Military Review

Sevmash completed dismantling of old equipment on the nuclear cruiser Admiral Nakhimov

54
The press service of Sevmash reported that the company's specialists completed dismantling the old equipment on the heavy nuclear cruiser 11442M Admiral Nakhimov project and are currently preparing the ship for the installation of a new one.




“On the ship of the 11442М project, being repaired in the dry dock of the Sevmash enterprise, the dismantling of the old equipment has been completed, and it is preparing to install the new equipment. The ship has already completed the repair of hull structures in the first building area, work is underway in the second, ”the press service reported. "Military Industrial Courier".

It is noted that by the end of 2015, the abrasive cleaning of the hull will be completed, and the renovation of foundations, installation of equipment and mechanisms are planned for the next year.

According to the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, “The Navy awaits the completion of the modernization of the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov by the year 2018. The Ministry of Defense and Sevmash signed a contract for 13 June 2013 repair work.
Photos used:
dic.academic.ru
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 3 November 2015 07: 41
    +12
    cooler "petit" will be ... yes
    1. SAM 5
      SAM 5 3 November 2015 07: 44
      +12
      However, a decent dreadnought will work.
    2. Mitek
      Mitek 3 November 2015 07: 54
      +25
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      cooler "petit" will be ... yes
      Petya is also being modernized taking into account the experience of "Nakhimov". I am very sorry that the remaining 2 1144 will not be upgraded.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 3 November 2015 08: 28
        +5
        Quote: Mitek
        Petya is also being modernized taking into account the experience of "Nakhimov". I am very sorry that the remaining 2 1144 will not be upgraded.

        Of course it's not for us to decide, but my opinion is that the Russian Navy needs to restore them all, two for the expanses of the Pacific Ocean and two for the Atlantic. And if, on board, among other things, they also installed the marine analog of Iskander, for greater efficiency, they would have simply obtained the quintessence of naval power!
        1. Manul
          Manul 3 November 2015 10: 17
          0
          Quote: SPACE
          And if they aboard, among other things, also establish the marine analog of Iskander,

          And what does Caliber not suit you? It seems to me that the S-500 analogue would definitely not hurt.
        2. sergius60
          sergius60 3 November 2015 10: 28
          +4
          When the anti-ship missile system 3M-22 "Zircon" will be revealed to the world ... Since the launch is from a standard USK, then the "Buyans" will drive foe fleets across the oceans with rags. With 80 launchers on the Nakhimov, it is just enough to insect half of the US surface-to-water fleet. 10 AB, 22 KR "Ticonderoga", at the moment it seems 71 EM "Arleigh Burke", from the FR "Perry" the last couple of months ago were sent to the needles. 103 targets, with VP = 0,5 we have a consumption of 80 anti-ship missiles for 40 targets. And there is still a nuclear submarine ... ;-) Well, why the heck are more ships? Who else to sink after the amersky fleet? Can it be easier to recharge the USK? ;-)))) And do not care, where did the hypersonic anti-ship missile start from? Ground mine, mobile, container, or aviation?
          And if it comes to nuclear ... Then it’s completely poker who has so many troughs on the seas ...: - (((
        3. mike_z
          mike_z 3 November 2015 12: 04
          +7
          I can not say anything about the TOF member "Lazarev", and the northern "Kirov" ("Ushakov") will not be restored. What they just didn’t take in due time. In reality, the ship was ruined in the 90s, and mediocre. My heart was bleeding when it was robbed. Most likely it will be cheaper to build a new one. And we keep our fists for "Nakhimov", it must be restored! Still, the 956s should be restored and modernized, it's not too late.
        4. Roman 11
          Roman 11 3 November 2015 15: 33
          -1
          Quote: SPACE

          Of course it's not for us to decide, but my opinion is that the Russian Navy needs to restore them all, two for the expanses of the Pacific Ocean and two for the Atlantic.

