Monday, August 25, 2025

Kirov Class Cruiser Begins Trials

It is reported that the Kirov class cruiser, Admiral Nakhimov (formerly Kalinin in the Soviet navy), has put to sea for trials after decades of modernization (can it really be called modernization if it takes decades?).  The ship last sailed in 1997 and has been undergoing repairs and modernization since 1999 with many stops and starts.
 
Details are sketchy but Naval News reports the following upgraded systems.
 
The vessel reportedly has over 176 vertical launch cells, capable of firing a wide array of anti-ship and air defense missiles. The cruiser reportedly has 10 universal shipborne firing systems (USFS), each capable of housing 8 missiles. This results in 80 launch cells reserved for launching Russia’s most modern missiles such as the subsonic Kalibr cruise missile, the supersonic Oniks anti-ship missile, and the hypersonic Tsirkon cruise missiles. In order to make room for these launch cells, the 20 angled Granit anti-ship missiles were removed.
 
An additional 96 launch cells are reserved for surface-to-air missiles to be used for air defense. It is unclear what missiles are installed on the cruiser with some reports stating that the cruiser operates the S-300Fort-M air defense systems with other sources stating that the S-400 air defense system is installed. Additional air defense systems for close to medium range engagement include six Pantsir-M air defense systems as well as a number of AK-630 close-in weapon systems.  The vessel is reportedly also equipped with the Paket-NK and Otvet anti-submarine and torpedo weapon systems.
 
The 130mm AK-130 dual purpose naval gun has been replaced by a modern 130mm AK-192M naval gun.[1]
Nakhimov heading out for trials


That makes for a large, powerful, expensive to operate ship which leads to the obvious question:  what’s its purpose?
 
The Russian navy is, for all practical purposes, a coastal defense force not an open ocean, globe spanning force.  For one thing, Russia has very limited overseas territories or commitments that would require the presence of a naval force, hence the emphasis on coastal or near coastal forces.  Thus, overseas naval operations would not seem to be a legitimate purpose.
 
Cost is another major factor.  Manning and operating a major warship like this is a very expensive proposition and Russia simply lacks the financial resources to comfortably do so which, again, leads one to question what the purpose of the ship is.
 
The key question, of course, is what combat purpose would this ship serve?  The original Kirovs were intended as anti-carrier strike assets with their twenty SS-N-19 (P-700) Granit supersonic missiles with 1600 lb warheads.  Today, a single Kirov would be no threat to a carrier group and, indeed, if the report is to be believed, the SS-N-19 missiles have been removed.
 
Of course, the ship can launch land attack missiles but against who?  Considering Russia’s likely enemies list, land attack missiles could be launched much more easily and cheaper from land sites or aircraft.
 
The Russian navy, today, consists primarily of frigates, corvettes, and various patrol vessels with a few surviving Soviet era destroyers.  In other words, it is a coastal defense force. 
 
The Russian navy has also demonstrated in the Ukraine war that they lack the equipment, doctrine, and training to survivably and effectively operate in contested waters so it’s hard to imagine they would risk their symbol of national pride in a naval battle that didn’t involve an existential threat.  That makes the Nakhimov a very limited use asset.
 
One obvious purpose, and perhaps the only real purpose, is international prestige and public relations.  Russia/Putin seems very big on trying to generate international prestige (a losing battle but Putin keeps trying) and there’s no denying that a large cruiser does generate a certain amount of attention if not any actual respect.  Of course, knowledgeable naval observers are not impressed by a ship with no naval purpose (hey, we have plenty of those!) but for Russia/Putin this would seem to be a valid purpose, perhaps the only real purpose.
 
 
 
______________________________
 
[1]Naval News, “RFS Admiral Nakhimov commences sea and factory trials”, Frederik Van Lokeren, 21-Aug-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/08/rfs-admiral-nakhimov-commences-sea-and-factory-trials/

35 comments:

  1. It's a symbol that will some how act as threat in beeing. While it's real capabilities are unclear any potential enemy of Russia will be forced to devote a relevant portion of it's assets to destroy or neuter it. The russian surface navy of the future will not be dissimilar to the german surface navy during WW2. Still the british devoted many ressources to contain and destroy the Tirpitz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "will not be dissimilar to the german surface navy during WW2."

      I disagree. The German navy had a fair number of heavy warships and, given WWII sensor limitations, a surface ship/group had a fair chance of remaining undetected. That constituted a fair threat. A single Russian heavy ship is no threat by itself and even less so when one considers the advances in sensor technology/range today.

      Delete
    2. I expect Nakhimov & whatever escorts Russia can spare for it will end up operating as expensive long-range missile-slingers. Russian long-range ASMs are no joke & the Nakhimov can carry a lot of ‘em so I wouldn’t call it useless exactly.

      I’m just not sure how much longer Russia will be able to afford these kinds of extravagances.

      Delete
    3. "long-range missile-slingers"

      Of course, they would have the eternal problem: targeting. Russia has little in the way of long range targeting capability. Nakhimove can have million mile missiles but if they have ten mile target detection, they're useless.

      Delete
  2. This is probably mostly meant to be a long range air defence platform with some land attack, anti-sub, and anti-ship capabilities. It will be interesting to see where it will be used.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nakhimov can carry A LOT of missiles and assuming all its gear is in working order it should be quite capable of defending itself from anything short of a truly massive saturation attack.

      I think that it’s a bit of a misnomer to call it an air defense warship, however, since it doesn’t have much of anything to defend besides itself. Same goes for its ASW suite.

      I’d expect that Russia will end up using it largely as a long-range land-attack missile-slinger. Russia’s Black Sea
      embarrassment & America’s less than stellar showing against the Houthis suggests to me that in the current technological Meta we’re back at that point where a ship’s a fool to fight a fort. For now, anyway.

      Delete
  3. Speculation on my part, but prestige and PR is probably one reason - showing the flag and generally cruising around the world and impressing or intimidating the locals as you suggest. Russia's diplomatic efforts are focused on Africa and Asia, and seeing a huge ship like this supported by modern frigate escorts would be a pretty imposing sight.
    Also I guess it keeps Russia's future options open in terms of building large surface warships by preserving the shipyards and dry docks and keeping the trained and skilled workforce employed.
    At the moment the Russian surface navy is mostly a coastal defense force but who knows what future plans the Russians may have.
    If it works as intended it's a very powerful and heavily armed ship - The Granits may have gone but the S-400s and new Oniks and Zircons would give it the ability to take and dish out some punishment. Strong air defense and shore bombardment capabilities also.
    I doubt if the financial costs of the refit or the ongoing operating costs would be a serious concern or consideration.
    I don't know if we can draw too many long-term lessons from the Russian navy's recent losses around Sevastopol - the Black Sea is a bit like a goldfish bowl - not a lot of room to maneuver and any navy would probably take some losses there.
    Mostly agree with you though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russia doesn't have financial mean to maintain a global level navy. To defend its coast, such ship without a group of supporting ship is not useful. US had nuclear powered USS Long Beach but stopped pursuing nuclear powered cruiser. On navy, Russia now puts precious resources mainly in nuclear powered submarines for obvious reason - it needs nuclear deterrence to insure destruction on any nation nuclear strike it for whatever reason, regardless.

      If you want to see another global level navy besides US, you can only watch China. While the coming military parade on Sep. 3 cannot display ships, they will display some active duty naval weapons. There are some images spotted by media during their rehearsals but let's wait till that day.

      Delete
    2. "it's a very powerful and heavily armed ship"

      A very powerful and heavily armed ship that has serious shortcomings. It is decidedly non-stealthy in a modern naval combat environment that does not reward non-stealthy as a survival trait. It lacks the supporting elements for distant targeting. A million mile missile is useless with ten mile targeting. It lacks modern, capable escorts and would be glaringly vulnerable to submarine attack. We don't have details yet but sketchy reports would seem to suggest that many of the sensors and supporting computers, computer architecture, and other electronics are generations behind - some possibly dating back to the original Soviet era.

      Beyond that, the Russians have demonstrated a marked lack of naval expertise in anti-missile, anti-drone, damage control, naval surveillance, and naval operations and tactics. Is Nakhimov the exception to the rule? Possibly but logic suggests not.

      Nakhimov is somewhat impressive on paper but, in all probability, much less impressive in the real world for anything but public relations.

      Delete
    3. It’s certainly not stealthy.
      I doubt the Russians would be trying to integrate state of the art hypersonic missiles into a decades old CMS.
      Interesting ship nevertheless and a good AAW platform in my view.
      It’s important not to stereotype potential adversaries as this can easily lead to underestimating their combat potential.
      (We did this before WW2 when the American press reported that Japanese would make very poor pilots owing to their near universal propensity to short sightedness and need to wear spectacles.)

      Delete
    4. If Russia (and this ship) ever go to war it will likely be as an ally of China which will probably address most of the issues that you have flagged.

      Delete
    5. "will probably address most of the issues that you have flagged"

      How so? If Russia joins a war with China then it's truly a global war and all of Europe will be fighting Russia. How would simply being an ally of China negate the various weaknesses of the lone Kirov?

      Delete
    6. I wouldn’t care to place a bet on European navies in a missile-slinging match. I don’t think they would either.

      Delete
  4. I wonder how many things actually work. It might be a floating Potemkin village with a coat of paint, able to make it out of the harbor, and a few toys to show off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very valid concern considering how poorly other Russian ships have done on deployment.

      Delete
    2. Judging by the number of fire related accidents on Mediterranean deployments the Russians have some long standing issues with the general level of their crew training.
      Maybe not so uncommon in peacetime navies but very dangerous in wartime.
      The loss of the British Sheffield in the Falklands war had a lot in common with the Russian loss of their Black Sea flagship Moscow. Both sunk by enemy missiles while the crews were focusing on other things with the ship’s firefighting equipment non functional.

      Delete
  5. For sale to the PLAN?

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting thought. Run with it. What would the Chinese do with such a ship? How would it fit into their force structure and what we can glean of their plans and doctrine? In other words, what would be a CONOPS for a Chinese Kirov? And, if you have a valid CONOPS, ask why China hasn't built their own Kirov. They're certainly capable of copying and building even the biggest ships!

      Let me know what you come up with.

      Delete
    2. My conjecture:
      The PLAN is interested in buying the Kirov with the intent of testing, improving and replicating the ship for their own uses.

      What could their own uses be?

      If I'm looking at this from China's point of view, I'm seeing an existential threat in the Indian Ocean.
      The US Navy and its allies can choke off Chinese ocean borne trade, particularly Middle Eastern oil.

      China appears to be making strategic and military inroads in Djibouti and Sri Lanka. Logically it can be assumed that they are trying to secure those trade routes across the Indian Ocean.

      On a parallel development track is the PLAN's attempts to build a blue water navy.
      They are serious about building their own super-carriers and several Kirov-esque ships could be pretty useful.

      Of course, the true wisdom is the US Navy's future swarms of unmanned 21st century Jeffersonian gunboats.

      But the Chinese may be going in the direction of building capital ships for their future blue water fleet. Task forces centered around PLAN super carriers and large capital ships with 170 VLS cells would be a handful to counter.

      Lutefisk



      Delete
    3. To PLAN, this is not what they want.

      Wait for one week. Look next Wednesday's Chinese military parade on celebration of WWII victory over Japan. From that parade, we can see how China thinks future wars will be fought. Of course, as they cannot display large ships in this parade but we can see missiles, unmanned submarines, drones, .... to analyze how they think future battle. One difference between US and China is that China doesn't care to get entangled in other nations' battles. US has many geopolitical concerns.

      Delete
    4. An alternative way to ask the Chief’s question: What does the Kirov cruiser offer that the Chinese Type 055 cruiser don’t?

      Delete
    5. Interesting thoughts @Lutefisk. An interesting possibility. But, I think the main value of a Kirov to the Russians is prestige. I'm not sure they'd be willing to give it up, especially since their lone carrier has a dim future. A Kirov is the Russian navys flagship and pinnacle at this point. A powerful warship, no doubt, but to me, its value in combat is almost insignificant compared to its propaganda and national pride value. And also, while a Kirov could be useful to the Chinese, since they already hold numerical superiority in WestPac, I think continued speedy production of their 052/055s would serve them better as they continue to push forward with their CV/CVN plans. Even though a Kirov-centered SAG could be problematic for the US, I'm not so sure that the investment in large heavy combatants like a Kirov makes sense for them, since I see their future carrier groups operating mainly as sensor extensions for their A2AD umbrella. But... who knows??

      Delete
    6. As almost an aside, the "propaganda and national pride" I mentioned is admittedly an intangible, and realistically as worthless as our deployments, especially considering what the overhaul and expense of operating a nuclear cruiser costs. But, nations cling to things...

      Delete
    7. "I see their future carrier groups operating mainly as sensor extensions for their A2AD umbrella"

      To quote someone famous, "Interesting thoughts". That's not a role I've ever seen for a Chinese carrier group. Aircraft, UAVs, satellites, SOSUS-type arrays, and individual SigInt ships would seem to be much better, more cost effective ways to extend sensor coverage. An entire carrier group just to extend sensor coverage in the group's immediate region seems like huge overkill (and expense!) for a relatively small sensor extension. Would you care to offer some data or logic that supports your belief? I'd be very interested.

      Delete
    8. I can try!
      So you've suggested before that targeting the USN with the longer range missiles is problematic for the Chinese. So more specifically, the carriers airwing would act as sensors. Not only to find our carrier groups for land based missiles, but to "keep the fix" for more strikes as needed, and also add their own of course. I think carrier aviation gives a more comprehensive search ability, plus sustainability once contact is made, in comparison to shore based recon aircraft or UAVs.
      My earlier statement was probably poorly worded- I would think a Chinese CVBG would want to seek us out and bring the USN to battle, and "operating as sensors" isn't really a specific mission, it's just that they'd come up with land based missile targeting data basically as a by-product of being out on the hunt.
      * I've been trying to post here for a couple days, but the *publishing* would just stick, and it'd never work. So finally got the app and now it works. I'm the repeat offender previously known here as Jjabatie...

      Delete
    9. Name change ... okay!

      Target detection and tracking, for the Chinese, would certainly be a welcome occurrence, if it were to happen. The Chinese would gladly take it. However, the odds that the Chinese would be able to get an aircraft within detection range of a US carrier group with its own layered aircraft specifically searching for Chinese search aircraft is no good. The Soviets, in the Cold War, acknowledged this when they doctrinally accepted the loss of dozens of Bear search aircraft for the chance to target a US carrier group. A properly run US carrier group (and we'll learn quickly after the first few carrier losses!) is a very difficult nut to find, let alone crack.

      If detection is hard, tracking is even more difficult as the initial detecting aircraft will likely be destroyed quickly.

      So, as you seem to suggest, sensor extension is not a mission but might be an occasional happy happenstance.

      Delete
    10. The Nakhimov is a just a one-off at this point. Militarily speaking China’s leap-frogged Russia in damn near everything except for submarine tachnology and expertise.

      If China felt like they needed to build a 25-30k tonne missile battlecruiser they’d just build a scaled up Type 055.

      Russia’s buying munitions (including TBMS!) from the DPRK for crissakes. Chinese dual-use technology is the only reason thing keeping Russia from reverting back to vacuum tube technology.

      Russia’s existing ship-based & air-launched ASM designs ARE quite capable & their production lines have remained pretty steady. This could change if their internal gas crisis worsens.

      Russia’s physical size is becoming more of a double-edged sword than it used to be. Invasions into Russia tend to go poorly for attackers. The problem is Russia’s internal industry is proving increasingly vulnerable to long-range strikes & they lack the manpower and industry to defend everything that needs defensing.

      Delete
  6. It likely has the same intended anti carrier group purpose as before; the Oniks and Tsirkon are primarily anti-ship missiles and a massive upgrade in anti-ship lethality compared to the P-700 and the naval Tor and pantsir systems seem to be pretty good too and they have lots of those now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hypothetically, yes. I suspect it’s going to end up being used more as a long-range land-attack platform.

      Delete
  7. As far as I know we have no equivalent weapon systems. The Russians seem to have invested very heavily on missiles generally and in building an IADS rather than trying to counter or outspend us on 5-Gen aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ukraine makes the large turbines for the Russian Navy. Therefore they can't build large new warships. A turbine for a 4000 tonne warships is all Russia can make.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No that’s not correct.
      Before 2014 Ukraine manufactured gas turbines engines for the Russian navy but after that date for obvious reasons stopped doing so.
      The Russians therefore had to establish an equivalent domestic industry from scratch which was a significant challenge but which they appear now to have successfully done.
      Russian Admiral Gorchkov class frigates have a full displacement of 5400 tons with the projected 22350M class displacing an estimated 7200 tons.
      If the 22350M class goes ahead it will carry a heavier weapons fit out than a Burke, although obviously Russian seamanship may not be up to American standards.

      Delete
  9. If I were the Russians, given their geographic situation, I think I would concentrate on Visby size/type surface ships and a large sub force of all types (AIP/Nuke). They are more of a continental power than a sea going one. They could do far more damage with a large sub force than wasting resources on large surface warships that can be bottled up at various choke points. They're position is somewhat similar to the Germans in WW2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Soviets developed a large submarine force and the Russians are attempting to continue submarine development and numbers within the constraints of a limited budget. They're also emphasizing Visby size corvettes and frigates though not quite with the emphasis on stealth that Visby appears to have.

      Delete
    2. As far as surface warships go I can’t see Russia building any new build major warships larger than a Gorshkov class frigate for the foreseeable future.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.