A rather unexpected point seemed to have been put in the case of the two Orlans, Project 1144 heavy nuclear missile cruisers.
Several media outlets, citing sources in the Ministry of Defense, reported that Kirov and Admiral Lazarev were being disposed of. They will spend a rather large amount of money on this (logically, a large ship will have a big disassembly) and two cruisers should become history by the end of 2021.
To what category of news can this be attributed: unexpected or natural?
Let's think about it.
Yes, the Eagles are a legend and in some way even a symbol of our navy. The world's largest non-aircraft-carrying warships of the Navy. These are the only ships in the Russian fleet with a nuclear power plant, that is, with an unlimited cruising range and initially "sharpened" for work in harsh climatic conditions, including in the Arctic region.
As you know, four Orlan-class cruisers were built for the USSR Navy:
"Kirov" (from 1992 to 2004 - "Admiral Ushakov"), entered service in 1980.
"Frunze" (since 1992 - "Admiral Lazarev"), entered service in 1984.
"Kalinin" (since 1992 - "Admiral Nakhimov"), entered service in 1988.
"Kuibyshev" (since 1992 - "Peter the Great"), entered service in 1998.
As you can see from the list, the construction of the ships took a very long period of time. If between the transfer of the fleet of "Kirov" and "Peter the Great" 18 years and two countries, then the whole series was built since 1973, that is, 25 years.
Today, only Peter the Great, the youngest of the cruisers, is actually in service. The rest … With the rest of the difficulties.
It is clear that primarily financial. Over the years, we have witnessed discussions of many projects related to the commissioning of cruisers after conservation. Real money appeared only in the state armaments program for 2011–2020.
However, even the allocation of funds did not cause much progress. Of course, the question arises: "Why?"
Yes, the most rabid part of our audience certainly has an answer. Plundered. I agree, not without this, not to steal today, when billions are allocated - this is not respecting yourself. But let's use one more scary thing along with the calculator. Calendar.
History of "Eagles"
So, Kirov. Joined the fleet in 1980. It was withdrawn from the fleet in 2002. That is, after only 22 years of service. Not enough, to be honest, not enough. Such ships can last longer.
Since 2002, the former cruiser simply stood in Severodvinsk, awaiting a decision on his fate. 17 years.
As a result, we have in fact a 40-year-old ship that spent half of its life with an unnecessary pile of metal. It's sad, but true. It is very difficult to imagine how much money and time it will take to get the ship back in service. And does it make sense.
Move on.
"Admiral Lazarev".
He entered the fleet in 1984, having served only 12 years. In 1996, due to an accident, the protection worked, and the reactor was shut down. Surprisingly, in 1997 the ship was sent to the reserve of the 2nd category, and in 1999 it was completely mothballed.
Since 1999, it was in a sludge, was disarmed, nuclear fuel was unloaded. It seemed that everything, the ship was really waiting for scrappage, but in 2014, the specialists of the 30th shipyard of the Pacific Fleet carried out dock repairs.
Year 2003
Year 2012
Year 2015. Better now, isn't it?
Is that all?
In general, there is one more problem with Lazarev. Repairs in the Far East with reloading of the reactor is impossible. So, like it or not, you have to drag it to Sevmash and Zvezdochka. How real this is, I do not even presume to judge.
Total for "Lazarev": age 35 years, in working condition 12 years, in a sump with dismantling - 23 years.
Approximate estimates: disposal of Admiral Lazarev will cost the country 350 million rubles, and Kirov - 400 million rubles. A penny … The restoration will obviously cost more if it comes down to it. And, as you know, to break is not to build.
Russia's problems
But let's think about it.
And let's think about this. Is this resuscitation necessary at all? If, in fact, two huge ships stood idle, without special supervision and repairs for 40 (FORTY) years for two. That is, on average, 20 years.
And if at least one hangs out next to the plant, where it can be revived, then the second … It seems to me that "Lazarev" has no chance at all.
To begin with, it seems to me, it is generally worth assessing how useful these ships are. There is no dispute, a huge and majestic cruiser is beautiful. This is impressive. This awakens the spirit, shows the flag of Russia and denotes presence in different regions of the ocean …
Well, I don’t know what can better demonstrate the Russian flag, the latest destroyer with great capabilities, or a huge ship of the second half of the last century? What can, say, someone from the Sarych family demonstrate? Atlantis? Eagles?
Yes, only one thing.
The fact that today Russia has degraded so much in comparison with the Soviet Union that it only demonstrates the ability to keep the forty-year-old ships afloat, inherited from the USSR.
Their successes are more than modest. This is the completion of Peter the Great and Admiral Chabanenko.
In general, if we want to demonstrate our power to such mighty maritime powers like Venezuela or Cuba, then yes. It will go. The rest is doubtful.
As for the combat use, everything is also sad here. The presence of the TARK project 11442 is only half an orange. Yes, our Ministry of Defense officials have said more than once that "Peter the Great" is capable of single-handedly fighting a whole American AUG. But to fight does not mean to win.
The fact that "Orlan" is a strong combat unit even today is indisputable. But there is a nuance. It is worthwhile to think carefully which is better in modern naval combat: 50 anti-ship missiles on one ship or scattered in five to 10 pieces? Who, then, is more likely to run them all and hit?
Difficult question, I agree.
But the fact that "Peter the Great" will not dismiss everything that can be launched into it from the side of the classic AUG of the US Navy (1 aircraft carrier, 1-2 cruisers of the Ticonderoga class, 4-6 EMs of the Arleigh Burke type), here I have no doubt about that at all.
And we have problems with the organization of the UG of the Russian Navy. Because there is simply nothing to make it up. And this is also a fact.
No, you can, of course, theoretically, in which case, gather from three fleets a vigorous team of pensioners that we have. 2 "Orlans", 2 "Atlanta", a dozen BODs and the same ancient destroyers.
What for?
Well, in general, this is ridiculous. We simply won't be able to collect them from three fleets. Do not have time. But even if we collect, what, these goners will be able to greatly shake the American fleet? 10 aircraft carriers, 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers, 67 destroyers?
If not, why all this?
In the far ocean zone, the USSR navy could solve some of its tasks. For the Russian Navy to demonstrate something to the Papuans, one "Peter the Great" is enough. But let there be two ships. Let it be the same in the Pacific Ocean.
These ships may well pay a visit somewhere, show off in front of American aircraft carrier formations (so that the Americans have something to photograph against the background). Fortunately, the Eagles do not need to carry fuel tankers with them, thank God.
You just need to remember that this whole demonstration is nothing more than puffing out your cheeks. Expensive cheek puffing, if that. Two such ships will be very expensive to maintain, and their combat value today is more than questionable. Tomorrow even more so.
In any case, they should be replaced by new ships with new equipment and weapons. And this is worth spending money on, and not on maintaining the appearance of defensiveness by shamanism over ships that have been waiting for 20 years to be cut into metal.
Let them wait. We are, of course, completely to blame for the fact that the Orlans did not realize their potential. But also to drag two more ancient cruisers on their shoulders so that they show off somewhere a couple of times a year …
Better to spend money on the construction of several "Boreis". Obviously there will be more benefits.