          Or it may be more convenient to deploy one fleet in the north. If necessary, the Pacific always has time to go.
      2. AlexTires
        AlexTires 3 November 2015 09: 28
        +2
        "Lazarev" seems to be in a dry dock, so it is quite possible to restore it, but "Ushakov" is no longer there, because there are serious problems with the power plant ... ...
      3. PSih2097
        PSih2097 3 November 2015 15: 50
        0
        Quote: Mitek
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        cooler "petit" will be ... yes
        Petya is also being modernized taking into account the experience of "Nakhimov". I am very sorry that the remaining 2 1144 will not be upgraded.

        for "Lazarev" has not yet been determined, whether for repair, or for disposal, "Kirov" aka "Ushakov" for scrap for sure.
        Quote: mike_z
        Still 956th to restore and modernize everything, it’s not too late.

        alas and ah but late
        1. mike_z
          mike_z 3 November 2015 16: 10
          0
          Quote: PSih2097
          alas and ah but late

          Well, maybe. the "Thundering" from the "Unrestrained" has not lost everything, though ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 3 November 2015 08: 27
      +2
      they will modernize everyone and Petya too, in general a very formidable force will turn out
      1. avt
        avt 3 November 2015 09: 03
        +1
        Quote: Alexey-74
        all modernize

        For "Kirov" / "Ushakov" I strongly doubt it. It is most likely on pins and needles sad
  2. Tjeck
    Tjeck 3 November 2015 07: 52
    0
    a terrible colossus in a good sense, they once built such ones .. but for modernization I have twofold feelings, I’m not even a designer or even a sailor, but based on the logic, the hull could become deformed or design fatigue for 30 years - and this cannot be modernized . such projects must be built from scratch.
    1. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 3 November 2015 08: 07
      +15
      US Iowa-class battleships are even more ancient. For example "Missouri" was launched on January 29, 1944. Commissioned in 1944; withdrawn from the fleet in 1995. In the summer of 1984, the battleship was reactivated and after modernization on May 10, 1986, it was re-commissioned to participate in the Persian Gulf War. So 30 years for a good ship is far from the limit, and our shipbuilders have always been able to build.

      On the contrary, now the most interesting thing will begin - why will they put this on "Nakhimov" for the joy of us and the fear of the foe))
      1. just exp
        just exp 3 November 2015 08: 27
        +7
        Yes, in general, there is nothing unusual, 80 cells of UKKS, ZRAKI will be daggers, the modernized S-300F. Of the promised goodies, perhaps there will be zircon, which this year will be tested.
        1. red_october
          red_october 3 November 2015 09: 49
          0
          there, in addition to the "calibers" already familiar to us, these cells promise hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zircon". Hope for more surprises as well.
      2. Saratovets
        Saratovets 3 November 2015 09: 05
        +1
        In the battleships, other safety margins were laid, plus booking gives a reinforcing effect
      3. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 3 November 2015 09: 20
        +3
        10 UKKS, will replace with a new modification of the C-300, put the air defense system Redut, put the ZRAK Shell, TC Package NK, plus a completely new RTV.

        About the age of Iow. They were canned, and under a reliable guard, that's why they are so well preserved. Here we have the 3 of the first ships just stupidly stood at the berths, where they:

        1. Rusted and idle
        2.dated
        3. Mercilessly plundered and rendered unusable by personnel.

        There was no conservation, nothing, they were actually left on the conscience of their crews ... Lazarev was especially lucky here, and Nakhimov, too, by the way. That's the result - the ships are in a terrible state.

