Admiral Nakhimov: a single-use cruiser

Russian heavy nuclear missile the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov is returning to the open sea. Indeed, many channels and media outlets are paying attention to this issue, and it is justified: for almost thirty years (and with testing and finishing touches, that is exactly how long it could end up being) the cruiser was either laid up or modernized. And now the final deadline is approaching, after which Admiral Nakhimov will go to sea again.
How should we treat this fact?
There are different attitudes. And both sides of the world react this way. However, it makes sense to consider the opinions of both sides, Western and Eastern.
In general, everyone has it fleet there must be a flagship. And here, depending on what the budget allows, somewhere it is a nuclear aircraft carrier, the newest by naval standards, somewhere a landing ship, and somewhere a forty-year-old corvette-patrol ship was lucky, while it existed.

For some time, the flagship of the Russian fleet was the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, but things turned out the way they did, and the fleet needed a new flagship. That is, the personification of strength, power and reliability, capable of going out to sea and fighting if necessary.

According to a very controversial opinion, the nuclear missile cruisers of Project 1144 Orlan, which in the West are called Kirov after the first ship of the series, could become such for the Russian Navy.
NATO classifies the Orlans as battlecruisers, largely due to their size, which makes them the largest non-aircraft carrier surface attack ships in the world. They were originally intended to destroy American aircraft carriers and escort groups in the event of a hot war between the United States and the USSR, but such a conflict, to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, never occurred.
Today, the US is more than critical of the Orlans’ capabilities.
They believe that the Orlans were too expensive to maintain, which is why they were taken out of service.

"Kirov", which joined the fleet in 1980, made its first combat mission in 1984, and since 1991 has been laid up and has not gone to sea since. In 1992, it was solemnly renamed "Admiral Ushakov", and under this name it awaits its disposal. Of its 45 years of life, the ship actively served for 7 (SEVEN) years.

"Frunze" almost repeated the fate of "Kirov". It entered service in 1984, in 1985 it began active operations, in 1992 it was renamed "Admiral Lazarev", in 1994 it was laid up in Abrek Bay. And since 1999, expectations of disposal began, interspersed with rare information bursts about the possible return of the ship to service. The expectations ended in 2021, when "Lazarev" was delivered for disposal to the 30th shipyard in the village of Dunay.

"Kuibyshev" was luckier than the others. The cruiser was laid down in 1986 (at the time of laying down it was called "Kuibyshev", then - "Yuri Andropov"). On April 29, 1989 it was launched, during completion in 1992 it was renamed "Pyotr Velikiy", entered service in 1998. To this day it continues to serve, that is, it is more active than all other cruisers combined. The subsequent fate is not entirely clear.

"Kalinin". The hero of our story. It entered service in 1988, in 1992, together with all the cruisers, it was decommunized and renamed "Admiral Nakhimov". It served actively until 1997, when it made the transition to the place of repair and modernization, and from 1999 to the present, the ship has been in the stage of repair and modernization. And now, after 25 years and 200 billion rubles, the Russian fleet will have a new flagship.

Note: for the amount of money spent on repairing and modernizing the Nakhimov, it would have been possible to build 3 Borey-class submarines or 4 Yasen-M-class submarines. But more on that later.
Overseas experts rightly note that there was no clear plan for a complete modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov. As Russia's strategic priorities changed, the program was repeatedly suspended and resumed. Ultimately, it was fully implemented by 2014, and it was something in the style of "everything and to the maximum." Fortunately, it should be noted, the ship's robust hull allowed for this.
The return of the Admiral Nakhimov is planned for 2026
The iconic ship is expected to sail between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic, avoiding relatively tight spaces. Besides, the last thing Moscow wants is to expose its prized warship to the same attacks that led to the sinking of the Moskva in 2022.”
This is the opinion that was published in one of the American publications. Yes, there is much that is unknown and ununderstood on the other side, one could reproach them for comparing the Orlan with the Project 1164 missile cruiser, which is four times smaller, but the Americans can be forgiven for not delving deeply into the topic.
Another issue is that even there they understand that after the modernization, Admiral Nakhimov and Pyotr Velikiy will indeed represent a very respectable force, and two cruisers will be able to quite easily wipe out a full-fledged US Navy strike group from the waters.

