Or not. Kh-90 was mentioned with GELA at MAKS ’99. AS-X-21 is in fact the codename assigned to the GELA derivative ALCM, the Kh-90.

X-90 is rather associated to Meteorit-A and it was MAKS-95. Airframe of Meteorit-A may have been used to produce GELA though.

So Snake this is wrong:

400 VITSE-ADMIRAL KULAKOV #190 Severnaya 29.12.1981 NOR
Laid: 4.11.77. Udaloy-2. 9.2.1982 entered NOR. 3 -7.11.1988 visited Havana (Cuba). 19.3.1991 overhaul at Severomorsk. 1996 overhaul haulted at 67% readiness. 2002 overhaul restarted. 2005 overhaul completed at Severnaya verf. 2006 awaiting to re-enter NOR.

Overhaul is not complete, the ship is still at the warf, the photo is from May, 2006. She looks like that for the last three years.

GELA is just a technology demonstrator therefore has no military designation. GELA is Russian abreviation for Hypersound Experimental Aircraft (Giperzvukovoj eksperimentalnij letatelnij aparat).

Without nose cone and booster

I want to ask if the Granit-2 missile is just rumors or something that is really under development?
Also about the Club missile is possible for a surface ship to take SS-N-21 instead of Club missile? Both missiles SS-N-21 and the 3M54/14 have the same size and shape, and I think that theoritically the Granat can be easily fitted in VLS systems like the Talwar’s. Further more I don’t know why the soviet navy didn’t operate the SS-N-21 in surface vessels. Obviously is much more easy to fit a surface combatant than a submarine with cruise or antiship missile.

Kalibr (Club for export) missiles are conventional derrivatives of 3M10 Granat. Granat is a LACM with nuclear WH only, thus the higher range. Of course, 3M54 and 3M14 technically are easy adaptable to go further than announced 300 km. There’s unconfirmed information that Onyx (aka Yakhont, aka Brahmos) has substantially longer range than it’s export versions.

P-6 (4K88) and P-35 (4K44): design was started by OKB-52 (Chief designer – Chelomey) in 1956. The missiles were essentially the same, P-6 intended for submarines (surface launch only) and P-35 for surface ships. Layout was essentially the same as of earlier land attck missile P-5, exchanging warhead from nuclear to convential and using anti-ship radar guidance in addition to inertial, P-35 received an intake with shock cone. Both missiles retained land atack capability though. “Uspekh” OTH targeting system was used, target information provided by Tu-16RC, Tu-95RC and later by Ka-25RC.Complex received IOC in 1964. In 1966 a land based mobile version “Redut” was introduced, followed by stationary land-based version “Utyos”. P-6 was installed on Pr.651 SSGs, Pr.659 and Pr. 675 SSGN; P-35 was installed on Pr.58 and Pr.1134 cruisers.

P-500 (4K80) Bazalt: design started by OKB-52 in 1963, IOC in 1975, rearming Pr.675 subs and installed on 1143 aviation cruisers, later on 1164 cruisers. Layout was generally the same except for new intake with two-position shock cone, new guidance package “Argon”, ECM station was installed on missile as well as new WH. OTH targeting was provided by “Legenda” sattellite system.

P-1000 (3M70) Vulcan: design started by OKB-52 in 1979, IOC in 1987 on Pr.675MKV subs and 1164 cruisers. The missile is a replica of Bazalt with extended range due to new boosters and lighter construction (more titan, less armour).

As to photos: No. 1 is Chinese fantasy, No.2 and 3 are Vulcan loaded on to Pr.1164 cruiser “Moskva”, No. 4 and 5 are P-6, No.6 is mobile coastal complex “Rubezh” with P-15 missile, No.7 is P-500 Bazalt, No.8 is “Redut”, No.8 is “Utyos” (looks like Balaklava), No.10 is P-35 (352 or rather 35-2 may mean that it’s the improved version 3M44 Progres).

Depends on how you see it…

I always wondered why the Soviets didn’t make Kuznetsov and Varyag longer than they are. They always wanted the biggest of everything, why not the biggest carrier? The additional length would most likely have increased the take-off weight for the aircraft too by using a longer runway. The hangar would have been lengthened too that way and probably an increased number of aircraft.
Lengthening it wouldn’t have cost that much more or were they really that constrained by money? All in all I think the lengthening would have given a lot more advantages than extra cost.

For China, probably they will go Varyag’s way, redesigning the island would be nice. As for the internal lay-out, it would be able to carry more fuel and stores instead of the huge missile armament it was designed to carry. That seems the most efficient way of replacing those things.

This one is easy. The slip in Nikolaev even after reconstruction was not able to accomodate larger ships. This has to do not so much with the length of slip itself as the availble space of waterway during launch. Soviet Union didn’t manage to build a second slip in Severodvinsk, although there were plans for that. Recently Russian media announced start of construction of a new slip in Severodvinsk. Reforms are nice thing when you can watch them from distance :diablo: