The fate of the heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR) "Admiral Lazarev" until recently remained the subject of heated debate. Pessimists said that the ship, which entered service in 1984, no longer has a chance to survive until the modernization, similar to the one that the ship of the same type "Admiral Nakhimov" is currently undergoing. Indeed, the timing of its completion is constantly shifting to the right, it all started in 2018, now it is called 2022, and who can guarantee that there will be no new progress? At the same time, Peter the Great, the only cruiser of this type that remained in the operational fleet, was commissioned back in 1998 and has not undergone any major repairs or modernization since then.
In 2022, "Peter the Great" will "knock" 24 years old, and it is obvious that he should take the place of "Admiral Nakhimov" - if, of course, we want this ship to continue to guard the maritime borders of the Fatherland. But in this case, the modernization of "Admiral Lazarev" will not be able to begin earlier than the end of the 20s of this century (an important caveat in the realities of our ship industry). But is it worth taking on a ship then, whose age will approach 45 years?
"Admiral Lazarev", still alive
Thus, the pessimists have already written off "Admiral Lazarev", but the optimists, as always, hoped for the best. To the deep regret of the author, most likely, the pessimists were right this time - recently there was news that our oldest TARKRs, "Admiral Ushakov" and "Admiral Lazarev", will still be utilized, and even the amounts provided for to eliminate them.
Despite the fact that the author of this article in that dispute belonged to inveterate pessimists, it is painful for him to realize that "Admiral Lazarev" will never return to the active fleet. Apparently, somewhere deep in my soul, there was still a glimmer of hope for a miracle, which, alas, did not happen. But … maybe this is correct?
Do we really need nuclear cruisers?
The news that the most powerful nuclear cruiser will soon leave on its last journey caused quite heated discussions, during which this point of view was also expressed. The explanation is simple: the money that could be spent on the modernization of the project 1144 TARKR could build several frigates or nuclear submarines, the benefits of which would be much greater than from a giant missile cruiser. Let's try to figure out if this is so.
The first thing I would like to note is that, unfortunately, there is no exact data on the cost of upgrading the "Admiral Nakhimov". In 2012, A. Shlemov, at that time the head of the state defense order department, estimated its cost at 50 billion rubles, of which 30 billion rubles. should have been spent on restoring the technical readiness of the cruiser, and 20 billion rubles. - for the purchase of new weapons. However, the indicated figure, unfortunately, does not clarify, but rather only confuses the matter. For example, Izvestia, referring to this interview, reported that at that time the cost of the project 22380 corvette was 10 billion rubles, and the project 22350 frigate - 18 billion rubles. Hence, in a number of publications, it was concluded that the cost of modernizing the TARKR would be the price of about 5 new corvettes or 2.5 frigates. But where did these prices come from?
According to the open press, the cost of the head corvette of the project 20380 "Guarding" has increased from the planned 6 billion rubles.(rounded off) to 13 billion rubles, but we are talking about a ship that did not receive the Redut air defense system. At the same time, the contract price (excluding VAT) of serial corvettes 20380, ordered for construction in 2014, amounted to over 17 billion rubles. If we bring these prices in 2012 according to official inflation, it turns out that the cost of the project 20380 corvette was over 15 billion rubles, that is, five corvettes for 50 billion rubles. it would have been impossible to build.
But you need to understand that the figure voiced by A. Shlemov is preliminary, and that according to the results of the inspection of the ship, the costs of its repair and modernization have obviously increased significantly. Thus, we come to where we started - the exact cost of work on the "Admiral Nakhimov", alas, is not clear.
Nevertheless, we, perhaps, will not be too mistaken in assuming that the cost of returning this nuclear-powered cruiser to service will be equivalent to the cost of building three frigates of Project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov". Here we will compare the upgraded cruiser with them.
What will Admiral Nakhimov get?
