This is the question, why have a floating target when you can have several Submarine Atomic Cruisers of the Yasen-M type, which can slip away after firing from several different places, also with a crew of only 64 ??
You keep calling aircraft carriers floating targets, but subs are invincible?
Russia has lost more Subs than they have lost aircraft carriers.
Imagine the Nakhimov fires a salva missile in the North Atlantic, then you have the entire NATO navy doing the "hunt for the Bismark"
And HATO ships getting sunk by Russian Corvettes and MiG-31Ks will be the result... HATO might have a rather bigger and on paper impressive fleet but in reality they actually can't even operate within MiG-31K range of Russia without the serious risk of being sunk in enormous numbers.
Any ship on its own is vulnerable... that is why you use ships in groups to provide mutual defence...you can make a group of all corvettes or you can make a group that can defend itself properly and also take the fight to any enemy that wants to present itself.
Cruisers, Destroyers and Carriers are important components of a decent grouping of ships.
Imagine this ship sunk in the North Atlantic, 750 guys frozen to death like the passengers of the Titanic, a very hard blow
And the nuclear attack on the country responsible with millions of dead will help Russia deal with that loss... the fact of the matter is that we have no idea what happened to the Moskva, but what is pretty obvious is that if it had a decent upgrade of all systems including its fire suppression systems and air defence and sonar systems and it was part of a group of ships working together protecting each other it would probably still be sailing around today... but because they went fucking cheap and left it with its original armament and equipment something happened.
Give me more Yasen-M for 40-50 billion rubles each , and send "Peter the Great" to the Naval Museum
Yeah, cause Russian Subs never sink losing all hands...
All this workforce should be making Yasen-M like donuts.
You are not understanding the strategic issues here... a Yasen-M is an SSGN... which is very good if the role is taking down the US Navy... but the US Navy can't get anywhere near the Russian coastline in fear of being killed by MiG-31Ks with Kinzhal right now and in the near future whatever they design to replaced it now they have working scramjet engines.
Russia does not need cruisers and aircraft carriers to win WWIII, they need a blue water navy to secure their interests in trade with the rest of the world... which is something a Yasen would be totally useless at... because revealing its presence would actually make it rather a victim than a bully... and just sinking ships is an act of war.
The only reason to modernize the Nakhimov is not to have two nuclear cruisers at the same time, in fact, the reason is not to go 10 years without a nuclear cruiser if the PtG were modernized.
If they had wanted to have 2 nuclear cruisers they would have had them operational at the same time, but anyway when an MLU arrives you are left without one for years-
Having two means refits and repairs don't need to be periods when you don't have long range cruisers available to your navy. You can upgrade one and test it and while it is being tested you can crack open the other one and see what needs to be replaced and fixed... eventually you will work out what worked well and what was probably not worth spending money regarding the first upgrade after extensive testing and then you can decide what to upgrade on the other vessel.
so the Royal Navy is not a "blue water" Navy?? its largest combat ships are the Type 45 with 6000-7000 tons
In its own terms it is a support Navy to HATO and Britannia no longer rules the waves anywhere.
They have to borrow ships from other navies to provide a full escort to either one of their two carriers... they planned to have 12 new destroyers but ended up only being able to afford 6 and they have serious design problems... for a country leaving the EU market and expecting its old commonwealth to be its new market... if it needed a decent navy that would be now... and it simply hasn't got it... especially with the F-35s they operate from their carriers which will likely suck up most of their budget... if they are lucky a few more will crash and they can save some money on operational costs... reported to be 96 thousand pounds per flight hour...
The US Navy should have combat ships larger than the Burkes?? (I don't even count the Ticos anymore, they are a relic of the Cold War)
The US will have hundreds of destroyers, so they don't really need cruisers... and it is really funny you use the British Navy and the US Navy as examples as both have aircraft carriers... which you seem to ignore.
Surely if carriers are floating targets they would be the first designs to be scrapped and replaced by destroyers or frigates...