        Plus, I think it’s better not to talk about the economic potential of modern Russia, and the United States of the 80's.
        1. Corsair0304
          Corsair0304 3 November 2015 09: 52
          +2
          Yet these are ships of different classes and generations, and from my side it was not entirely correct to compare them. I just wanted to say by this that with proper maintenance, ships of such a class as the Nakhimov may well serve for another 10-15 years. And since objectively our country cannot afford the construction of a new similar ship, then deep modernization is the very thing.
      4. mike_z
        mike_z 3 November 2015 12: 09
        0
        You're right. But if “Iowa” survived our 90s ... then they wouldn't even remember about any “Iowa”. Americans mothballed and kept, but here for any reason and without any reason they filmed from "Kirov" on "Nakhimov", then on "Peter", then hell knows where. And we, mechanics, and our colleagues from other warheads, could not do anything about this lawlessness - "expediency" triumphed ... her mother.
      5. The comment was deleted.
    2. GRAY
      GRAY 3 November 2015 08: 10
      +6
      Quote: Tjeck
      a terrible colossus in a good sense, they once built such ones .. but for modernization I have twofold feelings, I’m not even a designer or even a sailor, but based on the logic, the hull could become deformed or design fatigue for 30 years - and this cannot be modernized . such projects must be built from scratch.

      30 years is not the age for ships of this class.
    3. Altona
      Altona 3 November 2015 13: 18
      0
      Quote: Tjeck
      a terrible colossus in a good sense, they once built such ones .. but for modernization I have twofold feelings, I’m not even a designer or even a sailor, but based on the logic, the hull could become deformed or design fatigue for 30 years - and this cannot be modernized . such projects must be built from scratch.

      ---------------------
      Under Soviet rule, huge reserves of strength were laid in the design, they joked that "for a direct hit of a nuclear bomb", in general, up to 3 times on frame and hull structures. So, after checking the supporting structures and welds with special flaw detectors, critical places will be determined. The building itself is also costly and troublesome, and the hulls were previously built with good seaworthiness and according to all the rules of hydrodynamics. So it is possible to completely rebuild the ship if there is a modernization project. And it is necessary to rebuild in any way, because it is necessary to demolish analog devices and old energy-intensive installations. The devices are now digital, special starters are installed on power plants, which do not give sudden jumps in the network, and other things ...
      1. BMW
        BMW 3 November 2015 15: 47
        0
        Quote: Tjeck
        but based on the logic for 30 years, the case could have become deformed or design fatigue could have appeared

        Quote: Saratovets
        In the battleships, other safety margins were laid, plus booking gives a reinforcing effect

        Do not bother yourself.
        For the hull, the worst thing is docking and replacing hull structures, and even then by stupidity.
        Everything is calculated and worked out. yes
  3. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 3 November 2015 07: 58
    +4
    Give t0God, as the big ship says, a great story. It is possible that the decision on the other cruisers 21144 will be reconsidered, oh how they need our fleet in the next 10 years!
  4. cniza
    cniza 3 November 2015 08: 01
    +2
    Quote: polkovnik manuch
    oh how they need our fleet in the next 10 years!



    We go in the right direction, do not turn only forward.
  5. surrozh
    surrozh 3 November 2015 08: 14
    0
    The Brazilian AV "Sao Paulo" (formerly "Marshal Foch") was built in 1960 and is still in service. It looks very dignified even against the background of Vikramatidya.
  6. dr.star75
    dr.star75 3 November 2015 08: 20
    +2
    5 years of modernization? belay by night it will be said: the Mistals from scratch how much they built?
    1. Bombardier
      Bombardier 3 November 2015 08: 41
      +2
      Do not compare the barge with the ship. What weapon on the barge? Again, modernization, and not planned construction for a given project.

      Note: To the Mistrals, our shipbuilders built the stern on time and without negative feedback.
    2. imperialist
      imperialist 3 November 2015 08: 46
      +1
      More than a year passed between the signing of the contract and the start of work. The work began in November 2014. Sevmash promises to postpone the date and transfer the ship to the Navy in 2017. Three years.
    3. Saratovets
      Saratovets 3 November 2015 09: 05
      -2
      I’m thinking the same thing. Wasn’t it easier to build a new one?
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 3 November 2015 15: 55
        +1
        Quote: Saratovets
        I’m thinking the same thing. Wasn’t it easier to build a new one?

        Yeah, Aircraft Carrier ...
  7. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov 3 November 2015 08: 29
    +4
    Tales are all.