Unfortunately, little more is known about the features of its modernization than about the cost. It is absolutely certain, perhaps, only that the place of 20 "Granit" anti-ship missiles will be taken by 80 UKSK mines intended for "Onyx", "Caliber", and, obviously, "Zircon". It is also known (but this is a little less reliable) that no S-400 will be installed on the TARKR, and the S-300F complexes on it will be modified to the level of the S-300FM. But as for everything else …
It was repeatedly stated in various publications that Admiral Nakhimov would receive the Poliment-Redut air defense system, and this was extremely logical. The fact is that, unlike Peter the Great, which has at least gradually outdated, but still formidable Kinzhal air defense systems, Admiral Nakhimov was armed with Osa-M air defense systems, which are practically useless in modern naval combat. Obviously, replacing them with more modern systems is uncontested, and here Polyment-Redut would be the best fit - a relatively compact, but, at the same time, the most modern domestic maritime air defense system.
Nevertheless, the intrigue remained - solely due to the fact that the developers of "Polyment-Redut" did not manage to bring their brainchild up to condition, and if so, then why put an inoperative air defense system on the ship? However, relatively recently, things still went smoothly - the lead frigate of the 22350 series, carrying this complex in full configuration (that is, not only the Redut air defense system, but also relying on it according to the Poliment radar project), was nevertheless adopted fleet, and its land-based counterpart, the Vityaz air defense missile system, managed to complete the state tests.
Lead frigate of project 22350 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov"
Again, for reasons that have nothing to do with the air defense system, a series of Project 22350 frigates was greatly delayed in construction, which means that production facilities will certainly not be overloaded with orders for Polyment-Redut in the near future. Thus, it can be assumed that there will be no special problems with the production of this complex for "Admiral Nakhimov". It is difficult to say how many missile launchers will be installed on the TARKR, but, given their compactness, at least a hundred mines should be expected. In the end, was there a place for 128 "Daggers" on "Peter the Great"?
But what will happen to ZRAK-s is completely unclear. "Nakhimov" had 6 installations "Kortik", but they may well go for replacement - nevertheless, the complex entered service 30 years ago, in 1989. However, what exactly will it be replaced with? A "budget" option is not excluded, in which the "Dirks" will be modified to "Kortik-M", if it is technically possible at all, but this, frankly, will not be the best solution. According to the author of this article, the sailors did not speak very well either about the "Dirk" itself or about its modification. Let's just say, there is an opinion that the complex works more or less decently only in "greenhouse" conditions, but in the sea, in combat services, something constantly breaks down.
If so, then there are 2 other options for Admiral Nakhimov. Perhaps the TARKR will be equipped with the Broadsword ZAK, which is a purely artillery, missile-free complex, since initially, when it was created, it was supposed to pair the Broadsword with the Polyment-Redoubt, so they had to complement each other.
ZAK "Broadsword" on the boat R-60
But it is possible that the cruiser will receive six Pantsir-M installations. But the two-gun mount AK-130, most likely, will remain in its original form, unless they add a more modern MSA for it. However, this is normal - the artillery system came out very powerful and rapid-fire.
As for torpedo armament, again, one can only guess. Before the modernization, "Admiral Nakhimov" had two five-pipe 533-mm torpedo tubes PTA-53, which made it possible to use not only torpedoes of the corresponding caliber, but also PLUR "Waterfall", and the total ammunition load of torpedoes and PLUR was 20 units. It is hard to imagine that today, given the emergence of new and very advanced 533-mm torpedoes, someone would risk dismantling these devices, and why?
True, the powerful torpedo armament was not accompanied by an equally powerful anti-torpedo arsenal, and this could be considered one of the ship's shortcomings. In fact, only RBU-12000 (one) and RBU-1000 (2 units) bombs could be used as an anti-torpedo weapon, and false targets, imitators, if such could be taken instead of part of the ammunition load of 533-mm vehicles. Today, the Russian Navy has a very good "Package-NK" at its disposal, which, of course, "asks" for the TARKR, because the latter, of course, is a tasty target for enemy submarines. But it would be extremely strange to replace the 533-mm devices with "Paket-NK", where it would be more logical to sacrifice bombs. And although it is more than likely that our anti-torpedo complex will surpass three RBUs with ammunition and equipment in weight, such an overload is unlikely to become at all noticeable for a ship of almost 25,000 tons of displacement. The same goes for the place for its placement.