However, American experts are not horrified by the idea that, as a result of some collisions, the Orlan will end up on the route of the AUG. Here we can again turn to the quotes, since they illustrate quite well what they are seriously thinking about on the other side:
If the Russians intend to send this ship on a mission, as the Russian military claims, then its defensive systems could be disabled using swarming tactics.
And that's not to mention the possibility that Admiral Nakhimov could be sunk by NATO rivals in any great power war. Russia's most powerful weapon at sea has always been its submarines."
Yes, it is a fact: Americans have always been afraid of Soviet submarines, which were the masters of the underwater part of the ocean and posed a real threat to American shores. It was Soviet submarines, not missile carriers or aircraft carriers, that scared cadets in naval schools. No, intercontinental ballistic missiles in silos and on mobile launch platforms are also a force, but a rather noticeable force. Their location can be found out, they can be tracked with the help of satellites and intelligence. But missiles that are hidden from sight and ears by hundreds of meters of water are something else.
And in the USA of the last century they knew very well that even if a war began and, in the words of the American science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, ended at that very moment, Russian nuclear submarines would still fire a salvo. It is not known from what point in the vast ocean, but they would fire.

And a nuclear cruiser, huge as it is, even if deadly, every mile of its movement can be easily tracked. Its attack will not be sudden.
Is it possible to disguise a strike group? In the modern world? Of course not. But no one would do such stupidity: there is no need to hide a force capable of wiping out a small state like Albania or Slovenia. There is more of a psychological component here: slowly and inexorably, like Nemesis, the ships of the group go to where they will bring death and destruction. And everyone must be ready there, in the sense of demoralized.

A good approach, in the spirit of the times.
So, it is impossible to hide the Orlans from view. But this completely makes the possibility of a relatively stealthy approach to a strike position unrealistic. In such a situation, a nuclear submarine is a much more effective tool.
And the second point. Where is our Northern Fleet based, which will definitely include cruisers (at least, there is no other information yet)? That's right, in Severomorsk. This is not the most, let's say, convenient area for controlling the world's oceans. Yes, access to the North Atlantic is quite real, but the border has been closed for some time now by NATO countries, which have the main enemies of such large ships - submarines. The Americans point this out with satisfaction, and they are right.

Control over the Northern Sea Route? But since 1942, when the Admiral Scheer was hanging around there, there have been no more attacks on the NSR, and not even by large forces. Yes, US and British submarines appeared systematically and regularly in the polar region, but fighting them is not a task for a ship like the Orlan. But the appearance of an AUG on the Northern Sea Route... Even taking into account that the climate is warming, the ice is melting - there is nothing for aircraft carriers to do there, because there are no targets.
North Atlantic? And what are Russia's tasks there? Who knows?
The Admiral Nakhimov's deployment areas in the Arctic and Atlantic show that Moscow is planning a long round of great power rivalry with the West, thus refuting the rosy predictions of Western propagandists that Russia is about to fall apart."
Silly, right? Russia will not fall apart anytime soon. It will take a lot of time and titanic efforts for that to happen. The rivalry that the Americans talk about looks completely different in the 21st century than it did in the 20th. It was during the Cold War that there were all these flights, cuts, and attacks... Dashing and completely useless in their essence.
Today, rivalry is conducted in a completely different way, without rattling weapons. And if you demonstrate capabilities, then specifically, by taking control of territories necessary for your country. And here, you know, anything is possible: you can very unsuccessfully take control of Ukrainian territories, or you can very successfully take control of an entire country, as the Americans did in Afghanistan. The results will be completely different both politically and militarily, but who will blame the Americans?
But let's get back to the cruisers.

It is important for each class of ships to have its own goals and tasks. The corvette protects coastal territories, the frigate and destroyer cover the work of landing ships and aircraft carriers, driving away enemy aircraft and submarines, and what about the Orlans?
They have declared AUGs. Aircraft carrier strike groups of the US Navy and NATO countries. Well, purely theoretically, the same groups can be put up on paper by France (when they finally fix the De Gaulle) and Great Britain (if they scrape together a couple of destroyers for the order), but this is about as likely as the AUG in the Shokalsky Strait. That is, practically a fantasy about time travelers, so fashionable these days.
Where can the Orlans meet with the AUG and under what conditions? Well, only in the Pacific Ocean. The Americans won't go into the ice in the Russian North, the Baltic and Black Seas are too shallow for them, and there's no point in sticking their noses in there. So - only the Pacific Ocean, and there are plenty of people to push around there besides the US: we should never forget about Japan, where South Korea is now mooring with all its might.
Considering that the Pacific Fleet is a rather dull phenomenon compared to the Japanese one, two such ships would greatly increase the capabilities of the Russian naval group of ships. Moreover, Pyotr Velikiy and Admiral Kuznetsov would even tip the scales in Russia's favor for some time.
But, alas, it has been said repeatedly that the Orlans will be based in the Northern Fleet.
On the one hand, it is understandable: all the infrastructure for servicing ships is here. And the enemy will never come here, as was said above. Or this way: the probability of an American strike group appearing in our northern waters is negligible, because, firstly, the ice conditions are difficult all year round, and secondly, there is someone to strike the strike group.
But if problems start in the Far East...