The USA had several nuclear cruisers but they were a failed experiment, they did not last long in service and also did not have more than 180 meters in length
So Russia needs LCSs and some Zumwalts as soon as possible...
While the strategy of the USSR and now Russia and China is to help developing countries to develop, through cooperation and technology transfer. That is, Iran must be able to defend itself, the same as any other major country, Russia will help it, but it will not send its ships to the Persian Gulf in a systematic way.
If Russia wants access to the worlds oceans they need ships that can go there and stay for months if needed... sending one at a time is stupid... so groups of ships... that will need to be protected.
In the current conflict Russia has not just used ground based radar and ground based SAMs to defend its surface forces... it is actively using AWACS and fighter and ground attack aircraft to support operations and it will be the same at sea... whether they are manned or unmanned, airborne radar is useful.
Russia does not need ships in the middle of the Atlantic or the Pacific and of course today the large ships are doomed to disappear, as in the 1940s the battleships were
A single police officer is not safe either, but when you have groups of them and they all work together then they become an effective force with the right equipment and support.
Russia needs a police force that can rescue the third world from the organised crime gangs of the west... the organised crime gangs of the west have lots of military resources and just having some SSGNs is not going to cut it.
Maybe you should look for a world map and take a look at it:
It is the USA that is isolated from the World Island (Eurasia + Africa) where 7 out of 8 human beings live
It is only isolated if you deny it a navy like you seem dead set on in regard with Russia.
Without a navy Russia will rely on others to deliver its goods and bring it goods and implement its trade with the rest of the world.
Most of Russias problems right now is grain and fertiliser stuck in European ports because European middlemen shipped Russian goods to the world on european ships using european insurance... most of Russian trade was in US dollars on EU ships and with EU insurance... Russia was handing the west lots and lots of money for nothing... but more importantly when Russia shipped things on western ships and insured things with western companies the west had a very very good idea of the Russian economy and its trade relations and its future... well using Russian ships insured by Russian companies with contracts paid in Rubles or Yuan.... and all of a sudden the west doesn't know everything about Russia any more... but Russian ships with Russian insurance sure as hell need a Russian Navy that can come to the rescue if things go wrong because you can bet your arse the US Navy or the British Navy or the French Navy for that matter are not coming... or they are already there and are the problem.
Why do you think that the UK maintains bases in Gibraltar, Cyprus, Djbouti, Diego Garcia, Singapore, Brunei, etc...???
Because they are colonial
As London diminishes as a financial centre their ability to maintain such bases will sort that out soon enough.
the size of surface combat ships will go down and that of missile-launching submarines will be larger than theirs.
I don't doubt new Russian destroyers and cruisers wont be as big as Cold War equivalents, but their carriers will be bigger than 50K tons... they have already said as much and so if you have a big target you want to take to sea with you then make it as big and as capable as you can make it and make big cruisers with lots of missiles to help defend it.
Russia is never going to have as many ships as HATO so their ships need to be very capable... they do have the advantage that they don't need to police the entire world all the time like the US used to.... but even they are shifting responsibility there too... it wasn't long ago that the US said the UK could look after Europe while they focused on Asia and China which was seen as the bigger problem... hahaha... how did that turn out.
The Sovremenny with 7900 t and +350 crew will be covered by the 22350 of 5400 tons and 200 crew
Not really... the 22350 is still a frigate, while the Sov was a destroyer class... the ability to carry weapons has greatly improved and while you can suggest that new ships can carry more than previous cold war generation ships, I would argue that new ships will need rather better weapons to do their job.
A British destroyer in the Falklands could be overwhelmed by a single Exocet missile attack with one missile attacking. Their SAMs had one or two guidance channels so only one or two targets could be engaged at a time.... a modern destroyer needs to do rather more than carry more missiles... even a single Kashtan mount can do better than a British destroyer from that period but odds are one Kashtan mount wont be enough these days either.
Russia is in a much better position than the British or US because even their Onyx missiles are a challenge, but even still they will be launched in volleys to improve their chances of getting results.
