 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
oh yeah, you are against cultural relativism... i was gonna say maybe that is culturally correct for panag to do " " |
Cultural relativism, my ass. This guy is just a ....[self-censored.]
Is it ok for me to post smile next time when some jerk will blow-up himself and nearby civilians somewhere in Izrael?
Last edited by Serb on 09-07-2003 at 06:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
Now it's your turn David.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Kirov class warship:
25,860-26,396 tons (fully loaded)
As opposed to this, the Kuznetsov class carrier, of which Russia has one in service, displaces 67,000 tons fully loaded.
However, both of these are dwarfed by the US Nimitz class carrier, which displaces 101,000-104,000 tons fully loaded.
Sorry, serb, you're wrong.
|
About what? Who was talking about air carriers? Carriers doesn't count. Janes says that Kirovs are currnetly the largest surface warships in service on this planet. I trust to Janes and it means that carriers doesn't count.
quote:
Actually a SSBN has far more firepower than any Kirov  |
I said surface ships and btw, Kirov's cruise missels can be armed with nuclear warheads.
quote:
But in any case, a Nimitz class carrier also carries more firepower, even excluding nuclear weapons. But if it comes down to it, the US can just load up aircraft with nuclear tipped cruise missiles - one hit would be enough, and the S-300 is good, but not THAT good. |
1) US air carrier alone is very easy target (esp. for Kirov's missiles) and you perfectly know this.
2) If you brings nuclear weapons, I see no difference considering that Kirov's missles can carry nuclear warheads and one hit of such missile would be enough to destroy your battle group.
3) S-30 is amazingly good. And will destroy your missile or aircraft with probability above 0.9. Two hits- almost 100% probability and Kirov holds about hundred of S-300 missiles.
quote:
Why would a sub launch from 150 km away? I'd rather suspect that the sub would launch Harpoons from a few km away, inside the Kirov's protective screen. But in any case, why not just use torpedos? |
See about 'waterfall' complex- it launch torpedo-missiles that travels underwater and in air. As soon as your sub within 45 km range, a waterfall of such munitions will start to fall and will destroy your sub.
Torpedoes could be destroyed by mine launchers.
Last edited by Serb on 08-07-2003 at 10:35
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
About what? Who was talking about air carriers? Carriers doesn't count. |
Carriers ARE surface warships.
quote:
I said surface ships and btw, Kirov's cruise missels can be armed with nuclear warheads. |
Congratulations, but an Ohio or a Typhoon still has more firepower. Strategic nukes vs. tactical nukes. Hmmm.
quote:
1) US air carrier alone is very easy target (esp. for Kirov's missiles) and you perfectly know this. |
Except that a carrier air wing outranges your missiles. Of course your missiles will take out a lone carrier - but the point of a carrier is to destroy a ship before it can even fire. But to be fair, we have to bring battlegroups into the equation, in any case.
quote:
3) S-30 is amazingly good. And will destroy your missile or aircraft with probability above 0.9. Two hits- almost 100% probability and Kirov holds about hundred of S-300 missiles. |
Again, what is theoretically possible doesn't translate to 100% effective in battlefield conditions. Hell, strategic missile defense is theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean the test are successful. Further, just because you can shoot down drones with 90% effectiveness doesn't mean that you can target maneuvering aircraft protected by jamming with 90% effectiveness.
quote:
A battle group could consist of Kirov a couple of cruisers, some subs and some destroyers and other smaller ships. |
Sure, if your definition of "battle group" is "entire operable Russian navy". Of course, that definition couldn't include any Kirov's, as none are operational right now.
quote:
We have two operational and one in repair. |
Sorry, prior to the yard fire it was 1 deployable. Now it's none.
quote:
Near our coast? When we will be under protection of our coastal battareis |
Coastal batteries? Right, the USN is worried about batteries of guns located along the Russian coast 
quote:
and will use our coastal aviation? |
You mean, the part you can find pilots for, and the part that is actually flyable? I'd be willing to bet that most of Russia's air force is grounded due to a)lack of personnel, b)lack of spare parts, and c)lack of money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
But no matter what it was, it was not designed to fight anti-ship missiles, and certainly not anti-ship missiles with late 1960s technology. Hence, no matter what equipment was carried on it, it's no surprise that it was sunk. |
Sure, but it still was a peice of western equipment and example of western aproach how to fight wars. You said that Israelis kicked everyone asses using US warfighting methods and equipment. I put this as example when your methods and aproach completely sucked in comparison with Russian aproach. After this case US leadership seriously re-considered its navy stategy. And USA start to build hundreds of such small missile boats. (they still sucked in comparison with their Soviet counterparts of course )
Btw, "Komar" class missile baot was created in 1956, not in late 60's.