    The deadlines are already sailing to the right for the supply / repair of a number of products, and of course it is natural, too. The Northern Design Bureau is only in the 18 year, God forbid, finish the working drawings. Plus the test, plus fine-tuning, it’s a long time, in general, before the year 20 -th you can not hope.

    About the price, I generally keep quiet.

    But in general, the ship is very necessary, and it will be after the restoration of the hoo, it is a pity that the 2 of the first were so stupidly lost.
  8. Old26
    Old26 3 November 2015 08: 33
    +2
    Quote: Tjeck
    but based on the logic for 30 years, the case could have become deformed or design fatigue could have appeared

    They were not that intensively exploited. And about 30 years. So the "Commune" is over 100 years old, and nothing. If during scheduled repairs, they take a very long time ...

    Quote: dr.star75
    5 years of modernization? belay by night it will be said: the Mistals from scratch how much they built?

    "" to break - not to build. "It is always faster to build from scratch than to modernize. It is necessary to remove old weapons, including the electronic equipment, to check the hull and other structures, it is possible to change something in the layout of the compartments and in the superstructures, new weapons, then test them. So building from scratch is always faster

    Quote: polkovnik manuch
    Give t0God, as the big ship says, a great story. It is possible that the decision on the other cruisers 21144 will be reconsidered, oh how they need our fleet in the next 10 years!

    If it will be revised, then as they say one by one, but not two. One will definitely go into passive

    Quote: Corsair0304
    On the contrary, now the most interesting thing will begin - why will they put this on "Nakhimov" for the joy of us and the fear of the foe?

    Increase the number of missiles and missiles. True range and warhead of the current KR will be less. Perhaps diversify the assortment of KR ... And so - wait and see
    1. dr.star75
      dr.star75 3 November 2015 08: 46
      0
      I understand that by the year 20 a large star is planned. Maybe you don’t need a shipyard for such a period? Can it be built 2-3 times during this time? Mistral priests turned out pretty quickly.
      1. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 3 November 2015 09: 02
        +1
        Quote: dr.star75
        "" to break - not to build. "It is always faster to build from scratch than to modernize. It is necessary to remove old weapons, including the electronic equipment, to check the hull and other structures, it is possible to change something in the layout of the compartments and in the superstructures, new weapons, then test them. So building from scratch is always faster
        What are you - and built "Nakhimov" for 6 years (1983-end of 1988) while building all the time, and not like now - already a year of downtime

        Quote: Old26
        They were not that intensively exploited. And about 30 years. So the "Commune" is over 100 years old, and nothing. If during scheduled repairs, they take a very long time ...
        "Commune" is unique, do we still have many such examples? hi
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 3 November 2015 10: 13
          +4
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          What are you - and built "Nakhimov" for 6 years (1983-end of 1988) while building all the time, and not like now - already a year of downtime

          Old 26 is right! If you worked in production and have experience, then you have to calculate: disassembly of structures and assembly, it already takes more time than just assembly, manufacturing of new units and parts and their adjustment, this is also time. Troubleshooting and repair of structures that will not be replaced on new ones, but it will take much less time. But dismantling, making new structures for the foundations of mechanisms and weapons is also time. I take this only for the metal structures of the hull. There is a lot to check. If the mechanisms, weapons, the hull of the ship are on such "conservation" as in Nakhimov, then it is clear that corrosion brought more wear and tear to the ship than the operation over the same period. Because during operation, everything that needs to be lubricated, tinted, corrosion is removed all the time. modernization. Specialists will understand me, and to non-specialists I gave an approximate list of works only on the body. I don’t want to think about the mechanisms, because there is a bot above the roof and half of the technical terminology, our moderators will consider it a mat.
          1. Stirbjorn
            Stirbjorn 3 November 2015 10: 43
            +1
            Yes, I’m just saying in fact. They built Nakhimov for 6 years, this is official information. They promise to complete the modernization by 2018, that is, in 5 years, and even a year of inactivity must be deducted. That's all.
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 3 November 2015 11: 31
              0
              Quote: Stirbjorn
              Yes, I’m just saying in fact. They built Nakhimov for 6 years, this is official information. They promise to complete the modernization by 2018, that is, in 5 years, and even a year of inactivity must be deducted. That's all.