For HATO a very large force can be amassed... but needs to be amassed because Harpoons and Tomahawks are obsolete attack weapons, whereas a single Zircon will have a good chance of getting through the strongest defences and put any ship out of action for a while.
Battlecruisers like the Kirov are a thing of the past.
Large cruisers make sense for Russia because they are not going to have 100s of destroyers... they might end up with 30 or 40 frigates and 24-36 destroyers and maybe 8-12 cruisers if they can get the funding over the next few decades, but even that wont happen overnight.
Cruisers make sense for Russia even if it is not so sensible for other navies.
An of course having a large fleet of ships means protecting them with aircraft also makes sense too.
The UK saved money getting rid of their fixed wing aircraft carriers and the result was that Argentina thought they could take them on.
If the UK had fixed wing carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers they would have greatly reduced their losses and made a victory more sure... to the point where the conflict might never have happened in the first place.
"No decisions were made on the cruiser Peter the Great. It fulfills its intended purpose as part of the Northern Fleet, "
If they had dozens of cruisers then getting rid of a few older ones would make sense but the Orlan class makes more sense than the Atlant class in terms of potential for upgrades and operational performance...
True that Nikhamov was a very long and frustrating stop start affair, but I think the Navy knows what it wants by now. The Peter should be ready at a fraction of the time and cost imo.
Taking an old house and trying to modernise it can be slow and expensive the first time, but the second time you do it you have experience and you can test the upgraded house and work out what changes were worth the time and money and what changes were not.
The PtG is a working ship... unlike the Nakhimov, which has spent most of its operational life in dry dock or doing nothing at all.
The Orlan class is not a uniform class, there were changes... the first ship had two 100mm gun mounts while the others had the single twin 130mm gun mounts, and I would expect the time between the first and the last ship being built the internals changed a bit too.
The goal is not to create a brand new super ship that is the best in the world and can escort aircraft carriers on their own and invade countries to steal their stuff.
It is a long range large ship with enough space for enough weapons for a fight without having to run away mid fight for a reload... it is a ship the west notices.
It is also an opportunity to try new stuff that will end up on their new destroyers and new cruisers, which will avoid problems in the future... perhaps they might want to test new nuclear propulsion systems too... perhaps a laser based air defence system?
Plenty of room for a big gun and lots and lots of missiles.... and big radar and lots of optical ball mounts for laser target markers to illuminate enemy drones for laser guided rockets or laser guided shells to hit... or just more powerful lasers to take out.
In any case, the Peter the Great should not be modernized, its time has passed.
Lack of modifications and upgrades probably sank the Moskva. If you want to put them in service then they have to be able to fight and if they have to be able to fight then they need upgrades and improvements to allow them to do so in a different age from when they were built.
Look at all the upgrades to the T-72 to make it combat worthy... and how successful and cost effective such upgrades can be... but you are suggesting using a T-72 built in the late 1970s with no upgrades at all and thinking you can send that into battle...
The Russian MIC are not profiteers... if it costs x amount then that is what it costs... but the more UKSK launchers you buy and the more redut systems and improved TOR systems you install that is more money and experience to the companies that make them that allows upgrades and improvements to their systems and weapons which leads to further improvements to your destroyers and cruisers when it comes time to make them.
The Nakhimov will take the baton until approximately 2040-2045.
And there is no reason why an upgraded PtG can't continue operations just as long with the right upgrades and improvements. That is good value for money and it means they can spend more time getting their new cruisers designs right.
This list goes on but some people will always fall for the gimmick.
It is funny that people claim large carriers are obsolete because of swarm drones and hypersonic anti ship missiles... but who has those hypersonic missiles... and how good have they been over the years making ships able to stop their own anti ship weapons?
Kashtan was designed to stop Soviet supersonic anti ship missiles and their new air defence systems will be developed to stop Zircon and missiles like that... if anyone can work out an AD system that can stop ICBMs and hypersonic missile threats it is Russia... and of course how is an enemy naval group going to carry a viable drone swarm... well the Orlan class was one of the original carriers of 20 supersonic swarm drones called Granit.... 7 ton anti ship missiles that communicated and coordinated their attacks to maximise their lethality... and with an upgrade they can carry 80.