quote:
If you take the Yamato or the Bismarck, and put them up against a missile armed craft, and the battleship is sunk by the missile boat, it doesn't mean that the nation that built the missile boat has superior technology, it just means that the technology of the time is superior to the technology of the early 1940s. |
I doubt that modern missile can seriously hurt Yamato. Modern missiles are deadly for your modern "paper" frigates and cruisers, not for heavily armored WW2 battleships.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Carriers ARE surface warships.
|
Still Janes claims that Kirovs are the largest surface ships. You should educate those guys.
quote:
Congratulations, but an Ohio or a Typhoon still has more firepower. Strategic nukes vs. tactical nukes. Hmmm. |
We are talking about surface ships, remember?
quote:
Except that a carrier air wing outranges your missiles. Of course your missiles will take out a lone carrier - but the point of a carrier is to destroy a ship before it can even fire. But to be fair, we have to bring battlegroups into the equation, in any case. |
What's the operational range of your air wing?
Anyhow Kirov have three stages of protection from air targets. Every hostile flying object within 150 km range will be destroyed. And Kirov have enough firepower do destroy attacking air wing launched from your carrier.
quote:
Again, what is theoretically possible doesn't translate to 100% effective in battlefield conditions. Hell, strategic missile defense is theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean the test are successful. Further, just because you can shoot down drones with 90% effectiveness doesn't mean that you can target maneuvering aircraft protected by jamming with 90% effectiveness. |
Probability is more than 0.9 for maneuvering aircrafts protected by enemy's jamming systems. Check fas for info about S-300.
quote:
Sure, if your definition of "battle group" is "entire operable Russian navy". Of course, that definition couldn't include any Kirov's, as none are operational right now. |
Very funny. 
quote:
Sorry, prior to the yard fire it was 1 deployable. Now it's none. |
No 'Admiral Nakhimov' anymore?
quote:
Coastal batteries? Right, the USN is worried about batteries of guns located along the Russian coast |
Who said guns? Coastal SSM battaries.
quote:
You mean, the part you can find pilots for, and the part that is actually flyable? I'd be willing to bet that most of Russia's air force is grounded due to a)lack of personnel, b)lack of spare parts, and c)lack of money. |
We still have enough to protect our coast from US carrier battlegroup.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Well holy ****, now the Kirov is an ASW warship too
|
Of course. What's so funny?
This ship have buttkicking protection from all kind of threats, including hostile submarines.
quote:
As to "creating a wall of mines", I assume you are referring to the Udav-1 and RBU-1000 systems? |
Yep. You may also try to find something about "Medvedka" complex.
quote:
The Pyotr Veliky cruiser's antisubmarine system comprises: sophisticated sonar equipment with an underkeel antenna (in bulbous fairing) and towed antenna of automated sonar system; versatile system of missile-torpedo armament, including 533mm launchers (five on either side) housed in the cruiser's hull and capable of delivering fire via side ports; RBU-1200 ten-barrelled launcher and two RBU-1000 six-barrelled launchers. The cruiser has space for two Ka-27 antisubmarine helicopters stowed in an underdeck hangar, magazine for aircraft ammunition load, lift and helicopter pad for takeoff and landing.