Thus, we can more or less reasonably assume that the weapons of the modernized TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" will be:
80 UKSK cells for missiles of the Caliber, Onyx, or Zircon families;
92 cells of the S-300FM "Fort-M" air defense missile system;
100 or more cells of the Polyment-Redut air defense missile system;
6 ZAK "Broadsword";
1 * 2 130mm AK-130 gun mount;
2 * 5 533-mm torpedo tubes, ammunition - 20 torpedoes and PLUR "Waterfall";
2 * 4 or, possibly, 2 * 6 324-mm "Packet-NK" torpedo tubes;
3 helicopters.
Now let's compare all this splendor with the armament of three Project 22350 frigates.
Impact potential
Here the three "Gorshkovs" are obviously losing, and they are losing "with a bang." Each frigate has only 16 slots for missiles, only three frigates have 48 of them. But the problem is not even that 80 cruise missiles in the TARKR are noticeably more than 48 such missiles in frigates, but in the absence of 533-mm torpedo tubes on the ships of the project 22350 devices.
In fact, all the standard anti-submarine weapons of these ships (not counting the helicopters) are only 2 * 4 324-mm Paketa-NK. This is a good anti-torpedo weapon, but for an anti-submarine one it has too "a short arm" - the MTT anti-submarine torpedo has a maximum range of 20 km only when the speed is reduced to 30 knots. According to these parameters, a small torpedo will never, of course, be able to compete with the "large" 533-mm "colleagues" - the same Mk.48 had a range of 38 km at a speed of 55 knots back in the 80s of the last century. In addition, the "Paket-NK" torpedoes are not universal; another ammunition, M-15, is used to destroy enemy torpedoes. Thus, the anti-submarine potential of "Paket-NK" is not only insufficient, but also reduces the anti-torpedo protection of our frigates, because MTTs can only be taken instead of part of the M-15.
All this suggests the need to place something more anti-submarine long-range on the frigates of Project 22350, and there is such an opportunity: as you know, the Caliber family of cruise missiles includes PLUR 91R / RT. But, again, only at the expense of "spending" the cells of the UKSK, since these PLURs can be taken only instead of cruise missiles of other types. And so it turns out that long-range anti-ship (or against ground targets) and anti-submarine weapons on the modernized TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" are represented by an ammunition load of 100 units, including 80 missiles or PLUR in the UKSK and 20 torpedoes or PLUR in 533-mm torpedo tubes, and the three "Gorshkovs" have 48 cells for everything about everything.
In other words, in terms of their strike capabilities, the triplet of Project 22350 frigates is outperformed by the TARKR by about half.
Air defense
Here, the lag of the three Project 22350 frigates is perhaps even more fatal than in the case of the strike potential, although, perhaps, this is not so obvious at first glance. To begin with, let's try to understand the capabilities of the Fort and Polyment-Redut complexes.
According to the data available to the author, the situation with the "Fort" is as follows: initially the complex was a marine analogue of the S-300P, and was armed with 5V55RM missiles, that is, the marine analogue of the 5V55R missile defense system. In this version, the "Fort" air defense system was installed on the Project 1164 missile cruisers and the first two nuclear-powered cruisers, the firing range of 5V55RM missiles reached 75 km. At the same time, it is very likely that such a range was not the limit for the missile, but was limited by the means of its guidance. And later, when the capabilities of the FCS were "tightened", the range of the "Fort" air defense missile system with 5V55RM missiles on all the above ships reached 93 km.
However, for "Admiral Nakhimov" the complex was modernized - the launching air defense systems "learned" to accept 48N6 missiles, which has a firing range of up to 150 km. However, the creation of an adequate fire control system again lagged behind, and the TARKR received the same FCS as on other ships, that is, its firing range continued to be limited to 93 km. Apparently, it was in this state that he was "found" by modernization.
But with the extreme cruiser of the series, "Peter the Great", everything is somehow unclear. The ship was armed with 2 air defense systems, one of which is exactly the same "Fort" as those that were installed on the "Admiral Nakhimov", carrying 48 48N6 missiles. The second air defense system "Fort-M" was armed with an even longer arm, 46 48N6E2 missiles with a target range of up to 200 km. But as for the control of fire, there remain ambiguities. The fact is that the photographs of "Peter the Great" clearly show two different fire control stations, one of which is the classic ZR41 "Volna"
But the second is clearly a more perfect version of it.
Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the maximum range of 150-200 km for the 48N6 and 48N6E2 missiles can only be provided by one fire control station installed on the bow superstructure of the ship, and the aft one has a range of no more than 93 km. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the stern is still modified to be able to use 48N6 missiles at their maximum range, that is, 150 km.
So if, according to available data, "Admiral Nakhimov" will be armed with 2 "Fort-M" air defense systems, thus, he will be able to use up to 92 missiles 48N6E2 with a firing range of up to 200 km.
And what about Polyment-Redut? According to the official website of its manufacturer, the Almaz-Antey concern, today the ammunition load of this air defense system includes three missiles. We are talking about the 9M100 short-range missile, which is capable of striking air targets at a distance of no more than 15 km, the 9M96 medium-range missile (up to 120 km) and its improved version 9M96D, which has a range of 150 km. Thus, it seems that it turns out that the Reduta missiles are not too inferior in their capabilities to the Fort-M air defense systems and, at the same time, are much more compact. So, maybe it would be worthwhile to dismantle the monstrous Fort-M launchers altogether and replace them with a large number of Polyment-Redut air defense missile systems? Moreover, it has long been announced about the development of a "long arm" for the newest air defense system - missiles with a range of up to 400 km, with the help of which the capabilities of the Polyment-Redut are supposed to radically surpass the outdated Fort-M air defense system.
Perhaps one of the respected readers may have the feeling that the author measures the effectiveness of an air defense system solely by the range of its missiles, but this, of course, is completely wrong. The author is well aware that short-range, medium-range and long-range missiles have their own tasks and roles in providing air defense for a ship or formation. There is no point in trying to shoot down the Harpoon anti-ship missile that appeared over the horizon from a distance of 25 km using a missile defense system designed to work at a distance of up to 400 km, which, by the way, is much heavier than the Harpoon. In addition, the ammunition load of the Polyment-Redut air defense missile system successfully combines different missile targeting capabilities - medium-range missiles have an active radar seeker, and a small one - infrared seeker. And if you also remember that instead of one medium-range missile, you can “ram” as many as four short-range missiles into the standard cell of the Redoubt complex? And this is not the whole list of advantages of a mixed ammunition load.
Nevertheless, ultra-long-range missiles are an extremely important means of air defense for individual ships and formations. The fact is that in the attack of modern aviation, "conductors" play an extremely important role, that is, control aircraft that control the battlefield and ensure the deployment and attack of aviation in accordance with the data they receive. In American carrier-based aviation, this role is performed by AWACS aircraft - the most powerful radar gives them excellent situational awareness, and a large crew allows you to control other aircraft. It is AWACS aircraft that are today the "brain" of modern carrier-based aviation.
However, they also have their own technical limitations. In fact, AWACS carrier-based aircraft do not operate above 8 km, which gives them a theoretical viewing radius of 400-450 km, but in practice such aircraft prefer to observe the enemy from a distance of no more than 250-300 km. The distance seems to be not great, but to this day it was impossible to "get" them there by means of naval air defense (except for the Kuznetsov TAVKR aircraft, of course, but, frankly, without the support of their own AWACS, they have not so many chances). And it is clear that the appearance of missiles with a range of 400 km will make it extremely difficult for the enemy AWACS aircraft to work - now they will have to huddle up to the radio horizon, lean out for a while to clarify the situation, and hide again, and all this significantly reduces their capabilities - but what else can you do if at the head of the enemy warrant is a cruiser with dozens of ultra-long-range missiles?
But back to the Polyment-Redut air defense system. The author had 2 questions to the "long arm" of this complex, and the first of them is this: can the "Poliment" radar station aim the missile defense system at such ranges? After all, the air defense system was originally conceived for missiles with a firing range of no more than 120 km. Of course, it can be assumed that in fact, these missiles represent only the first stage of the development of the complex, and the range of missiles used by it was originally supposed to be expanded to ultra-long range inclusively.
