Войти

The Era of Peter the Great: what fate awaits Russia's largest nuclear-powered cruiser

2441
2
-2
Image source: Фото: ТАСС/Лев Федосеев

The final decision on the expediency of repairing the flagship of the Northern Fleet has not yet been made — in case of abandonment, the ship will be disposed of.

The heavy nuclear—powered missile cruiser Peter the Great of project 1144.4 Orlan is awaiting a decision on its future fate - it will either be repaired or disposed of. So far, the Navy's main command has not issued a verdict on the Peter, according to Izvestia sources. The opinions of military experts on this matter are divided — some believe that the funds saved on repairs can be used to build several modern warships. Others believe that the Russian navy needs a combat unit of this class. At the same time, the ship of the same project, Admiral Nakhimov, was repaired for 26 years and spent more than 200 billion rubles on it. The situation around the cruiser is described in the Izvestia article.

Arguments against the repair of the Peter the Great cruiser

The repair of the heavy nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great is impractical, it is better to build new ships with these funds, says Admiral Sergey Avakyants, ex-commander of the Pacific Fleet.

"The idea of building heavy nuclear—powered cruisers is an absolutely unjustified cost—efficiency ratio," he told Izvestia. — I opposed spending on the repair of the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser in general. Moreover, in no case should you spend money on Peter the Great. It is much more efficient to use these funds to build several ships of the ocean zone, carriers of modern weapons — new ships that will be much more efficient than one such monster. The idea behind the construction of such ships is the idea of the battleship Bismarck.

The Admiral Nakhimov Cruiser

Image source: Photo: RIA Novosti/Oleg Lastochkin

The admiral cited not only the Bismarck as an example, but also the world's largest Japanese battleship Yamato: During the Second World War, both ships were relatively easily sunk, without having time to bring much military benefit.

— During the Second World War, 100 aircraft carriers were built in the United States, — Sergey Avakyants explained. — Of these, about 20 were large, shock ones. And 80 were small aircraft carriers, those that solved most combat missions. There should be a lot of equipment for war, and it should be relatively cheap and technologically advanced. And building expensive monsters is a dead end.

Izvestia sources familiar with the situation say that the Navy's high command has not yet made a decision on the fate of the Peter the Great.

"It makes more sense to build new frigates, including because the Peter the Great is now in noticeably worse condition than the Admiral Nakhimov at the time of the start of repairs," Ilya Kramnik, an employee of the IMEMO RAS Center for Strategic Planning Studies, told Izvestia.

Photo: RIA Novosti/Valery Lozovsky

Image source: iz.ru

He recalled that Nakhimov did not last even ten years after its construction, having been put on conservation.

—After all, the Peter has undergone a fairly intensive service, its remaining resource is small, and spending 200 billion or more to get a ship that will have to be written off in 10-15 years after repair is not the most reasonable expense," the expert noted. — Therefore, yes, it is quite possible that it would be more reasonable to build four or five new frigates that will serve for more than 40 years.

Arguments in favor of repairing the Peter the Great cruiser

However, there are supporters of another point of view, including those who believe that the repair of the Peter the Great is advisable, Ilya Kramnik added.

— They argue their position by the fact that this ship is a very powerful combat unit. But a combat unit by itself, no matter how powerful, is not always the best solution," the expert concluded.

According to military expert Dmitry Boltenkov, the Peter the Great should be repaired, because no new ships of this class will be built in the coming years.

— We have a well-built ship, which in 2000-2020 was one of the most seaworthy ships of the fleet. It has a nuclear power plant, that is, an almost unlimited range of navigation. The ship's main weapons systems, such as Granit cruise missiles or S-300F air defense systems, are quite effective, although they are clearly outdated. But most importantly, it is a cruiser of the same design as the Admiral Nakhimov. And Sevmash already has experience and a proven algorithm for upgrading such a ship. It would be a big mistake to lose this accumulated knowledge and skills.

jpg" title="Admiral Nakhimov Cruiser">

The Admiral Nakhimov Cruiser

Image source: Photo: TASS/Maxim Vorkunkov


At the same time, the cost of modernization is unlikely to exceed the amount spent on Nakhimov, since Sevmash shipbuilders already know all its problem areas, the expert added.

"It is impractical to write off a ship that is 27 years old," he said. — If we hypothetically spend 200 billion rubles on new frigates, then it will still be a long time before the ships become part of the Navy with the pace of their construction.

Military expert Captain 1st Rank Vasily Dandykin also believes that the Peter the Great should be repaired.