Sounds nice enough, but I don't see why you would think this makes the ship impervious to torpedos. |
Well, I just said that in case of torpedo threat, Kirov's mine launchers will shoot a lot of mines with noise sensors and will create a feild in course of incoming torpedoes. When torpedoe will aproach one of such mines, noise sensor will triger the detonation and torpedoe will be destroyed. Sure sometimes sh!t happens and something goes wrong and you can't be absolutely sure that everything will work as intended, but what I meant is that- Kirov have means to protect itself even from incoming torpedoes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, that might work very nice in trials, but I rather suspect a surprise attack with a spread of 4 torpedos from only a few km away would be a little different. Combat always is. |
Sure combat is always different from trials, and anything could happen during combat, but this ship was designed considering experience drawn from previous wars. It has great protection from air, suface and underwater threats and great detection capability so to make launch, your sub should aproach it first. And is long as your sub will be within 45 km range, it could be destroyed by Kirov.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
Serb,
quote:
This ship have buttkicking protection from all kind of threats, including hostile submarines. |
The point was that while the Kirov may have ASW protection, this is simply as a final backup to an ASW screen of destroyers, frigates, and helicopters. It is not an ASW craft itself, and as such will not be as capable as a dedicated ASW warship in that field.
quote:
Sure combat is always different from trials, and anything could happen during combat, but this ship was designed considering experience drawn from previous wars. |
The problem, though, is that the Soviet Union has very little firsthand naval experience in its history, and no major modern firsthand naval experience, in terms of combat. This means that while the systems may be good from a technical standpoint, the actual doctrines, training methods, and leadership are probably not so good, in comparison to that of a nation such as the United States, which has a very strong naval history, and a good deal of modern naval combat experience.
quote:
It has great protection from air, suface and underwater threats and great detection capability so to make launch, your sub should aproach it first. |
Absolutely. I'm not disputing that the Kirov is a fine warship, my objection is to your assertion that it can take anything in the world. The Kirov is nice, but frankly it would not be able to take on a US carrier battle group and survive. That's the only point I'm making.
quote:
And is long as your sub will be within 45 km range, it could be destroyed by Kirov. |
Yes, and a US AEGIS cruiser COULD TECHNICALLY destroy 100% of the missiles launched at its general direction, but that won't necessarily happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Still Janes claims that Kirovs are the largest surface ships. You should educate those guys. |
This point is irrelevant. Obviously the Kirov is not the largest surface warship, so Jane's must have been making a different point.
quote:
We are talking about surface ships, remember? |
Another irrelevant point, but a carrier air wing can probably pack more nuclear tonnage than a Kirov. Certainly a US CVBG can.
quote:
Every hostile flying object within 150 km range will be destroyed. |
See, this is why I take issue with most of your statements. Making an assertion that your [blank] weapon will destroy everything that comes at it is frankly ridiculous.
quote:
No 'Admiral Nakhimov' anymore? |
No, Nakhimov is not in active service, or at least is not deployable.
quote:
Who said guns? Coastal SSM battaries. |
That's fine.
a)They don't protect your entire coast.
b)If the US really wanted to blockade some section of the Russian coastline, naval airpower, standoff missiles, and heavy bombers could take down your SSM batteries.
quote:
We still have enough to protect our coast from US carrier battlegroup. |
Sure, maybe 1 carrier battlegroup. But if the US concentrates 3 or 4 carriers, then Russia is in some trouble.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Serb,
The point was that while the Kirov may have ASW protection, this is simply as a final backup to an ASW screen of destroyers, frigates, and helicopters. It is not an ASW craft itself, and as such will not be as capable as a dedicated ASW warship in that field.
|
Perhaps, its main mission to kill large surface ships, but it doesn't change the fact that Kirov have enough anti-submarine measurements.
quote:
The problem, though, is that the Soviet Union has very little firsthand naval experience in its history, and no major modern firsthand naval experience, in terms of combat. This means that while the systems may be good from a technical standpoint, the actual doctrines, training methods, and leadership are probably not so good, in comparison to that of a nation such as the United States, which has a very strong naval history, and a good deal of modern naval combat experience. |
Since end of WW2 there were not so many naval battles. So, all modern ship designs and doctrines are more theoretical than experience based. It's true both for USA and Russia. In which last big navy battle US navy participated? And how much technology evolved since that time? Coastal bombardments of Iraq doesn't count.
quote:
Absolutely. I'm not disputing that the Kirov is a fine warship, my objection is to your assertion that it can take anything in the world. The Kirov is nice, but frankly it would not be able to take on a US carrier battle group and survive. That's the only point I'm making. |
I know.