To carry enormous numbers of drones that are so small they are difficult to detect and deal with using modern SAMs you will need some pretty big ships to cart them around in....ships that could be targeted from thousands of kms away by a hypersonic anti ship missile the Russians might already be making for those UKSK launch tubes or the bigger tubes for their S-500 missiles for their cruisers.
A Cruiser sized ship with a 203mm gun on the front and another at the rear could deliver a drone swarm itself... firing 50 rounds a minute with shells carrying a scramjet motor to accelerate the shells to 10 times the speed of sound to reach targets 500+km away with optical guidance... spotting ships sitting on sea water is pretty easy... a simple IIR sensor could be used to find targets easily enough... completely passive with each round finding its own target moving at enormous speed it might not even need a HE warhead... the kinetic damage alone might be enough.... perhaps a 5kg HE bursting charge with another 10kgs of incendiary material to get a good fire going...
Maybe you're right, but the last Pr.885M was laid down back in 2020. Actually two of them on the same day. Nothing since...
Indeed... plans can change... maybe they had a breakthrough in some technology that they want to put in the next gen design and so cancelling the last two Yasen so they can start the new design sooner could be the new plan.
Considering the rate, they can simply lack the space.
Naval planning is complex and part of that planning revolves around shipyard space.
A new focus on their navy for connecting Russia to the world without going through Europe to get there might lead to more investment in shipyards and training new workers and introducing new tooling and new materials and new systems... and getting rid of foreign owners of ports and shipyards who leech money from the system and actively slow down growth and development in Russia.
On the other hand, in practice the Nakhimov really did take a lot more time and money than expected,
Well perhaps part of the problem with the Nakhimov is that the PtG was out there doing what the Nakhimov was needed for so there was less urgency to get it out and working, and when the PtG goes into dry dock it wont need to be rushed because the Nakhimov will be testing out the upgrades and improvements whose experience can be fed back to decide what upgrades or changes might be most useful and cost effective.
and what's more the vulnerability of the Moskva cruiser proved alarming - a ship which was more or less a design contemporary of the Peter the Great.
Bollocks... the Moskva was a not upgraded plan B ship for use in case the Orlan class was a failure or ended up being too expensive.
Is it really risking pilling all this money and time into a legacy platform, which will inevitably be less protected and have a whole bunch more crew to lose to the sea than a whole new modern, smaller, more automated class?
The crew of the ship is determined by the systems on board... a really big ship like a cargo ship does not automatically have a huge crew, while a cruise ship will have a very large crew and compliment to look after the passengers.
An Orlan... even in its original form was well protected from enemy action with excellent radar and air defence systems and sonar and its own aircraft too.
I wouldn't say Zirkon is that good. For it to be good it needs a very good plateform too. Russia still lack a good number of Gorshkov class. The Zirkon blue water carriers can be counted on one hand...
Every new and upgraded Russian Navy ship will carry launch tubes to carry Zircon (UKSK) and even ships that don't carry it can have a shipping container with them inside so they can launch them too. Zircon is excellent... it is like a tomahawk but TEN times faster and a rated similar range (about 1,500km).
US navy still has the advantage with more carrier based fighters that have long range missiles which combined with fighter range gives them a longer strike range than zirkon,
Except those US carriers are vulnerable to even just one Zircon, while a Russian Corvette which might carry 16 Zircons would require a half dozen Tomahawks to have a chance to kill them... experience in Syria suggests that the BUK system is very very efficient at destroying low flying subsonic missile threats and I would suggest the Viking S-350 would actually be even better in that role... Russian air defence is excellent, so even if they lack outright numbers they have powerful attack and powerful defence capacity that should make the west rather nervous.
The real game changer is Kinzhal IMO and future hypersonic missiles mounted on fighters. They have strike range of almost 4000km from plateforms that are way safer than ships.
Kinzhal is excellent but to get that range it needs to be launched at high speed and high altitude... there is no way it would get its reported 2,000km range launched from an aircraft slower than a MiG-31K.
