 |
| |
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
Nuclear battle cruiser to be scrapped
The oldest of Russia's four nuclear-powered battle cruisers, the Admiral Ushakov, is to be scrapped shortly. Funding shortfalls to repair the ship is the main reason for the prompt decommissioning. Admiral Ushakov (former Kirov)
The Admiral Ushakov (former Kirov) is to be pulled out of service shortly and scrapped, reported ITAR-TASS. The ship was put into operation in 1980, its design lifetime expireing in 2010. The decision was prompted by lack of funds to repair the ship.
The Russian Navy has three Kirov-class nuclear-powered battle cruisers assigned to the Northern Fleet: the Admiral Ushakov, the Admiral Nakhimov and Peter the Great. The latter was taken into active service in March this year. The forth nuclear-powered battle cruiser of this class, the Admiral Lazarev, has its home base in the Pacific Fleet. Each vessel' main power installation comprise two PWR type nuclear reactors.
The main problem with nuclear-powered battle cruisers is the lack of properly equipped naval bases and facilities for servicing the nuclear reactors. As a result, both the reactors and the auxiliary power installations onboard these ships have been worn out before their design lifetime expired. The lack of funding to repair these ships has led to their virtual inactivity in later years. An exception so far is Peter the Great which was commissioned recently, although the ship was under repairs one month after it was put to active service this spring. Another serious drawback is the lack of naval base facilities for refuelling the reactors. This issue affected the three oldest battle cruisers and will affect Peter the Great in the future.
Its is unclear which yard will defuel and scrap the Admiral Ushakov. The most apparent candidate is Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, Arkhangel'sk County. The yard is expecting another nuclear battle cruiser, the Admiral Nakhimov, to arrive later this year to undergo repairs. Thus, all the preparations, like deepening of the sea bed to allow vessels of this class to come into the yard's water area, have been finished by now.
Igor Kudrik
1998-11-03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Another irrelevant point, but a carrier air wing can probably pack more nuclear tonnage than a Kirov. Certainly a US CVBG can.
|
Battlegroup again. I was talking about comparison of 1 ship vs. 1 ship. Without escort your carrier wouldn't stand long against Kirov. Which US surface ship is better then Kirov? Ticonderoga class?
Nah...the Kirov is the most powerfull surface ship on this planet.
And btw, what the point in having more nuclear tonnage? 1 nuke is more then enough to destroy entire enemy battlegroup.
quote:
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. |
It will destroy with pretty high probability. It was designed to destroy such threats. Where would you prefer to be, on board of US aircraft carrier when "intellegent swarm" of Russian 'shipwrecks' aproaching or to be on Kirov's board when American air wing or bunch of slow Tomahawks is aproaching?
quote:
No, Nakhimov is not in active service, or at least is not deployable. |
I don't know how to say it. It's still in list of active ships, but currently under repair. Soon it will be fully operational. At least that's what Interfax news agency said 06.02.03. (article is on Russian, so you don't need it)
quote:
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. |
a) That's why we have mobile SSM and SAM battaries.
b) Blah...blah...blah... Save your tricks for countries without AA defese. Russia is not Yugoslavia or Iraq. Aside them, we will strike back and shoot down your planes.
quote:
Sure, maybe 1 carrier battlegroup. But if the US concentrates 3 or 4 carriers, then Russia is in some trouble. |
Nope, US will be in trouble. We'll simply nuke you in this case. That's what our doctrine says.
Last edited by Serb on 09-07-2003 at 06:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
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: blah...blah..blah...
|
 
Petr Veliky participated in naval maneuvres many times during recent years. During Kursk reque operation, HQ of resque operation was located on board of Petr Veliky. You think HQ coordinated actions of resquers from port.
I'M TIRED OF THIS CRAP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Battlegroup again. I was talking about comparison of 1 ship vs. 1 ship. Without escort your carrier wouldn't stand long against Kirov. Which US surface ship is better then Kirov? Ticonderoga class?
Nah...Kirov is the most powerfull surface ship on this planet.
And btw, what the point in having more nuclear tonnage? 1 nuke is more then enough to destroy entire enemy battlegroup.
It will destroy with pretty high probability. It was designed to destroy such threats. Where would you prefer to be, on board of US aircraft carrier when "intellegent swarm" of Russian shipwrecks aproaching or to be on Kirov's board when American air wing or bunch of slow Tomohawks is aproaching?
I don't know how to say it. It's still in list of active ships, but currently under repair. Soon it will be fully operational. At least that's what Interfax news agency said 06.02.03. (article is on Russian, so you don't need it)
a) That's why we have mobile SSM and SAM battaries.
b) Blah...blah...blah... Save your tricks for countries without AA defese. Russia is not Yugoslavia or Iraq. Aside them we will strike back and shoot down your planes.