              Unfortunately, repairs and modernization require much more time. If the ship was running, part of the work would not have to be done, since this is ongoing maintenance work.
            2. dr.star75
              dr.star75 3 November 2015 11: 31
              0
              so I say: they built it for 6 years, they modernize it 5. times again: did you assure the Mistral for how much? The campaign has accelerated the construction technology with modernization, so the technology needs to be rebuilt (pah, pah wassat do not call his name)
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 3 November 2015 15: 57
      0
      Quote: Old26
      So building from scratch is always faster

      is it with design and coordination or what? we have?
  9. mamont5
    mamont5 3 November 2015 08: 47
    0
    Quote: SAM 5
    However, a decent dreadnought will work.

    The Dreadnought is something else. Any "dreadnought" -type battleship cannot hold a candle to these cruisers.
  10. Valkh
    Valkh 3 November 2015 08: 57
    +1
    Quote: Mitek
    Quote: Andrew Y.
    cooler "petit" will be ... yes
    Petya is also being modernized taking into account the experience of "Nakhimov". I am very sorry that the remaining 2 1144 will not be upgraded.

    God willing - upgrade !!!!
  11. Megatron
    Megatron 3 November 2015 09: 16
    0
    I am very sorry that the remaining 2 will not be upgraded.

    Where does this information come from?
  12. Old26
    Old26 3 November 2015 09: 26
    0
    Quote: Stirbjorn
    What are you - and built "Nakhimov" for 6 years (1983-end of 1988) while building all the time, and not like now - already a year of downtime

    Actually 5,5 ... laughing Kirov was built for 7,5 years. Well, we also built Dolgoruky for a long time ... In any case, modernization is always more delayed in time than construction from scratch, especially now. Remember how much "Admiral Gorshkov" was modernized

    Quote: Stirbjorn
    "Commune" is unique, do we still have many such examples?

    Few. Perhaps I will only name "Krasin" and "Ermak"
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 3 November 2015 10: 50
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Remember how much "Admiral Gorshkov" was modernized
      Ummm from 2008 to November 2013 - 6 years, if you round. And they built from 1078 to 1987, that is, 9 years. Facts are a stubborn thing)
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 3 November 2015 11: 39
        0
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        Ummm from 2008 to November 2013 - 6 years, if you round. And they built from 1078 to 1987, that is, 9 years. Facts are a stubborn thing)

        So you yourself answered. See the difference between the lead ship and the ship for a long time standing at the wall.
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 3 November 2015 13: 02
          +1
          Quote: Amurets
          So you yourself answered. See the difference between the lead ship and the ship for a long time standing at the wall.
          So I see what to build from scratch for 9 years, and to modernize only 6. That is, to build longer than to modernize.
  13. NEXUS
    NEXUS 3 November 2015 09: 53
    +1
    A wonderful ship will turn out ... the main thing is that they do not turn into a long-term construction a good thing. According to Lazarev, disputes still go on whether to restore or not, and Ushakov will not be reanimated (too expensive)
  14. mvg
    mvg 3 November 2015 10: 03
    0
    22 Thieanderogs and 60 Berks .. And also shaving and japanes with Koreans
  15. Socialism 2.0
    Socialism 2.0 3 November 2015 10: 38
    0
    Why not create and launch an all-Russian project - raising funds to create a new nuclear cruiser or something large-scale? Many would list, I think so ... in RI there was something like that, if I'm not mistaken ..
  16. kos2910
    kos2910 3 November 2015 11: 00
    +3
    I believe it is right that they upgrade, if possible, and not build new ones, yet the economy may not pull, you can’t answer symmetrically, and it makes no sense to compare the US and Russian fleets. If you strive for parity in everything - this is death for the economy and Russia.
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 3 November 2015 13: 33
      0
      With new industry dynamite. Repair of everything that can move is a necessary measure, otherwise soon we will only remain with tugboats.
      1. mike_z
        mike_z 3 November 2015 16: 18
        0
        Quote: chunga-changa
        Repairing everything that can move is a necessary measure.