And my point is that this ship will kick everyone's asses.
quote:
Yes, and a US AEGIS cruiser COULD TECHNICALLY destroy 100% of the missiles launched at its general direction, but that won't necessarily happen. |
Sure, it will not happen for sure if it will be Russian 'Shipwreck' or 'Sunburst' missiles.
Last edited by Serb on 09-07-2003 at 06:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Like there are no such signs in Israel. Like your settlers and even priests don't have submachineguns. |
hi ,
sure , just click on the link in my sig , ..... most of those people i work with happen to be religious people , ..... from 7 different ones so far , ......
but stay on the main point serb , ......
and what would you know , you have never been here , but rest asured , you are welcome if you want , .......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Perhaps, it's main mission to kill large surface ships, but it doesn't change the fact that Kirov have enough anti-submarine measurements.
Since end of WW2 there were not so many naval battles. So, all modern ship designs and doctrines are more theoretical than experience based. It's true both for USA and Russia. In which last big navy battle US navy participated? And how much technology evolved since that time? Coastal bombardments of Iraq doesn't count.
I know.
And my point is that this ship will kick everyone's asses.
Sure, it will not happen for sure if it will be Russian 'Shipwreck' or 'Sunburst' missiles. |
hi ,
the kirov class aint in a serious working state , the shipwreck missiles are removed from the ships that are left due to major overhaul and repairs , .....
how many naval battles , many , a great deal of them , okay , not on a huge scale but some where rather intresting , like the falklands , the battle in front of the syrian coast , etc , .......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
hi ,
intresting that you point this out , ....
but almost no-one seems to care that we have let them pay more then double for that , .....
On the eve of the Yom Kippur War, the Navy was perhaps more ready for combat than any other part of the IDF. When the war began, Navy ships and men were on full alert and at stations. Despite the fact that the Israel Navy was smaller in size than the enemy navies, it carried out successful attacks on enemy vessels and ports and prevented enemy craft and from attacking Israeli shores..
The following were some of the main battles of the war:
The first sea-to-sea missile battle in the history of naval warfare, which occurred at the entrance to the Syrian port of Latakia, during which 5 Syrian ships, including 3 missile boats, a mine layer and a gun boat, were sunk.
The battle of Port Said, during which an Israeli missile boat sank an Egyptian missile boat.
The battle of Damietta, in which an Israeli missile boat task force intercepted and sank four Egyptian missile boats.
not to mention that we got the rest in harbour after they fled there a couple days later , ..... the same for the egyptians , both in 67 and 73 , why do you thing suez was closed , just to remove all the sunken ships , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
intresting that you point this out , ....
but almost no-one seems to care that we have let them pay more then double for that , .....
On the eve of the Yom Kippur War, the Navy was perhaps more ready for combat than any other part of the IDF. When the war began, Navy ships and men were on full alert and at stations. Despite the fact that the Israel Navy was smaller in size than the enemy navies, it carried out successful attacks on enemy vessels and ports and prevented enemy craft and from attacking Israeli shores..
The following were some of the main battles of the war:
The first sea-to-sea missile battle in the history of naval warfare, which occurred at the entrance to the Syrian port of Latakia, during which 5 Syrian ships, including 3 missile boats, a mine layer and a gun boat, were sunk.
The battle of Port Said, during which an Israeli missile boat sank an Egyptian missile boat.
The battle of Damietta, in which an Israeli missile boat task force intercepted and sank four Egyptian missile boats.
not to mention that we got the rest in harbour after they fled there a couple days later , ..... the same for the egyptians , both in 67 and 73 , why do you thing suez was closed , just to remove all the sunken ships , .....
have a nice day |
You already posted this article a couple of pages ago. You even do not remeber the crap you post? Pathetic.
Read the Azazel article first:
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Revie...mn/s&d1-a97.htm
And you'll see that first naval battle with use of anti-ship missiles was a battle when Eilat sunk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Petr Veliky is Kirov class warship and it's fully operational and flagship of Russian Northern Fleet.