Kinzhal and MiG-31Ks are excellent for coastal defence, but to reach further and to operate around the world from ships and subs you need Zircon... the ground or surface launched Kinzhal is the Iskander which can only reach 500km, so Zircon is the best option at the moment.
But now they have it working and ready for service I am sure they will be able to boost performance with larger fuel tanks and optimised rocket/scramjet design... shortening the solid rocket booster might allow them to carry hundreds of litres more fuel which might extend its flight range considerably, and new algorithms for speed and altitude could further extend its effective range and flight speed...
Best for russia is to restart mig-31 production to get 100 newly build kinzhal carriers.
The speed with which they can get airborne and launch their missile and return to base and repeat I would say they wont need enormous numbers of them because ships will take a long time to leave the area so the engagement time frame will allow them to slaughter a carrier group quite efficiently.
The Kinzhal missiles are in mass production so they wont be running out of them any time soon.
But MiGs and Kinzhals are only good around Russia... the Med, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Northern fleet area and Pacific... aircraft carriers and cruisers will be useful around the world... and don't think the Zircon is their last missile... they will continue to make new missiles and weapons and systems of all sorts of types... including drones.
You would at least need something like the Tu22M3M with a bit more legs to have a significant strategic impact.
I think the MiG-31K is the best platform for the job till the MiG-41 is ready... the Kinzhal is rocket powered so the higher and faster you can launch it the better its performance that is otherwise fixed. With Zircon it has a scramjet motor that can be throttled to use fuel as efficiently as possible, so it would be better for use from a range of platforms from land based Tu-22M3Ms to carrier based Su-57Ks... with a external wing pylon mount ... so the plane can get airborne and fly to the launch point where it releases the two Zircon missiles continue its mission with weapon bays otherwise full of weapons.
It is claimed that they removed the radar in the MiG-31K and it became unable to conduct long range air defense to balance the center of gravity of the aircraft, or reduce the weight, or whatever so it can carry Kinzhal.
I think the removal of the radar was also to make it lighter so it could fly faster and also make it cheaper. When launching Kinzhals against enemy ships that are up to 2,000km away from the launch position flying there at mach 2.6 and then immediately turning around and flying back to base at a similar speed means the air threat to these aircraft would be low, but you could have an escort of MiG-31BMs if there was any risk.
Removing hundreds of kgs in radar makes the planes lighter and faster and cheaper which is all good news as a Kinzhal launcher.
They are not strategic missiles.
They would be used in WWIII to stop naval attacks from western countries so in that sense they are strategic defence missiles.
But those are not blue water navy and are not well defended.
They are mobile and entering service and will eventually form a rather large force of quite a large number of launch tubes...
If you want to launch them from your shores just load a truck with a uksk launcher, way cheaper.
Zircon is a replacement for Onyx, so Bastion launchers will get it, but most enemy ships will recognise the threat and loiter at greater ranges so having a corvette that can sail 1,000km out into the sea to launch an attack is useful, and of course Yasen class and even Kilo and Lada class subs can launch surprise attacks from almost anywhere.
Oscar and Yasen-M are very good plateforms. But they will have their hands full trying to counter the 50 Virginia subs. And they are still more expebsive than a squadron of mig-31D by a great margin.
Oscar is an anti carrier sub... Lada and Kilo class SSKs will be hunting western subs in Russian waters, while Yasen and Shchuka subs will be hunting western attack subs in open waters...
Last time I check they plan to keep only 90 mig-31.
They are keeping MiG-31BMs for interception duties... the numbers for the MiG-31K are for the Navy and are counted separately.
They have put the engines back into production which suggests they will bring some more out of storage and back into use. The MiG-31K is a cheap upgrade because it doesn't need a radar or other sophisticated stuff...
1500km range + 2500km range of kinzhal is 4000km strike range.
