thermobaric payloads to blind IR guided missiles.

You mean like that time when British destroyer entered Crimean waters and Russians tried the whole gun warning shot thing instead of jamming missile up their ass?

Yeah, British and everyone else couldn't stop laughing their asses off for weeks after that

Actually I saw a video of that, and those sailors looked rather nervious when the 30mm shells exploded a few kms away from them.

Having a gun means the option to not start a war.

Also if you are using ship this big for anti pirate ops you are retarded

Who knows what situations it might find itself in. With a 130mm gun this ship could be 25km away from the target it is shooting at.

With 152mm guns it could be 70km away.

I'm sure we'll soon see much better pics of the Nakhimov. It is highly probable that they re-fitted the AK-130 at the rear - or maybe even replaced it with a new more powerful gun? For all we know they could have even replaced it with Peresvet!

I actually came very close and personal to the AK-130 years ago and it certainly is an impressive gun that can deliver a lot of firepower but it's surface range is limited to just over 20 km. The Peter was used in the anti-pirate role for a short period but it was found to be an expensive waste and that is why they developed the Bykov class.

I have long said that Russia's principle ships should have extensive air defense capabilities - just like the Soviet designs. The Nakhimov fully qualifies in that department, but I've previously pointed out the Ivan Gren's lack of proper air defense. A ship that size should at the very least have 2-3 Pantsir-M's. The SMO proved my point exactly, but they also have to deal with sea drones - both on the surface and underwater.

Pirates are usually armed with AK's and perhaps RPG's, but they've also now learned the value of cheap drones. However their priority is not to sink a ship but to capture it for ransom. Actually they will try their level best to avoid contact with any naval ship!  

Point is - with or without a naval gun, I think the Nakhimov is more than capable to deal with any type of threat, but you can never ever have enough air defense missiles!

PS - we should also remember that the Nakhimov has three helicopters on board - that could include the potent Ka-52K.

Wut? The fault lies with those who make stupid comments of a vessel based on a single pic taken from port-starbrd when the arty is known to be located aft. The commenters displayed their profound lack of knowledge, but somehow the problem is those who speak up to correct them? Suspect

There were images of the rear where the gun could not be seen. I assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to that image as everyone knows the gun is at the back.