Nope, US will be in trouble. We'll simply nuke you in this case. That's what our doctrine says. |
hi ,
since the kirov class wont be sailing , ......
any ticondera can win against a ship that has its missiles removed and lays crippled in harbour , ..... 
only the peter the great is still on the active list , and that one has some huge repairs on its way also , .....
and that is not only from interfax but also from the official navy site , the one thats only in russian , ....
Project 1144, 11442 — Kirov (Orlan) class
2003-03-07
Northern Fleet Pacific Fleet Total
In service 1 / 0 / 1
Inactive 2 / 1 / 3
— with fuel 3 / 1 / 4
— defuelled 0 / 0 / 0
Dismantled 0 / 0 / 0
Number 3 / 1 / 4
Technical Data
Length: 251 m Displacement: 24,100/24,300 [1] tonnes
Beam: 28.5 m Draught: 10.33 m
Crew: 760 Speed: 31 knots
Reactors:
Nuclear installation model KN-3 with two PWRs generating 2x70,000 hp.
Kirov (Orlan) class vessels in the Northern Fleet
Name -Shipyard
-Laid down
-Launched Active service
-Start date
-End date Present condition
Admiral Ushakov (ex-Kirov) Baltic Yard 189
June 1973 shipyard
26/12 1977 laid down
30/12 1980 launched
The vessel came to Severodvinsk on September 19th 1999 and has been stationed there since then. Controversial reports suggest that the vessel will be either repaired and upgraded, given funding is in place, or decommissioned.
Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) Baltic Yard 189
May 1983 shipyard
26/4 1986 laid down
Dec 1988 launched
The vessel arrived to Severodvinsk to undergo repairs on August 14th 1999. Whether the cruiser enters the service in the coming years, depends on the availability of funding for repairs.
Peter the Great Baltic Yard 189
25/04 1986 shipyard
29/04 1989 laid down
Oct 1995 launched
In service, listed for overhaul if funding is approved, otherwise decommissioned.
Based in Severomorsk
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
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 |
"Специалисты «Севмашпредприятия» отремонтируют крейсер «Адмирал Нахимов»
На государственном унитарном предприятии (ГУП) «ПО «Севмашпредприятие» (Северодвинск, Архангельская область) началась подготовка к проведению первого этапа ремонтных работ на силовой установке тяжелого авианесущего крейсера (ТАКР) «Адмирал Нахимов».
«Такие работы на кораблях подобного класса специалисты предприятия проводят впервые. В целом в рамках оборонного заказа на 2003 год запланирован целый ряд работ по ремонту этого авианесущего крейсера», — сообщили в на «Севмаше».
(Интерфакс, 06.02.03 г.)"
Any questions, mister "I read Russian"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
"Специалисты «Севмашпредприятия» отремонтируют крейсер «Адмирал Нахимов»
На государственном унитарном предприятии (ГУП) «ПО «Севмашпредприятие» (Северодвинск, Архангельская область) началась подготовка к проведению первого этапа ремонтных работ на силовой установке тяжелого авианесущего крейсера (ТАКР) «Адмирал Нахимов».
«Такие работы на кораблях подобного класса специалисты предприятия проводят впервые. В целом в рамках оборонного заказа на 2003 год запланирован целый ряд работ по ремонту этого авианесущего крейсера», — сообщили в на «Севмаше».
(Интерфакс, 06.02.03 г.)"
Any questions, mister "I read Russian"? |
hi ,
you are not allowed to post in an other language the english , ........ sorry but those are the sites rules , .....
you know darn good where that article comes from , ....so please serb , accept the facts , thats all , i dont like them , nor do you , but unfortunatly they are the hard reality , .....
and personnaly i really find it a shame to see what goes on , ...... typhoons are being scrapped as we speak , ..... 
there is only one thing that shall be positive out of this , new ships shall be build , more modern ones , with bigger and better rooms for the weapons and the crew , more shall be spend on protection , firefighting , etc , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
Nuclear battle cruiser to be scrapped
The oldest of Russia's four nuclear-powered battle cruisers, the Admiral Ushakov, is to be scrapped shortly. Funding shortfalls to repair the ship is the main reason for the prompt decommissioning. Admiral Ushakov (former Kirov)
The Admiral Ushakov (former Kirov) is to be pulled out of service shortly and scrapped, reported ITAR-TASS. The ship was put into operation in 1980, its design lifetime expireing in 2010. The decision was prompted by lack of funds to repair the ship.