— But the decision will be made by the Maritime Board. In general, we are currently developing a trend towards building a coastal fleet. But it is necessary to observe the measure. Small rocket ships and corvettes alone will not be enough. We also need ships from the ocean zone," he told Izvestia.


In April 2023, information appeared in the media that the issue of removing the cruiser from the fleet was being worked out, allegedly due to the cost of repairing the Admiral Nakhimov ship of the same type. However, Izvestia's sources did not confirm this information at the time. According to their information, Peter the Great has sufficient resources and combat capabilities to successfully complete combat missions.

Peter the Great Cruiser

Image source: Photo: TASS/Ruslan Shamukov

The editors' interlocutors pointed out that the work on Peter the Great would not be as expensive as on Nakhimov. Nakhimov has been in a standstill for a long time, and a significant part of its components and mechanisms have failed. In fact, the ship was rebuilt. At the same time, Peter the Great was in operation and is constantly undergoing all types of repairs and maintenance. A significant part of its equipment has already been replaced with modern designs.

Izvestia reference

The Peter the Great cruiser is the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the only operational nuclear—powered surface ship in the Russian Navy. It is considered the largest non-aircraft carrier strike warship in the world.

The cruiser is equipped with a nuclear power plant and guided missile weapons and is designed to defeat large surface targets, as well as provide comprehensive air and anti-submarine defense.

The ship was laid down in 1986. He joined the Navy in 1998. In the following decades, he served in combat. In 2009, he guarded shipping off the coast of Somalia from pirates. In 2012, he was awarded the Order of Nakhimov. In 2013, he made an Arctic trip at the head of a detachment of ships of the Northern Fleet.

"Admiral Nakhimov"

Last week, the nuclear-powered cruiser Admiral Nakhimov went to sea for testing after repairs. This ship, which belongs to the same project as the Peter the Great, has been under repair since 1999. In 2023, it was reported that the cost of it doubled the initial estimate and amounted to more than 200 billion rubles.

— I was also a captain of the 1st rank, chief of staff of the division, when Admiral Nakhimov was undergoing repairs. Now I am a retired admiral, I have finished my service, I am 67, and he is just coming out," said Admiral Sergey Avakyants.

Photo: RIA Novosti/Pavel Lvov

Image source: iz.ru

The Orlan Project 1144 series of heavy nuclear-powered missile cruisers was laid down at the Baltic Shipyard in Leningrad in 1973. Nakhimov (then Kalinin) joined the Navy in 1988, made the last long transition in 1997, and has been under repair since 1999.

In total, four Orlans were built for the Soviet and Russian Navies: Admiral Ushakov (originally Kirov), Admiral Lazarev, Admiral Nakhimov and Peter the Great.


Roman Kretsul

Vladimir Matveev

The rights to this material belong to
The material is placed by the copyright holder in the public domain
  • The news mentions
Comments [2]
№1
26.08.2025 16:29
А мне кажется, здесь все достаточно просто: Почему-то финансировать строительство судов и кораблей отдали ВТБ. Естественно, ни авианосец "Адмирал Кузнецов", ни "Петр Великий" особой прибыли не принесет, а потребует солидных вложений в капремонт и перевооружение. Это же капитализм, понимать нужно. Поэтому и запущена кампания по, якобы, ненужности этих кораблей. Пятая, не пятая, но, где-то рядом...
0
Inform
№2
26.08.2025 18:41
Я так и не понял, какие аргументы "ЗА" модернизацию. "ПРОТИВ" - понятно, и аргументы IMHO "убойные". А вот "ЗА"?
Разве только "угроза потеря потеря квалификации и навыков", полученных при модернизации "Адмирала Нахимова". Но зачем сохранять их, я не понимаю - они больше (после возможной модернизации "Петра Великого") НИКОГДА и не потребуются.

Кто-нибудь может просто перечислить задачи, для решения которых НЕОБХОДИМ "Петр Великий" в обновленном варианте?
Кстати, верфи и их персонал без финансирования/работы не останутся. И надолго - "на очереди" проектируемые крейсера дальней морской и океанской зон (если верить словам командования ВМФ).

Цитата, Coalla Coalla сообщ. №1
А мне кажется, здесь все достаточно просто: Почему-то финансировать строительство судов и кораблей отдали ВТБ. Естественно, ни авианосец "Адмирал Кузнецов", ни "Петр Великий" особой прибыли не принесет, а потребует солидных вложений в капремонт и перевооружение. Это же капитализм, понимать нужно.
  