I'm tired of this crap.  |
hi ,
it aint the flag ship in real terms , its laying on chains and gettinf repaired while waiting for a huge overhaul , .....
it has not sailed for a number of years now , and it shall not do so neither before it gets fixed , .....
it aint crap , it are facts , ......
and the north fleet has had a large number of incidents , the kursk just being one of them , .......
here are other sub incidents from north fleet
1970, April 8. A November class submarine, the K-8, sank in the Bay of Biscaya while returning from a naval exercise. Two fires started simultaneously, in the central and rear compartments. The submarine surfaced, but the crew was unable to extinguish the fires. The reactor emergency system kicked in, leaving the submarine with virtually no power. Two days later, on April 10, the air tanks keeping the submarine afloat had been emptied, and water began to flow into the rear compartments. On the morning of April 11 at 06:20, the submarine sank at a depth of 4,680 metres following a loss of stability in pitch. 52 crew members died, including the captain. The Soviet navy kept details of this accident secret until 1991. There are two reactors onboard the K-8.
1986, October 6. A Yankee class submarine, the K-219, sank in the Atlantic Ocean north of Bermuda. The submarine sank after an explosion in one of the missile tubes. The explosion caused a leak in the fourth compartment (where the missiles are). At the time of the explosion, only one of the submarine's two reactors was running. One sailor died while trying to lower the control rods in one of the reactors. Three others died in the smoke and fire. The entire submarine sank at 11:03 with its two reactors and the 16 missiles with nuclear warheads.
1989, April 7. The K-278, the Komsomolets, sank in the Norwegian Sea following a fire. The Komsomolets was a unique titanium-hulled submarine that could dive to depths of 1,000 meters. On the morning of April 7, the submarine was on its way back to base in Zapadnaya Litsa at the Kola Peninsula. At 11:03 a fire started in the electrical equipment in the seventh compartment. The fire caused short circuits in the electrical systems that set off the single reactor's emergency system. The fire was so fierce that a leak was sprung in the compressed air system, and this led in turn to a spreading of the fire. Attempts by the crew to extinguish the flames were futile. The submarine lost power, and finally ran out of compressed air. By 17:00, the leak had worsened, and the submarine lost buoyancy and stability. The crew began to evacuate into life rafts, but there were not enough rafts. 41 sailors died in the cold arctic water. The submarine sank to a depth of 1,685 meters with its reactor and two nuclear warheads on torpedoes
and btw , no movement what soever from any large naval vessel from Severomorsk , not only the HQ of n fleet but also the base for the huge surface ships , not one huge ship sailed in the last 19 months , .....
" The ship repair factory SRZ-82 is located in Safonovo, a rural town in the Severomorsk area. This factory has a number of floating docks used in the repair of nuclear submarines and surface vessels. The area's largest floating dock is located here and the factory undertakes the repair of the largest Northern Fleet submarines, including the Typhoon class.
Shtyukozero, another rural town located about 8 kilometres north east of Severomorsk, has a large repository for missiles, including missiles with nuclear warheads. In 1984, there was a powerful explosion at Shtyukozero followed by a fire in which a large number of the missiles were completely destroyed. The fire was rapidly extinguished and did not spread to the nuclear-tipped missiles. "
the above has asked several times for more money , not only for repairs to the kirov class but also to cut dangers like above , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
US sponsored defueling site approved for operation in Severodvinsk
Zvezdochka shipyard defuelled the first Typhoon class submarine. The new facility received final approval by Moscow.
Vladislav Nikiforov, 2003-04-08 14:11
The site has passed its final tests and is now ready for full-scale operation on defueling the laid-up nuclear submarines.
A special interdepartmental commission took part in comprehensive tests, and then monitored spent nuclear fuel unloading from Typhoon class submarine — TK-202 — which has been laid up in Severodvinsk since July 1999. It was the first defueling operation carried out by Zvezdochka personnel. It took almost three months to unload the submarine reactor core using the new technologies.
Before defueling operations in Severodvinsk were carried out at the military site coded "09". The fuel casks were first loaded onboard Malina class ship PM-124, which has been in operation for 20 years without overhaul repairs. Then an old crane — DPK-125 — in a very bad state of repair took empty TK-18 transport containers and placed them into compartment four onboard PM-124 — one at a time. TK-18 was then loaded with fuel and, with the use of crane DPK-124, was transferred into railway car. The site had no pad for intermediate storage of TK-18 containers and hardly met requirements for safe management of spent nuclear fuel.
