| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Russia rebuilding Kirov class battlecruiser |
| 2005-03-31 |
| Russia is keeping at least one of its nuclear powered "battlecruisers" in service for a while, perhaps up to another twenty years. The Admiral Nakhimov, a Kirov class, 24,500 ton, warship, has begun a twenty month stay in the Severodvinsk shipyards, where the ship will receive new electronics, new missiles and other upgrades. The Admiral Nakhimov entered service in 1988, right at the end of the Cold War, and it's electronics are ancient by current standards, despite a 1994 upgrade. Four Kirovs were built, but only the Admiral Nakhimov and Pyotr Velikhiy, which entered service in 1998, are still in working order. The Kirovs, in addition to their nuclear power plants, carry twenty Shipwreck anti-ship missiles and three different type of anti-aircraft missile systems (and over 250 missiles). There are also anti-submarine torpedo launchers, and 30mm cannon for anti-missile and close in defense. The crew of 720 has plenty of space, as the ship is 780 feet long and 90 feet wide. The Kirovs are fitted with additional (quite comfortable) staterooms for senior officers, so that the ship can operate as the flagship of a task force. While the upgrade can be seen mainly as a way to keep shipbuilding technicians employed, and maintain a formidable looking Russian warship in commission, a Kirov on the high seas is a warship to be reckoned with. The high speed Shipwreck anti-ship missiles have a range of 550 kilometers, and carry a 1,600 pound warhead. This missile was built to cripple an American aircraft carrier, but it would outright destroy any lesser vessels. |
| Posted by:Dar |
| #19 cool note zpaz :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-31 11:19:56 PM |
| #18 Damage control. The ability to keep the ship afloat after it runs into a missile/torpedo/ mine/UN resolution. Funny...thought I might have run over a UN resolution this morning on my way to work. Either that, or a 'possum. I'd feel bad if it were a 'possum. |
| Posted by: Darth VAda 2005-03-31 10:48:14 PM |
| #17 I the Soviet doctrine was to get close (preferably during "peacetime"), then launch everything you have to try to swamp the defenses. After that, who cares about the now weaponless ship, or the people on board her? Kind of the same way their ground units were to be "expended" in combat. Or maybe not. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-03-31 10:43:09 PM |
| #16 Sam, That reminds me of a story (perhaps legend) that circulated in the submarine force in the late '80's. Back then, doctrine for attacking a Moskva carrier was to use two MK-48 torpedos. Admiral Crowe - Chariman of the Joint Chiefs in the Perestroika/Glasnost era - was invited to visit the Russian Northern (?) fleet. He toured a Moskva carrier. When Crowe, a submariner, returned, he changed the doctrine overnight. From now on, only one '48 for the Moskva. Why? A lack of DC equipment and poor water-tight compartmenalization. Torpedos are expensive after all. An admiral is a sailor is a spy. LOL. |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2005-03-31 10:18:27 PM |
| #15 Months? Weakling. :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-03-31 6:18:13 PM |
| #14 Takes me back to the months I wasted playing "Harpoon" back in the early '90s... |
| Posted by: Captain Pedantic 2005-03-31 5:23:47 PM |
| #13 or duck tape..... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-31 4:51:17 PM |
| #12 Maybe the Russians plan on using duct tape... |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-03-31 4:45:58 PM |
| #11 I think I remember reading that both the Lexington at Coral Sea and the Yorktown at Midway could have been saved if damage control had been half as good as it was later in the war. Also, it always seemed as if American carriers were able to take a lot more punishement than the Japanese ones while on paper they were just as vulnerable. In the Falklands, the loss of several British ships was directly linked to poor DC. DC can really make the difference in the outcome of a battle. And the Russians were supposed to go to war with minimal DC? Interesting concept. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-03-31 3:51:52 PM |
| #10 Damage control. The ability to keep the ship afloat after it runs into a missile/torpedo/ mine/UN resolution. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-03-31 2:54:26 PM |
| #9 Yosemite Sam What is DC gear? |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-03-31 2:09:31 PM |
#8 Lazarev, which is due for a refit, may have been scrapped in 1995. "May have"? Don't these guys know what's the status of their own heavy hardware? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-31 12:17:31 PM |
| #7 I say we help the Russians sell the Kirovs to the Chinese at a low cost and give the Indians some of our surface ships. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-03-31 12:13:09 PM |
| #6 Chuck, If a Kirov is the model from which the Chinese and Indians are going to build, I say we buy two and give them to both parties free of cost. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-03-31 12:06:12 PM |
| #5 When does the bidding war between China and India start? |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2005-03-31 11:45:27 AM |
| #4 I toured a russian cruiser in the black sea back in Sep. '96. We were up there for the 300th anniversary of the russian navy. One of the biggest things I noticed lacking was DC gear. It was nowhere to be seen. Go on a western ship and every inch available is storing some kind of DC gear. The officers had to pretty much do anything that required thought. The enlisted were all conscripts and not motivated or educated enough to run the equipment. They told us that the captain had to stay on the bridge as long as the ship was U/W - to the point of sleeping on the bridge. I thought that was a bad idea - poor judgement from fatigue. That was almost 10 yrs ago but I doubt not much has changed. I wasn't impressed and came away with no doubt they would not be an effective fighting force. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2005-03-31 11:30:18 AM |
#3 Ah--just had to keep looking:Ushakov has been inactive in Murmansk since a propulsion accident in late 1990 but has been kept in good condition. These ships are expensive to man and maintain and spend little time at sea. Lazarev, which is due for a refit, may have been scrapped in 1995. Also of note: These are the largest surface warships, apart from aircraft carriers, to have been built since the Second World War... |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-03-31 10:43:30 AM |
| #2 I think the Russians refer to ships as "he" or "him". I'm curious what happened to the other two: Admiral Ushakov (ex-Kirov) and Admiral Lazarev (ex-Frunze). Scrapped or simply rusting away somewhere? I don't imagine they were sold... Admiral Nakhimov is the ex-Kalinin and Pyotr Veikhiy is the ex-Yuri Andropov (LOL!). |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-03-31 10:39:44 AM |
| #1 It's still a death-trap for all who sail in her, should she ever be in harm's way. |
| Posted by: Unumble Whaimp6886 2005-03-31 10:24:16 AM |