"A Cold War Nuclear Dinosaur": Why Russia is Returning the Admiral Nakhimov to Service

6 261 35

The heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov has begun the final stage of testing following a comprehensive modernization. This means it will soon join the Northern Fleet, significantly expanding its capabilities. The cruiser, built during the Soviet era, was subsequently laid up for a long time, awaiting complex and expensive repairs. When the Russian Federation finally found the funds for these repairs, it turned out that the delay actually benefited the ship.

As experts note, while the Admiral Nakhimov lay peacefully in dock, Russian science was hard at work developing cutting-edge weapons. These included the modern Paket-NK and Otvet anti-submarine systems, improved Onyx anti-ship missiles, Kalibr cruise missiles, and, most importantly, the Tsirkon hypersonic missiles. Furthermore, universal naval launch cells were developed, allowing the use of all of these weapons from a single ship.



While the cruiser initially carried only 20 anti-ship missiles, after the modernization this number increased to 80. Admiral Nakhimov's defense against naval and aerial drones has been significantly expanded. Its defenses include 96 anti-aircraft missiles, a naval version of the Pantsir, an AK-130 artillery system, helicopters, and, apparently, its own drones. However, all this does not guarantee 100% protection for the cruiser itself. Therefore, Admiral Nakhimov has additional protection.

As experts emphasize, the Admiral Nakhimov's primary defense lies in its very concept of deployment. Russia needs this ship not as a strike force, but as a center of defense for the strategically important Arctic region. After all, its impressive size allowed it to accommodate not only the most extensive arsenal but also the latest electronic equipment. This equipment is very energy-intensive, so a nuclear power plant is required to power it.

Experts say its capacity would be sufficient to supply heat and electricity to an entire city of 150 people. In short, the Admiral Nakhimov is a reconnaissance and command center for a wide range of Northern Fleet assets—other ships, drones, aircraft, and shore-based systems. Essentially, it's a well-protected floating command center, capable of remaining in constant motion for months at a time, thanks to its nuclear propulsion system.

However, there's another reason why the Admiral Nakhimov was returned to service. This is to provide cover for nuclear submarines during deployment, strikes, and withdrawals. It's no secret that our submarines armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles are on patrol in the Arctic region.

The thickness of the ice hides them from aerial and satellite reconnaissance, but at the moment of deployment for an attack, missile launch, and especially withdrawal from positions, the submarines become most vulnerable to enemy anti-submarine weapons.

That's why they require external cover. The Admiral Nakhimov carries Tsirkon hypersonic missiles with a range of over one thousand kilometers. This means the ship is capable of keeping enemy surface fleets, including their carrier strike groups, at a respectful distance.

The cruiser itself has additional protection from guard ships and coastal assets – the S-400 and Bastion systems, and aircraft based on islands in the northern seas.

Thus, if we perceive the cruiser not as an independent combat unit, but as a center of defense for a strategically important region within the framework of a modern network-centric concept of warfare, then all questions about its necessity disappear.

As for the danger posed by drones, the war in Iran has shown that it is exaggerated for large formations with multilayered defenses. Despite the fact that American forces operated in the narrow confines of the Strait, and Iran had thousands of missiles, drones, and boats, it failed to sink a single warship.

35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    14 June 2026 13: 15
    Nobody remembers the cruiser "Moscow".
    1. +4
      14 June 2026 13: 22
      Well, pUtriots like doremidont and the like claimed in 2022 that the main thing was that the guys were safe, and they'd still be churning out cruisers...

      Well, how about DoReMidont, how many did you make???!!! And not all the guys turned out to be safe...
      1. -2
        14 June 2026 13: 54
        Well, first of all, Nakhimov was mistakenly and deceptively called a cruiser, like Moskva. These are obviously battleships judging by their performance characteristics. The real cruisers currently being built in series are 20385 and 22350. So, you're wrong to attack the patriots, and you're clearly not a patriot yourself... Shame on you! All Central Intelligence Agency (CIS) members should be put in the pillory!
        1. -1
          20 June 2026 11: 04
          Well, first of all, Nakhimov was mistakenly and deceptively called a cruiser, like Moskva. These are obviously battleships based on their performance characteristics, but the real cruisers currently being built in series are 20385 and 22350.

          Wow, your education is really bad, you must be a child of the Unified State Exam.
    2. +1
      14 June 2026 19: 21
      What about the Moskva? It burned for 12 hours and sank as a result of the fire. There's no damage, the mast is intact, and underneath it, there's a black square on the side—that's where the fire started. It's amazing how a missile hit and left behind a perfect black square, even though there are no longitudinal bulkheads, meaning even if the missile had hit the opposite side, which isn't visible in the photo, it wouldn't have created the perfect black square visible on the side.
      I won't keep you in suspense any longer; it's obvious that the Moskva was blown up by a saboteur.
      On the Moskva, two horizontal flues run along the upper deck. Inside the ship, these same flues also run horizontally between the engine rooms. In the forward engine room, they heat the heat recovery boiler. Just before the highest mast or rigging point, the flues exit onto the upper deck and turn back into a funnel. The funnel and flues can be accessed from the crane platform or from inside the ship. The flues are located very low within the funnel, allowing the incoming gases time to cool within the funnel. Thus, the saboteur easily climbed into the flue, walked along it at full height, and planted a bomb above the crew's mess hall. It was located under the AK-630 onboard gun mounts and directly above the black square on the side. The black square is the location of the fire in the stabilizer room between the two engine rooms; a second bomb was planted in the flue above it. There's a fuel tank in the stabilizer room on the bulkhead, and three more fuel tanks in the forward engine room. The fire burned out two stabilizer bays, creating two holes. This is what the design documents say is causing the ship to sink. The power and survivability control room was at the epicenter of the explosion, and the spare fuel tank is also nearby, under the funnel, in the longitudinal corridor on the port side, where smoke is billowing from the portholes. Therefore, there was no power on the ship, and they couldn't extinguish the fire, and the bomb could have been planted by anyone at any time. After all, no one else would go into the flue and find the bomb.
      1. -1
        14 June 2026 20: 12
        Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
        I won't keep you in suspense any longer; it's obvious that the Moskva was blown up by a saboteur.

        I don't believe the missile strike theory either, but the cause is most likely different. The cruiser was simply completely destroyed by constant use without proper repairs.
        1. 0
          15 June 2026 02: 22
          I forgot to mention that two holes caused by the burnt-out stabilizer bays flooded two engine rooms, causing the ship to sink. It can withstand flooding of three adjacent compartments, excluding the engine rooms.
      2. -1
        14 June 2026 21: 07
        Opinion. I know the sea beyond pictures. The cruiser was first rescued and then sunk. Why they sunk it, I don't know.
        1. -1
          15 June 2026 11: 51
          The crew was evacuated, and the cruiser Sevastopol also burned. It was the prototype for the Moskva cruiser; they even look similar. At the time, Sevastopol had just been put in for repairs, and all the fire hoses and other equipment had been handed over, but nothing new had been received. When the fire started, there was nothing to put it out with. The fire started from a tall mast, where demobilized soldiers were sharpening their aiguillettes on a lathe. As one sailor told me, the rescuers eventually fled from them, perhaps afraid of an explosion. And the Sevastopol was completely destroyed by fire.
          The sailors on the Moskva were also unable to put out the fire themselves; there was no electricity, so they were evacuated, and water filled in, but there was no crew or electricity.
          1. -1
            15 June 2026 15: 10
            The sea was 2-point rough. The cruiser was being towed, which means there were rescuers on board. You write that the ship was afloat for 12 hours. It was in those 12 hours that its fate was decided. We came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth exposing it to the world. Regarding the fire, there were no pumps, no electricity, I'll tell you, but there were rescuers who had everything. Metal doesn't burn in water. You can check in the kitchen with a pot of water; as long as there's water, nothing will happen with the pot.
            1. 0
              15 June 2026 19: 03
              The stabilizer bays inside the ship burned without water, creating holes. The cable runs in the watertight bulkheads burned away, turning the bulkheads into a sieve. The only area where cable runs are missing is on the decks; there are so many of them that you can't see the ceiling or walls; they're everywhere. The cruiser is a labyrinth of five internal decks; an outsider would inevitably get lost there, and no one would expect the rescuers to fight for survivability. Well, the rescuers couldn't, then. The regulations don't specify how rescuers fight for survivability.
              And then there is AMG - it's metal
              1. 0
                15 June 2026 22: 17
                Dear Vladimir Sokolov, please tell this to a person who is far from the sea, ships, steamships and vessels.
                The cruiser's hull is in good condition and not damaged. It just needs to be raised and a new ship built using the existing hull. Not a big deal with modern technology.
                1. 0
                  16 June 2026 02: 11
                  That's right, the ship's hull is intact, just a black square in the aft stabilizer room. It has no longitudinal bulkheads, while the rooms above it do have longitudinal bulkheads. The explosion occurred right there, in the central section, and there's no visible external damage. Between the upper and lower explosions is the crew mess hall. This is also a room from side to side without longitudinal bulkheads. From the crew mess hall, the fire spreads perfectly throughout the ship along corridors; two corridors lead from the mess hall forward and two from the stern.
                  And as I said, the stabilizer bays burned out, and two engine rooms were flooded. The ship couldn't withstand it and was sinking. Well, yes, they pumped out the water, applied a patch, but it was torn off during towing, and they didn't bother to reinforce the holes in the stabilizer bay. It would take a sailor to show how to get there, and all the sailors had been evacuated. Only rescuers were there; no one listened to the sailors anymore, asking who they were if the ship had been abandoned.
                  1. 0
                    16 June 2026 12: 55
                    Perhaps someday they'll raise it, and we'll hopefully learn the ship's condition. The 154-meter-long Kursk submarine lies at a depth of 100 meters. A piece of its bow was cut off and disposed of secretly. Why? Such questions are being asked about the cruiser Moskva. Your arguments don't prove that it couldn't have been saved.
                2. 0
                  20 June 2026 11: 46
                  The oldest cruiser, the Moskva, should have been decommissioned 20 years ago. Its hull had long been in a deplorable state; it had been patched and painted. There's no point in raising it for scrap metal; it's too deep.
                  1. 0
                    20 June 2026 23: 16
                    It's deep, 58 meters; we haven't even reached the 100-meter isobath. Regarding repairs, that's a philosophical question. Divers are working at these depths. A team will be dispatched to raise it.
            2. -1
              16 June 2026 01: 11
              And yes, let's assume the bulkheads in the stabilizer room were solid, without cable runs—that was a stretch. But the stabilizer room was in shambles, and all the decks above were pierced by explosions. The flue gas ducts were also there, supplying air. And the flue gas ducts are long, too; they run above the forward engine room, and a bomb could be planted there, as were the fuel tanks. The engine room bulkheads burned without water and were completely destroyed. On the ship's diagram, the stabilizer rooms are marked in red, as are the missile magazines, and the compressor rooms are also red. At the very least, the service tank was on fire.
              The fire also spread into two longitudinal corridors along the ship, and anyone below the corridors was cut off by the fire.
    3. 0
      14 June 2026 19: 21
      Yeah, and the cruiser "Ukraina" too.
    4. +1
      20 June 2026 11: 02
      What's there to remember? They drove an ocean cruiser off the coast to perform tasks that weren't its natural course, and got the expected result.
  2. -1
    14 June 2026 13: 21
    I agree that Nakhimov could be useful in the Barents peace as part of the air defense and anti-aircraft forces, although the concept of such a battleship was certainly outdated even before its construction in the USSR...

    TTX
    Some tactical and technical characteristics of the Kalibr missile:
    The range is up to 1,500–2,500 km (depending on the modification). For ground-attack modifications, the maximum firing range in the export version is limited to 300 km.
    Speed: During the cruising phase of their trajectory, most missiles travel at subsonic speeds of approximately Mach 0,8 (Mach 1,000, approximately 1,000 km/h). The 3M-54 anti-ship missile's cruising stage separates upon approaching its target, and the warhead, powered by its own rocket engine, accelerates to a speed of approximately Mach 2,9 (approximately 3,500 km/h).
    Flight altitude is from 20 to 50 meters above the ground or sea.
    Guidance type: inertial system + satellite correction. Upon approaching the target, the active radar homing head is activated, allowing the missile to independently lock onto and track the target.
    The missiles are capable of maneuvering both horizontally and vertically, automatically adjusting their course to the terrain and bypassing enemy air defense systems.

    So the replacement of relatively heavy, albeit outdated, missiles with small, unified torpedo tubes (rocket-torpedoes) naturally led to an increase in launch cells, and it is important that the SSBNs also switched from fairly large Soviet missiles to relatively small ones.
    1. +2
      14 June 2026 13: 57
      Quote: vladimir1155
      The concept of such a battleship was certainly outdated even before its construction in the USSR.

      The concept of a battleship (a heavy artillery ship) was already outdated during World War II. However, the heavy missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov is not a battleship.
      1. 0
        14 June 2026 14: 12
        The concept of battleships became obsolete in Tsushima... A battleship is a strike ship, overwhelming the enemy with its combat power for a battlefield duel with other ships and for coastal bombardment, while a cruiser, frigate, or corvette is used to perform escort, reconnaissance, anti-piracy, and (cruiser) functions. This was the original purpose until the 21st century. The Nakhimov's armament is clearly not that of a cruiser; it is a strike ship, and its power is clearly great, in the style of a battleship. Its displacement is greater than that of any battleship of the past. It is not a gunboat like the Buyan or Karakurt, meaning it is an analogue of a 20th-century battleship.
        1. 0
          14 June 2026 14: 52
          Quote: vladimir1155
          So it's a 20th-century battleship analogue. A missile battleship.

          It doesn’t mean anything.

          Quote: vladimir1155
          The US is actively decommissioning its cruisers.

          Their fleet serves completely different purposes. And it's expensive, even for the US, to equally support two types of attack ships.
          Although, by and large, modern large warships are peacetime weapons used for power projection.
          1. 0
            14 June 2026 21: 44
            Quote: k7k8
            It is expensive even for the US to equally support two types of attack ships.

            But Russia currently maintains 9 types of attack ships, not counting submarines.
            1. +1
              14 June 2026 21: 52
              In fact, attack ships comprise six types (excluding submarines), each with subtypes. In my post, I was referring to heavy attack ships. There are only two of them (they're also the most expensive): aircraft carriers and heavy missile cruisers.
  3. +1
    14 June 2026 13: 24
    "A Cold War Nuclear Dinosaur": Why Russia is Returning the Admiral Nakhimov to Service

    It's clear why... Times are so... scary now.
    We need to hurry to make money. And making money by reclaiming what's already there is much easier, faster, and, most importantly, safer than by building a new one, which is unlikely to be granted a building permit.
    PS: It won't save our tankers from being captured anyway.
    And for other purposes, it will be used just as recklessly as Russia's missile arsenal is being used against bridges across the Dnieper and just as the terrifying list of targets in Europe from April 15th is being implemented. And so on, right up to a repeat of the fate of the cruiser Moskva.
  4. +2
    14 June 2026 14: 25
    Russia needs this ship not as a strike force, but as a center of defense for the strategically important Arctic region.

    Unfortunately, these same properties also make the ship a priority target for our "friends and partners."
    1. -1
      14 June 2026 15: 11
      His role is now in the English Channel. Attacking his enemies is tantamount to declaring war. Although, under our grandfather, anything is possible.
      1. -2
        14 June 2026 16: 38
        His role is now in the English Channel.

        The English Channel is off limits. A desperate Starmer could arrest our dinosaur just as easily as he did our tanker.

        https://dzen.ru/a/ai6Jnov7R3hKnRMF

        And this will cast a shadow on our leadership, which will be forced to attribute this attack to yet another act of enemy desperation. And do our leaders need that?
        Therefore, the dinosaur's place is where the cruiser Moskva last hung out, waiting for Neptune.
        Besides, after our dinosaur is blown up and sunk, no one will know for sure what expenses were invested in its restoration or what exactly. It will be simpler and more reliable than lugging around this dinosaur, expecting humiliating adventures for our government. Let's call its presence in the same place another unfortunate mistake... and that's it. The word "mistake" is far more acceptable to our people than "betrayal."
  5. -1
    14 June 2026 21: 59
    What good are the Russian Navy's newest ships if the shadow fleet's tankers are still being hijacked by pirates, the Brits, the Americans, and... who else? - and our government's flacks only express concern - for them, the Belli case doesn't exist!
  6. 0
    15 June 2026 00: 38
    In the photo is Peter. As for the Moscow, the reason for its sinking was its outdated air defenses. They should have installed Pantsir missiles during the repairs, but they skimped on the most important thing. That's blatant incompetence, or worse. But if they didn't, then take care of this powerful ship and don't send it under fire, because the missiles' range covered the entire Black Sea, even from the port. There are simply no words.
  7. -2
    15 June 2026 10: 11
    Just imagine how magnificent the Admiral Nakhimov will look at the next naval parade (if one ever happens again).
    Apparently this is why it was reconstructed.
  8. 0
    20 June 2026 11: 12
    The Orlans were created as the core of strike forces, and even relatively recently, Nakhimov/Peter, Moskva, and Varyag, under the cover of Kuznetsov, etc., could have formed the core of a powerful strike force. But Moskva was destroyed, Kuznetsov was plundered... Neither Petr nor Ushakov alone can accomplish anything; they are destined for the same fate as Tipritsa.
    1. 0
      20 June 2026 11: 59
      Peter the Great hasn't been decommissioned yet, but it's been written off. It will be a donor ship for Nakhimov, a common captain and a single crew. The cruiser was created for show, just for show. It can't be, and never could be, the core of a cruiser-carrier group. There were no cruisers in the USSR. The US always had an overwhelming advantage in surface ships, while the USSR had frigates like the 1135 and 1155, monstrous steamship-artillery destroyers, and also useless cruisers for show, and an even more useless aircraft carrier, neither sewn nor fastened. Russia chose to have only patrol ships (frigates and corvettes) and one mastodon from the past for parades and photos, which could still be adapted for the Barents Sea in place of a frigate.
      1. -1
        21 June 2026 11: 06
        When you don't know the material, then yes, you write all sorts of nonsense, Russian, learn the material, and then become a chatterbox and don't open your mouth about "Gorshkov's Fleet".