The longest range I have seen for the Kinzhal is 2,000km and the flight radius of the MiG-31K at mach 2.6 is 750km... so 750km out... launch... and 750km back... about 13.5 minutes in each direction... so from takeoff to missile impact could be as short as 13.5 minutes plus 2,000km divided by (330m/s x 10) which is about 10 minutes missile flight time plus 13.5 minutes aircraft flight time... so three and a half minutes before your MiG-31K is to land at the airbase it took off from the target will have been hit if it was 2,000km away at the time of launch.
23.5 minutes from takeoff to ship destruction... say 20 minutes to refuel and reload a new missile and you could sink a lot of ships very quickly.
Waiting till they get closer will increase the missile launch rate...
All the countries and enemy navues are within reach from safe launch positions. I would buy 200 mig-31D even without radars and r-37 capability and some 1000 kinzhal any day way before ordering any cruiser or destroyer.
And when those enemy navies remain 3,000km away from your territory and blockade and regime change any country that dares to trade with you and your economy starts to contract... how are you going to pay for those planes or anything really.
Western tactics is contain and isolate... a navy is the opposite of being contained and isolated.
Well if it takes even a third of the same amount of effort or time as the Nakhimov, then might as well just put that instead towards building the lead ship of a new class that you'll have to do anyway sooner or later, and by doing so actually save money in the long run.
They are not going to build any ships that size or capacity any time soon so they would not save any money at all, they would just lose capabilities.
Upgrading the PtG only makes sense as a stopgap essentially until the new class of nuclear powered destroyers is ready. How long will that be if maximum effort is geared towards that versus gearing maximum effort towards upgrading the last remaining Kirov-class in service?
The new destroyers and new cruisers are likely to be all electric drive with nuclear power plants for electricity generation so they likely wont be laying any down for a while, which means upgraded old ships are it for the time being... which is actually not a huge problem because as I keep saying... they are not for WWIII... they are just a presence that can ensure Russian access to the worlds oceans and trade partners in the rest of the world.
If on the other hand the PtG can be upgraded in 4-5 years time tops, for an affordable price and no chance of delay, then sure, it might be worth it.
If it was up to me there would be two options... one would be to say that the Nakhimov is doing its job so the PtG is not a huge priority so a relatively cheap upgrade to sort out problems and issues and upgrade the sensors and weapons could be done relatively quickly and cheaply... but the other option might be to take advantage of the fact that the Nakhimov is in service so they could try some new stuff on the PtG like new AESA radar arrays and new huge sonar arrays and perhaps a new Nuclear power plant that will be used in the new destroyer and new cruiser designs so you get to work out any problems and issues that might come up so that when you start building the new destroyers first their radar and sonar and new weapon systems will have some of their bugs worked out already and already be in production perhaps.
A 152mm gun for destroyers could be mounted on the PtG for testing, with new ammo and testing storage and gun arrangements that could be mounted ready to go on new Destroyers... then perhaps in 10 years time the Nakhimov could get a 203mm gun mount for testing for new cruisers.
New missiles and laser systems and of course new jamming and EW equipment etc etc.
New drones too...
The Tu22M3M/Khinzal can easily reach Pearl Harbour from Russia. The Mig-31/Khinzal can not.
But Tu22M3M launched Kinzhal wont have the same missile flight range as it would launched from the faster higher flying MiG-31K... and besides a Yasen launched Zircon launched from the South Pacific would be more of a surprise, and less need to fly past Japan and the risk that would entail for a large aircraft.
Aviation with long range hypersonic missiles is just the perfect tool to destroy enemy navies.
Horribly vulnerable... an SSGN would be rather better... in fact for strategic attack SSBN would be best... or thunderbird and poseidon launched from Russian airspace/waters would be easier and simpler.
Modernising the PtG won't require re-inventing the wheel, just repeat orders of materials and ammendments of the previously developed documentation.
Most of the time with the Nakhimov was spent wondering whether to even upgrade it at all, and of course when they did decide to upgrade it there would be issues with components sourced from Ukraine or other former soviet states that were contributing when it was built but not when it came to upgrades...
Now the west is full on nazi, a working cruiser is even more valuable to Russia and their new role reaching out to the rest of the world for trade and improved relations.