The Russian Navy has three Kirov-class nuclear-powered battle cruisers assigned to the Northern Fleet: the Admiral Ushakov, the Admiral Nakhimov and Peter the Great. The latter was taken into active service in March this year. The forth nuclear-powered battle cruiser of this class, the Admiral Lazarev, has its home base in the Pacific Fleet. Each vessel' main power installation comprise two PWR type nuclear reactors.
The main problem with nuclear-powered battle cruisers is the lack of properly equipped naval bases and facilities for servicing the nuclear reactors. As a result, both the reactors and the auxiliary power installations onboard these ships have been worn out before their design lifetime expired. The lack of funding to repair these ships has led to their virtual inactivity in later years. An exception so far is Peter the Great which was commissioned recently, although the ship was under repairs one month after it was put to active service this spring. Another serious drawback is the lack of naval base facilities for refuelling the reactors. This issue affected the three oldest battle cruisers and will affect Peter the Great in the future.
Its is unclear which yard will defuel and scrap the Admiral Ushakov. The most apparent candidate is Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, Arkhangel'sk County. The yard is expecting another nuclear battle cruiser, the Admiral Nakhimov, to arrive later this year to undergo repairs. Thus, all the preparations, like deepening of the sea bed to allow vessels of this class to come into the yard's water area, have been finished by now.
Igor Kudrik
|
I see you raped your search engine once again. Perhaps, now you realize that Kirov it is not a name of particular shap, but a name of class of ships and that Russia have more than 1 Kirov? Perhaps now you understand that all this crap you posted above was about different ship of Kirov class, while Petr Veliky is absolutely different ship which is on active duty.
Next time, your raped search engine will find something from stone age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
you are not allowed to post in an other language the english , ........ sorry but those are the sites rules , .....
you know darn good where that article comes from , ....so please serb , accept the facts , thats all , i dont like them , nor do you , but unfortunatly they are the hard reality , .....
|
This article comes from Interfax news agency and it says that Admiral Nakhimov will be repaired soon and that work already in progress. What the matter, I remember you said that you read Russian.
quote:
and personnaly i really find it a shame to see what goes on , ...... typhoons are being scrapped as we speak , .....
there is only one thing that shall be positive out of this , new ships shall be build , more modern ones , with bigger and better rooms for the weapons and the crew , more shall be spend on protection , firefighting , etc , .....
|
Some Typhoons are scraped because of the treaty with the Yanks. They do the same with their subs.
First Russian sub of new generation- 'Severodvinsk' was finished and deployed few months ago.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
That's simply an example of technology winning. Of course the Egyptians sunk a destroyer built in 1943 and 1944 with a missile. If they didn't, they'd be totally incompetent.
|
Before the death of Eilat no one in western navies considered tiny missile boats as serious threat to large surface ships of main classes. And it was your western aproach, not only Israelis aproach. Poor anti-aircraft defences was part of this aproach, because no one believed in deadly effectivness of anti-ship missiles yet. You said that Israelis kicked everyone's asses using American warfighting methods and equipment. Eilat was peice of western equipment and its crew used western warfighting methods. The ship is dead now. Read Azazel's article. It's a good reading.
quote:
Wrong. The USN is a blue-water navy, not a brown-water navy, and just because Egyptian missile boats sunk a 25 year old destroyer doesn't mean that's going to change. |
From Azazel's article:
"After the successful attack that sank the Eilat, antiship missiles finally acquired a secure place (and due respect) in naval warfare. In spite of the views of certain experts, navies around the world embarked on rearmament with the new missile. A new kind of air threat had been created, and the character of naval warfare was radically changed forever. This is the result of that engagement on 21 October 1967."
I read almost the same in different source.
quote:
As to the US building hundreds of missile armed gunboats, huh? You perhaps mean the river gunboats of Vietnam? What use would the US have for small gunboats? It's not as if we need them for coastal defense, and they aren't useful in blue water operations. |
I meant Jaguar, Pegasus, Swordfish and other boats that were created after Eilat's death. Before 1967 US navy didn't build missile boats.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
Not exactly.
I do agreed that you have blue water navy, while current Russian fleet is brown water navy. As for "they are nobody" part... never.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Battlegroup again. I was talking about comparison of 1 ship vs. 1 ship. Without escort your carrier wouldn't stand long against Kirov. |
Not if the Kirov got within missile range, no. However, seeing as how the two ships have nearly identical speeds (Hazegray lists the Kirov class with a max speed of 32 knots, and the Nimitz class with a max speed of 30+ knots), it would be very tough for the Kirov to close the gap, especially since the US would likely have better intel.