Вы вообще понимаете, за счет чего - кроме спекулятивно-финансовых операций - создается прибыль банков?
Банки (помимо "игры на бирже") живут на процент от капитала, возникающий из обслуживания заемщиками кредитов банка. А величина процента по кредиту, по сути, определяется величиной учетной ставки Центробанка. На которую ВТБ если и влияет, то ОЧЕНЬ косвенно.

ВТБ НЕ ВКЛАДЫВАЕТ собственные средства в "капремонт и перевооружение". Он просто дает ОСК эти средства взаймы - под процент, величина которого В ОСНОВНОМ опеределяется Центробанком. А ОСК - это Гос. корпорация, т.е. самый надежный заемщик.  

ВТБ может отказать - и откажет - в предоставлении кредита, если есть более выгодные способы вложения банковского капитала, и если нет ПРЯМОГО давления (неофициального, конечно) на этот банк со стороны правящего класса РФ - т.е. гос. бюрократии.

Пока на схему финансирования жалуются не банки, а промышленники - по причине СЛИШКОМ высокой кредитной ставки банков. Это промышленники жалуются, что "прибыль мала", а не банки.

Банк в той схеме - простой инструмент, практически автоматически реагирующий на "конъюнктуру". Но "банк", а НЕ "Центробанк" (в США - ФРС).
Не банки определяют, что нужно и что не нужно ВС. Банку абсолютно все равно, что будет с "кораблем" после того, как заказчик рассчитался по кредиту на его постройку. Если величина кредита одна и та же, как и сроки и условия его обслуживания, а также нет риска банкротства заемщика - банку без разницы, что там на этот кредит собирается строить ОСК. Хоть нового "Петра Великого" в старом корпусе, хоть несколько эсминцев/крейсеров, хоть бордели на побережье Арктики - если, конечно, возврат кредита с процентами и в срок гарантированы государством.

Государство же жалуется (в открытой печати), что цены завышают промышленники, а не банки.

А обязанность Центробанка - обеспечение финансовой устойчивости государства и курса национальной валюты, а не прибыль. Получение прибыли - задача банков, которые берут оборотные средства взаймы у Центробанка, под процент, задаваемый "учетной ставкой" Центробанка.

Путин "не трогает" (и не дает "съесть") Сахипзадовну потому, что она со своими обязанностями справляется прекрасно, обеспечивая и устойчивость финансовой и валютной систем РФ, и  рост экономики (хотя и не слишком его поощряя, это еще мягко сказано). Да, рост экономики Центробанк может ускорить - но ценой снижения устойчивости финансовой и валютной систем. Набиуллина твердо и отчетливо понимает, какая задача у Центробанка главная, а какие - второстепенные.

PS И вообще, кому (если не банкам :)) "отдать в условиях капитализма финансирование", раз оно "особой прибыли не принесет"? :)
0
Inform
Do you want to leave a comment? Register and/or Log in
ПОДПИСКА НА НОВОСТИ
Ежедневная рассылка новостей ВПК на электронный почтовый ящик
  • Discussion
    Update
  • 15.09 21:25
  • 1
О ВМФ РФ и евроНАТО
  • 15.09 16:31
  • 82
ChatGPT-4 и нейросети (ИИ) спешат на помощь ГШ ВС РФ и Российской армии
  • 15.09 12:23
  • 1
Очередной бывший чиновник Минобороны РФ арестован
  • 15.09 12:02
  • 39
Горечь от потерь России в Сирии навеяла мысли о Калмыкии
  • 15.09 05:34
  • 2
A domestic installation for creating semiconductors in space was sent to the ISS.
  • 15.09 01:11
  • 1
Власти Испании аннулировали закупки вооружений израильского производства
  • 14.09 22:20
  • 10514
Without carrot and stick. Russia has deprived America of its usual levers of influence
  • 14.09 19:06
  • 3
Ростех подготовит специалистов по управлению промышленными роботами
  • 14.09 15:25
  • 46
МС-21 готовится к первому полету
  • 14.09 12:24
  • 1
Чемезов назвал цену нового однодвигательного истребителя
  • 13.09 06:11
  • 0
Еще один комментарий к "ОАК: СВО показала, что российская военная авиация является лучшей в мире"
  • 13.09 05:04
  • 1
Почему опыт СВО - никуда не годная подготовка к ТМВ (и любой крупной войне)
  • 12.09 22:53
  • 0
Комментарий к "ОАК: СВО показала, что российская военная авиация является лучшей в мире"
  • 12.09 13:41
  • 1
ОАК: СВО показала, что российская военная авиация является лучшей в мире
  • 12.09 11:47
  • 1
Российскую авиацию сочли лучшей в мире