The second question is, in what way is it supposed to cram ultra-long-range missiles into the cells of the Redut air defense missile system? As you know, for the S-400 complex, an ultra-long-range 40N6E missile defense system was created relatively recently, capable of hitting targets at a distance of 400 km. But its length is 7.5 m, and its mass is 1.9 tons! At the same time, the Polyment-Redut air defense missile systems are much more modest - their length does not exceed 5.6 m (in the 9M100 - generally 2.5 m), and the mass ranges from 140 to 600 kg. In other words, ultra-long-range missiles are much larger than those medium-range missiles that Polyment-Redut uses, which, by the way, is perfectly illustrated by the photo below.
True, it does not capture the newest 40N6E, but the earlier 48N6E2, but it has dimensions similar to the 40N6E - a mass of at least 1.8 tons and the same length of 7.5 m.
So there were only two possible answers to the question posed - either the size of the cells of the Polyment air defense missile system was accepted with a large margin, or the ultra-long-range missiles were supposed to be placed somewhere else. The first is extremely doubtful, because the Polyment-Redut air defense system was still positioned as a complex for ships of moderate displacement, like frigates, on which every ton of weight and cubic meter of volume is extremely in demand and in short supply. Thus, most likely, ultra-long-range missiles should be located somewhere else. And where? The answer to this question, most likely, is contained on the same official website of Almaz-Antey:
“For firing anti-aircraft missiles, Polyment-Redut uses launchers (PU) of the universal ship complex 3S14 (UKSK), which in the Russian fleet is equipped with ships carrying Kalibr cruise missiles and Onyx anti-ship missiles”.
And this, generally speaking, is completely logical, because the dimensions of the Caliber missiles (up to 2, 3 tons and up to 8, 22 m in length) are very similar to those of super-heavy missiles. So why build a garden with some kind of separate, giant cells? On the contrary, a very good unification is obtained - UKSK for cruise missiles, PLUR and heavy missiles, and smaller ones, suitable, by the way, for installation on ships of small displacement "Reduta" launchers for short and medium-range missiles.
So, we have already said that the 48N6E2 missiles included in the Fort-M air defense missile system and the 40N6E ultra-long-range missiles have almost identical weight and dimensions. Thus, in all likelihood, there will be no problems with the placement of ultra-long-range missiles in the drum launchers that remain on the Admiral Nakhimov.
And this is what happens. Each frigate of Project 22350 has 32 cells of the Polyment-Redut complex, respectively, there will be 96 of them on three such frigates. Apparently, the same or even more cells of this complex will be on one modernized TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov". But, in addition to this, the "Nakhimov" will have another 92 cells to accommodate super-heavy "long arm" missiles, capable of "reaching" the enemy at a distance of 400 km. A certain number of such missiles, however, can be placed on the "Gorshkovs" by placing them in the UKSK, but … again, only by weakening the strike potential.
In other words, the TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" can carry up to 80 cruise missiles (including anti-ship missiles), and in addition, up to 92 heavy missiles, and up to 20 PLUR in torpedo tubes, and in total, it turns out 192 heavy missiles for various purposes. And three frigates of the type "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Admiral Gorshkov", although, in principle, can carry the same range of CD, heavy missiles and PLUR, but their ammunition is limited to only 48 units.
Thus, according to this indicator, one modernized TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" is four times (!!!) superior to three frigates of Project 22350.
In terms of other air defense systems, the Admiral Nakhimov and the trinity of our frigates have an approximate balance - the passage cells of the Polyment-Redut air defense missile system, we have already said, the ZAK (or ZRAK?) On the Nakhimov will have the same number of three frigates (two per frigate), and superiority in one 130-mm barrel is difficult to recognize as decisive.
