or you can spend a GINORMOUS sum of money to build a bigger NPP so it can travel 30kn for 25 years ... nah they made the pragmatic decision. Much lower risk, much lower cost and still an incredibly capable ship
They have already made the mistake of using under powered NPPs for large ships... the Kirov class... and their experience means they have developed a new generation of NPP designed for big heavy ships... they are currently putting some on their icebreakers.
Putting a NPP system on a big ship and then also putting another propulsion system on there to make it go fast enough to actually be useful is not a good solution... it was the only solution they had at the time... and not their first choice.
Now they have the proper propulsion system... they will likely go with combined NPP and electric drive... meaning no big heavy shaft drives, no expensive gears or transmissions... just put the heavy NPPs in the best places in the hull and electric pods in suitable places and you have a powerful and manouverable large vessel... in fact you have a few if you do the same to the kuznetsov and the Kirov class vessels worth saving.
Large cruisers are more useful than a carrier and can defend themselves so can go off on their own if needed... they are great for good will visits to allies and new potential trade partners.
go look up on how its reactor got cracked and how worried they are about the ship. The reactor is has leaked for years that ship is a contaminated mess. Oh you prefer Russia spends billions trying to get it working and it's crew dieing from radiation posioning? get real holy shit.
If the ships reactor is cracked and leaking then it NEEDS to be removed and dealt with... not left in place to continue leaking and deteriorating further.
I am going to say this once to you, replacing a nuclear reactor is a lot more than simply opening up the back of the vessel they would have to gut the entire thing, install so much more shit. Do you know how the reactors in the kirov are designed? I do.
OK... be a dickhead. Look up the word impossible in the dictionary and then get back to us... or not.
Study ship construction, study how Nuclear reactors are installed then come back here and tell me shit okay?.
Some sort of one way portal like a black hole I guess...
They don't know how to safely dispose of it.
Plus there is the issue of that 30 something-year-old nuclear fuel.
Pretty obvious... tow the thing to international waters and sink it in deep water like any evil superpower would and just deny all knowledge...
Upgrading Lazarov will cost at least as much as brand new Borei SSBN, upgrading Ushakov could cost as much as brand new Yasen SSGN (maybe even more)
You are not getting it... they don't need another Borei or another Yasen... what they need are ships bigger than a frigate.... most of which are going to be nuclear powered anyway.
That's one 3 decades old battlecruiser versus one brand spanking new nuclear submarine
Numbers are clear, Lazarov and Ushakov have simply hit the price wall, no going around it
They are going to have to test the electronics and sensors and systems of big ships at some stage... testing them in the next 5 years on upgraded existing ships, or in 10 years time on scratch new builds... which makes more sense?
The weapons can also be tested but in the most part will just be larger numbers of the systems on Frigates and Corvettes with the exception of the bigger guns and bigger missiles... (152mm guns and S-400 and S-500 missiles).
Yeah, Russians are all stupid and live in mud-huts... can't possibly figure out how to complicated stuff like decommission their own warships.... what a idiot...
The Russians can be stupid, but they were smart enough to work out what funding they could get from the west and what the west was not interested in funding.
ie the west will spend all the money in the world to destroy SS-18 missiles or Tu-160 bombers or Akula class SSBNs... even if it wont spend a cent to help Russian kids in orphanages or help hospitals get new drugs cheaper that might be useful...
Firepower means nothing when faced with overwhelming numerical superiority. 2 Burk destroyers easily match that firepower. How many Burks are available to USN at any given moment?
Why do you keep bringing up the US Navy?
Who gives a fuck what a Berk can do... if the Russian upgraded Kirovs are fighting American Berks then those Zircon missiles will have mostly nuke warheads... so how many US sailors will be dead before all 20-30 Zircons have launched?
And what is in the other 50-60 tubes?
Because that Yasen is probably most capable SSGN in existence. It can easily take out as many enemy vessels as Kirov and unlike Kirovs they are by default designed to operate alone.
Alone it will be dead much quicker than if operating with supporting friendly vessels.
Kirovs are great if you have access to Soviet sized navy and you have enough vessels to build a task force around them.
When a Frigate has the fire power of two cold war destroyers then the support of two or three destroyers and a couple of frigates would be plenty.
Even more important in the cold war those ships operating with the Kirov would rely on that Kirov to coordinate the defence of the group... today it would all be digital and every new node like a sub or corvette would contribute to that defence bringing weapons and sensors and systems to add.
And even at peak of it's power Soviet Navy still favored submarines over surface ships.
And that didn't matter because most of the Soviets allies were in eastern europe so land based connections to europe and asia could not be effected or affected...
In the next few years and decades Russia will need to look around the world for trade partners and if it wants to keep those trade routes open it had better be able to send a carrier group to keep it open... or the west will piss all over them...
Bleat on about USN Berks all you want but they wont try any blockade shit against a strong Russian Navy... if it only has subs however Russia will need to sink a US ship to have their say... is that going to happen?