        Unfortunately, we "sailed" to this, and after all, how much has been said, written and proved that it is necessary to invest rubles, not pennies, in the repair of ships, so that then do not invest hundreds. Fuck who was listening! Now we woke up and ran after the locomotive. And from such a state, the repair is really a complicated and expensive thing. As a ship repairman I speak.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  17. rotor
    rotor 3 November 2015 12: 02
    +1
    The heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" after deep modernization will surpass in combat power the cruiser "Peter the Great", considered the most heavily armed Russian Navy ship.
    1. Talgat
      Talgat 3 November 2015 18: 12
      +1
      On the infographic 48 Fort anti-aircraft missiles = and in fact there are 48 + 46 more
  18. Roman 11
    Roman 11 3 November 2015 14: 53
    +1
    Yes, finally make a normal cruiser - put on the same strike complex as on the tank. So that the total number of Onyxes is 300 or more missiles. Then he can compete alone against the squadron and all unfriendly fleets will bypass him.
  19. Tjeck
    Tjeck 3 November 2015 16: 57
    0
    Quote: Corsair0304
    US Iowa-class battleships are even more ancient. For example "Missouri" was launched on January 29, 1944. Commissioned in 1944; withdrawn from the fleet in 1995. In the summer of 1984, the battleship was reactivated and after modernization on May 10, 1986, it was re-commissioned to participate in the Persian Gulf War. So 30 years for a good ship is far from the limit, and our shipbuilders have always been able to build.

    On the contrary, now the most interesting thing will begin - why will they put this on "Nakhimov" for the joy of us and the fear of the foe))


    Yes, I know about Missouri, it was just modernized after the introduction of our missile cruisers. but there’s one snag since Missouri was originally a battleship of the WWII era - there’s a timber-framed construction, and Nakhimov is a missile cruiser where the emphasis was on driving performance but not on structural strength - other tasks ..

    with regards to the filling, it is certainly interesting to everyone here, and therefore there are twofold feelings.
  20. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 3 November 2015 18: 17
    +1
    After the repair, it would be worth renaming the cruiser. Tragic stories took place with all ships named "Nakhimov".
  21. Old26
    Old26 3 November 2015 20: 04
    0
    Quote: PSih2097
    is it with design and coordination or what? we have?

    Even with that. Or will you not do the same when upgrading? Design new units, agree? The point is that modernization, if it is not superficial, but serious, is a very time-consuming measure. I have already cited "Gorshkov" as an example. They gave one list of works, and when they started to work, it turned out that there were several times more work ...

    Quote: Stirbjorn
    And they built from 1078 to 1987, that is, 9 years. Facts stubborn thing

    Michael! You know the history of the fleet and you know very well that the construction was carried out for 9 years, not because it took so much time. No one could decide what the 4th corps was supposed to be. What kind of aviation to carry. And to build without knowing what is not the best option. It can be built for decades, if you change the TTZ periodically, then stop financing ...
  22. Y_w_p
    Y_w_p 4 November 2015 14: 13
    0
    The fact that at least one Orlan is being modernized and restored is good. But at least kill, I do not believe that both Kirov and Frunze rusted through and are ready to drown near the pier. The funny thing is that if they are sold to the Chinese, they will definitely restore them in the same five years and there is no doubt about it. So alas, ah, modern Russia is the heiress and right of the successor to the USSR. No way vile liberals drove them over the hill and they stood there poor in some sort of Norfolk and rusted to the delight of the Pentagon. Or is it still in their own country? Say that all this vile power has wound up? So who voted for her? You? Or are Europeans and Americans too? No money left? And where did your Buratin’s cabbage come from that they build yachts the size of a destroyer? Put your order in your place faster, and it’s certain that after five years one raid boat and five heel submarines will remain. You built yourself some kind of perverted capitalism, or rather, some kind of Latin American version of latifundia most likely.