Now, let's look at the range. The primary anti-ship weapon of the Kirov class is the SS-N-19 Shipwreck. This missile has a maximum range of 625 km.
The main attack aircraft of the USN is the F/A-18, which has a maximum combat radius of a bit over 600 km. However, this range can be considerably extended by employing tanker aircraft, and the anti-ship missiles used by the Hornet don't have to be launched from right next to the enemy warship, either. Thus, the main strike weapon of the Nimitz considerably outranges the main strike weapon of the Kirov.
Further, the air wing of the Nimitz includes various other aircraft, including ELINT, AWACS, etc., whereas the Kirov class carries no aircraft at all. This means that even taking satellite coverage out of consideration, the USN will be able to maintain a considerable intel advantage over the Kirov - the Kirov can't effectively close the gap, and the Nimitz can maneuver and attack at will. The Kirov is, in effect, "fighting blind", at least compared to the Nimitz (obviously it can see the aircraft within a certain range).
Now, the debate would get into whether the air defenses of the Kirov could defeat an entire carrier air wing. And making that claim is pretty ludicrous, in my opinion. But you can't say that the Kirov could sink a Nimitz, because the Kirov can't even FIND the Nimitz, and even if it did, it couldn't close the distance enough to launch missiles.
quote:
Which US surface ship is better then Kirov? Ticonderoga class? |
In terms of anti-ship capability? Probably none, other than a carrier or a submarine.
quote:
It will destroy with pretty high probability. It was designed to destroy such threats. |
Sure, and the German V-weapons were designed to blast England into submission. Not everything works exactly as planned.
quote:
Where would you prefer to be, on board of US aircraft carrier when "intellegent swarm" of Russian 'shipwrecks' aproaching or to be on Kirov's board when American air wing or bunch of slow Tomahawks is aproaching? |
Seeing as how the air wing can get to the Kirov, and the Kirov can't get within range to launch missiles at the Nimitz, I'll take my chances on board the carrier.
quote:
It's still in list of active ships, but currently under repair. |
So, then, it isn't deployable, is it?
quote:
a) That's why we have mobile SSM and SAM battaries.
b) Blah...blah...blah... Save your tricks for countries without AA defese. Russia is not Yugoslavia or Iraq. Aside them, we will strike back and shoot down your planes. |
This is irrelevant, because the US isn't stupid enough to risk ANY ships close in to the coast. A US blockade wouldn't hurt Russia that much, so why do it? We don't have enough ships for an effective one, anyway. But if the US wanted to attack the Russian coast at any given point, it wouldn't be tough - just mass 4-5 carriers along with a few attack subs. Start things off with standoff missiles launched from B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s, then surface the subs and launch missiles, then send in 5 carrier air wings to clean up. Hell, the US could even land a Marine Amphibious Unit if we really wanted to.
quote:
Nope, US will be in trouble. We'll simply nuke you in this case. That's what our doctrine says. |
I thought we were throwing out nukes? And in any case, I don't care what your doctrine says, you aren't going to start a nuclear war unless someone else starts one first, or maybe you're about to be conquered.
quote:
You said that Israelis kicked everyone's asses using American warfighting methods and equipment. Eilat was peice of western equipment and its crew used western warfighting methods. The ship is dead now. |
Yes, yes, but as has been pointed out, the Israelis decisively won the naval war, and as I have pointed out SEVERAL times, there is no reason to expect a destroyer built in the mid 1940s to be competitive in the late 1960s.
quote:
After the successful attack that sank the Eilat, antiship missiles finally acquired a secure place (and due respect) in naval warfare. In spite of the views of certain experts, navies around the world embarked on rearmament with the new missile. A new kind of air threat had been created, and the character of naval warfare was radically changed forever. This is the result of that engagement on 21 October 1967 |
Oh, sure, you're absolutely right that the US began to seriously improve anti-missile defenses, but this doesn't mean that overall US naval doctrine was changed - that is, we never moved away from the idea of projecting power with large aircraft carriers.
quote:
I meant Jaguar, Pegasus, Swordfish and other boats that were created after Eilat's death. Before 1967 US navy didn't build missile boats. |
These boats were built for US coastal waters, not blue water offensive operations. The Pegasus is today used for drug interdiction. This has nothing to do with US naval doctrine, at least not significantly - you don't see these things deploying with CVBGs, after all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
Watching whom? I doubt you watched Petr Veliky through the crosshairs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
Didn't US subs occasionally take hull shots (photos) of Soviet subs, and (much less frequently), vice versa?
|
|
| |
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 14:23
|