Zvezdochka has a pad for intermediate storage of the spent nuclear fuel containers and therefore does not depend on the schedule of the special trains, which take away the spent nuclear fuel.
February 13th, the Interdepartmental Commission concluded in Moscow that defueling complex at Zvezdochka "is allowed for permanent operation."
Starting in 1992 and until 1997, CTR has been delivering equipment for scrapping ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to Zvezdochka in Severodvinsk, Nerpa at the Kola Peninsula and Zvezda shipyard in the Russian Far East. The equipment was used to dismantle five SSBNs. After 1997, CTR started to contract directly with the shipyards themselves and funded the dismantlement of submarines, as the scarce Russia's budget would not let the work to proceed.
In 1998, due to the lack of defueling capabilities and storage space for spent nuclear fuel, US officials granted CTR a waiver of the non-reprocessing policy. It was agreed that CTR would fund shipment of spent nuclear fuel to the Mayak reprocessing plant from 15 SSBNs dismantled on CTR's money. But funding of shipment to the Mayak plant was still not enough. New infrastructure was to be created to ensure that defuelling SSBNs, including Typhoons, could be carried out.
The USA via Cooperative Threat Reduction programme, or CTR, funded the construction of the unloading site in consent with a contract signed on May 29th 1998.
The brand new $15 million defueling site sponsored by the USA is located at Zvezdochka shipyard. It is equipped with an 80-tonne crane, an intermediate storage pad for 12 fuel transport casks, a parking area for railway transport cars, and a building where the fuel is transferred to casks. The annual capacity of the site is four Delta class or two Typhoon class SSBNs. The site, however, cannot deal with damaged reactor cores, thus the condition of fuel in laid up submarines should be verified before they are placed for defueling there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
Russia to patch up nuclear cruisers
Two Russian nuclear powered cruisers, both in a bad state of repair, arrived at Severodvinsk. The future of the Admiral Ushakov remains fuzzy.
Kirov class nuclear powered cruiser
Two of the four Russia's nuclear powered cruisers are now moored at the peer plants of Sevmash and Zvezdochka shipyards in Severodvinsk. The Admiral Nakhimov that arrived at Severodvonsk on 14 August will undergo repairs, while the future of the Admiral Ushakov that came on 19 September still remains unclear.
The Admiral Nakhimov, put into service in 1988, was towed to Severodvinsk from Murmansk being unable to move on its own. The last time cruiser was at sea in July 1997. The cruiser was not on a military mission, however. It was just a celebration in honour of some kind of anniversary. The cruiser is manned with 230 sailors while the normal crew should number 610 members. While in Severodvinsk, the vessel will get its two reactors refuelled. Generally the refuelling of Russia's four nuclear cruisers is an issue since no infrastructure has been built in the Navy to effect proper refuelling.
The Admiral Ushakov, commissioned in 1980, was deemed for scrapping, but the decision was later reversed after the State Duma, lower chamber of the Russian Parliament, put forward a resolution against decommissioning. On June 8 this year, the State Duma set up a charity fund to collect donations for Ushakov's come back. Reports suggest that around $160 million be required to repair the vessel. Given the money is available, it will take 1,5-2 years to shape up the ship. The charity fund has managed to collect around $400.000 so far. Interfax reported early September that Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk, where the cruiser is currently stationed, is unofficially getting ready to start dismantling the ship. The Russian Navy HQ in Moscow vigorously denied the reports.
The third nuclear powered cruiser, the Admiral Lazarev, stationed in Abrek Bay at the Pacific Fleet, was also scheduled for decommissioning as reports suggested in early June. But some months later a Duma member said it would not happen referring to some funding promised by the Russian government to effect the repairs. The Pacific Fleet HQ also denied the decommissioning plans. A Russian Daily Novye Izvestiya reported later that the denial came due to the fact that the fleet had found no buyers to sell the scrap metal from Lazarev. The Admiral Lazarev was put into active service in 1984.
Russian Navy has four Kirov class nuclear powered cruisers; three of them are stationed at the Northern Fleet - Admiral Ushakov, Admiral Nakhimov, Peter the Great - and one has its home base at the Pacific Fleet - Admiral Lazarev.
Igor Kudrik
1999-03-22
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-07-2003 10:13
|