No problem: of course, the Orlans will leave Severomorsk and travel 8500 km to the Kuril Islands. Through the Bering Strait, where, of course, there will be no surprises. And in 3-4 weeks (depending on the ice conditions) the cruisers will be in the Kuril Islands area.
Of course, the Japanese and Americans will kindly wait and do nothing. All our wars are fought according to the rules of chivalry, aren't they?
Thus, heavy nuclear missile cruisers will be based in the North, where the appearance of an enemy is not expected in the next 20 years, and from where they are simply not in a position to come to the rescue in the event of a “fire”.
No, the Americans are sometimes great, they know how to count and predict. And now they are saying that there is no point in even thinking about going to the North, there is absolutely nothing to do there. And it is unrealistic to threaten any actions of the American fleet from there: any AUG, having received the news that the Orlans have left the base, will simply leave, and they will not be able to catch up with it. With approximately equal speeds, the Americans will have the advantage that they left earlier and learned earlier about the Russians' exit.
Well, 10-12 days in clear water to the Kuril Islands is just a joke.
In general, it is somewhat similar to the Soviet battleships in the Great Patriotic War (take any one, none of them fought properly) or the Japanese Yamato and Musashi, which, despite their power, turned out to be single-use battleships, conditionally, because they were never used. Or the German Tirpitz, which was looked after throughout the war no worse than the Soviet battleships and which was also destroyed without causing any damage to the enemy.
But given that the Soviet battleships were just dreadnoughts from the First World War, the Musashi, Yamato and Tirpitz are more appropriate in such a comparison. Yes, they were powerful to the point of being ugly (especially the Japanese). Yes, they were capable of instilling fear and horror in any shore rat from the fleet's analytical department. But in the end, the British and American pilots, with the words "Save our whiskey," sank both Japanese super-battleships and dismembered the German one with bombs in shallow water.
Two historical digressions from the topic. The first one is the Musashi under American bombs, the second one is the Tirpitz at the end of its life.


This is how all super-ambitious projects end.
If the Orlans really do remain in the North, they will be of exactly the same use as they were at the beginning of their career. Why? Because no one thought about the reason why these ships were permanently laid up after 7–9 years. After all, it’s simple: some time was spent on training and getting the crew together, and… that’s it. Yes, each cruiser went on a voyage a couple of times to “show the flag.” And the Pyotr Velikiy did go on voyages in its Russian career.

But this demonstration is nothing more than the use of money in huge quantities. No one (of those who shout loudly about how necessary it is for Russia to show its flag on distant shores) thinks about how much it costs and where the profit is. But it would be worth it.
Who would be interested in an old, albeit modernized, cruiser? Who needs to show this flag? Well, developed countries are not interested, some have their own fleets. With "stealth" ships and BEKs. Africans? Latin Americans? Don't make me laugh, they are interested in demonstrating the dollar and writing off their debts. This is what interests them, and let's admit it: we can count our allies around the world on the fingers of one hand, what do they get from this demonstration if they can buy hydrocarbons cheaply?
No, of course, the ship will get some applause, but nothing more.
So it turns out that there is no one to demonstrate and nothing to demonstrate, and it is expensive, in general today there are other places to spend money, oddly enough.
Many countries (especially the US) have spent billions and billions on vanity projects that have come to nothing. Is it worth emulating them? The same question as 200 billion rubles, which could have been used to build three Boreys or four Yasen ships, which pose a real threat to our adversaries, is it too much to pay for showing the flag?
In the West, they understand perfectly well that within the naval department, the interests of the group that stood for the restoration of the Admiral Nakhimov won out. It is clear for what reasons, in the US, lobbying is a normal phenomenon, so they do not need to explain anything.
And it is equally clear that now the Admiral Nakhimov will be in Severomorsk, going out at best on training missions in its waters. And this will not even be at the will of the Russian command, it will be a political will: Moscow is unlikely to survive a second tragedy like the Moskva so calmly.

"Nakhimov" will be preserved in the same way. Perhaps for one battle, because in modern conditions there is very little chance that the cruiser will emerge victorious, or perhaps for the sake of political prestige, as was the case with "Admiral Kuznetsov" and with approximately the same outcome.
But it seems that four Yasen would be more effective. Although, of course, you can't show the flag with a nuclear submarine. But it has many other, no less valuable capabilities. But that would be a completely different story...
Information