It would also be interesting to analyze the capabilities of the updated TARKR through the missile guidance channels. As you know, Project 22350 frigates are equipped with four phased arrays, each of which controls 90 degrees.sector, resulting in coverage of the entire horizon. Each of these grids is capable of guiding 8 missiles at 4 air targets, and this, I must say, is not an amazing indicator. Simply because, in theory, of course, an Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate is capable of attacking 16 air targets simultaneously, but only if they attack it from all four cardinal directions. Thus, three frigates of the "Gorshkov" type will be able to fire at 12 air targets attacking from one direction, or 24 - from two, or 48 - from four.
Now let's look at the TARKR. He, obviously, will have exactly the same "Polyment", which is on each of the frigates, which will give him exactly the same capabilities as one frigate of Project 22350. However, in addition to this, the "Admiral Nakhimov" will have two more radar posts of the OMS complex "Fort-M".
This complex is far from new, but each such station was previously capable of providing a simultaneous attack on 6 targets with 12 missiles (two missiles per target). Thus, we can say that one TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" will be capable of simultaneously firing at 16 air targets attacking from one direction, 20 - from two, and 28 - from four. In other words, we see that the capabilities of the TARKR to repel an attack from one direction are higher than those of three frigates, but in the case when raids are carried out from several directions, the effectiveness of the TARKR decreases and becomes worse. True, here it is worth considering a few more important nuances. Firstly, it is probably easier and more reliable to distribute targets between the weapons of one ship than from three. And the point here is not only and not so much in the capabilities of computers, they have long been capable of much more, but simply in data transmission lines. Indeed, in battle it is necessary to exchange data on-line, at a time when the enemy uses all the power of his electronic warfare means.
The second nuance is that the "Fort-M", in the form in which it is installed on the "Peter the Great", was developed back in the 90s, and since then two decades have passed. It is likely that the upgraded LMS radar stations will be installed on the Admiral Nakhimov, capable of firing at more targets than was possible before, and thus the lag we recorded from the three Project 22350 frigates will be reduced or eliminated altogether.
The third nuance - remember that the last American missile cruiser of the Ticonderoga class became part of the US Navy back in 1994, and ships of this type have not been at the forefront of scientific and technological progress for a long time. The newest destroyers "Arlie Burke", the construction of which is still ongoing, have much more advanced electronic "stuffing". But, oddly enough, American admirals still prefer to have at least one missile cruiser as part of the AUG, because, in their opinion, it is more suited to the tasks of an air defense control ship of the order than any destroyer. The cruiser is corny more, it has additional premises, better communication capabilities, etc. As for our TARKRs, for them the role of the leader of the compound was initially assigned and the existing modernization is likely to only improve the previously available capabilities. In any case, organize the work of any headquarters, coordinating center, etc. on a ship with a displacement of more than 24,000 tons, it is much easier than on a frigate with a displacement of 4,500 tons.
Anti-submarine capabilities
Those of three frigates of Project 22350 are higher than those of one nuclear-powered cruiser, but not as much as it might seem at first glance. The main advantage of the three frigates, of course, is that, unlike the TARKR, they can be in three different places at the same time. At the same time, the TARKR, apparently, has a more powerful hydroacoustic complex, and its air group - 3 Ka-27 helicopters - corresponds to that of frigates, each of which carries only one such helicopter. As for the ammunition load, the number of 324-mm torpedoes on three frigates will probably be more than on one TARKR, but this advantage is largely offset by the Admiral Nakhimov's capabilities to carry powerful and long-range 533-mm torpedoes.
So, having briefly considered the capabilities of the modernized TARKR and equivalent frigates, we come to the conclusion that the capabilities of the TARKR are somewhat inferior, in some ways they are not inferior, and in some ways they are significantly superior to those of the three ships of Project 22350. In the next In this article, we will compare the capabilities of Admiral Nakhimov with the Yasen-class multipurpose nuclear submarine, since they are quite comparable in price, and at the same time we will try to figure out whether there are certain tasks of our navy that the modernized TARKR will be able to cope with better than frigates or MAPLs … Or maybe there are such tasks that no one can cope with except for the TARKR? And after that it will be possible to try to assess the plans for the construction of nuclear destroyers (rather, heavy cruisers) of the Leader project.
