Military Review

French Defense Minister on the possibility of building a second aircraft carrier

82
The only French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, carrying the 24 fighter Dassault Rafale M, will leave the Mediterranean Sea in mid-December, thereby ceasing to participate in the antiterrorist operation in the Middle East, reports bmpd with reference to opex360.com.




Upon arrival in France, the ship will take on a 18-month average repair.

French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le-Drian to the question whether he sees no need for building a second aircraft carrier replied: “We have only one aircraft carrier. And I, being the Minister of Defense, use the means that are at my disposal. ” As for the second aircraft carrier, it is possible that its construction will be incorporated into the armament program, starting with 2020.

He emphasized that the deck aviation available in a small number of countries. “This is a matter of great pride - the fact of owning an operating aircraft carrier, which we have today and which regularly participates in operations. The British have no such opportunity, ”the minister said, adding that only two or three countries have such an opportunity.

In passing, mentioning the Russian aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov, Drian noted that the ship’s combat capabilities are not impressive. He allegedly became convinced of this when the cruiser was sailing across the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

The author of the article reminds that “with the exception of Great Britain, which is building two aircraft carriers, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, there are more than three countries possessing aircraft carriers - these are India, China, Russia, and, of course, the United States.”
Photos used:
http://www.worldwarships.com
82 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 8 November 2016 14: 13
    +8
    Here is the answer to the question, does Russia need an aircraft carrier? The answer is indisputably "YES"! Another thing is that we do not yet have free shipyards to build an aircraft carrier.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 8 November 2016 14: 22
      +14
      Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
      Here is the answer to the question, does Russia need an aircraft carrier? The answer is undeniably YES!

      what reply"? did not see .. because the French wanted a second? but you never know what will climb into their heads, they don't even need the first one ... they are tortured with him. why should we?
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 8 November 2016 14: 31
        +6
        God himself ordered the French to possess aircraft carriers. They have colonies and possessions around the world, ranging from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean. Russia has no colonies in the oceans. Yes, aircraft carriers are prestige, but they cost crazy money!
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan
          Ratmir_Ryazan 8 November 2016 15: 21
          +5
          And their absence will not become even more expensive than Russia ?! I think we’ll pull a couple, we don’t buy them, but do it ourselves, that is, all the money spent on them will go to our own economy to our workers and engineers ...
          The main thing is to do the wisdom and base for them so that they do not provide vital activity while at the berth, but receive everything from the shore, saving their resources and reserves ...
          1. BilliBoms09
            BilliBoms09 8 November 2016 17: 30
            +1
            [quoteThe only French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, carrying 24 Dassault Rafale M fighters] [/ quote] And these gentlemen, are laughing at our TAKr? 24 fighters ... not funny. 28 airplanes 24 helicopters and even anti-ship missiles !!! Yes, not an American nuclear scientist, but also a European one ...!
        2. tomket
          tomket 8 November 2016 15: 34
          0
          And can you read more, what kind of crazy money does an aircraft carrier require?
          1. 16112014nk
            16112014nk 8 November 2016 18: 19
            +2
            Quote: tomket
            what kind of crazy money does an aircraft carrier require?

            US aircraft carrier - $ 10 million per month, excluding crew salaries.
            "Kuznetsov", taking into account the constant repairs, is expensive for the state.
            It would be possible to withstand, that's just ... Pensioners - "No money, but you hold on" ...
            Officials with almost 100 thousand a month, another 38%. So there’s not enough money for any aircraft carrier.
            1. tomket
              tomket 8 November 2016 20: 17
              0
              It doesn’t matter who will eat the food, the crew of an aircraft carrier, or a military unit on the shore? In addition, I doubt that Kuzi's repairs are carried out with a high-quality one, which really costs a pretty penny.
            2. BilliBoms09
              BilliBoms09 9 November 2016 13: 01
              0
              [quoteCould be able to withstand, that's just ... Pensioners - "No money, but you hold on" ...] [/ quote] "Dear", what are you doing on this site? your place, on the site "Echo of Moscow" !!! The same words are there, "Why do we need an army. All the money is for pensioners and state employees." And who will protect them? stop
          2. ism_ek
            ism_ek 9 November 2016 18: 43
            0
            Quote: tomket
            And can you read more, what kind of crazy money does an aircraft carrier require?

            40% of the military budget of the Russian Federation goes to the fleet, and this despite the fact that we are not building ocean surface ships ...
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 November 2016 15: 41
          +2
          Quote: xetai9977
          Yes, aircraft carriers are prestige, but they cost crazy money!

          He-he-he ... in due time uv. Exeter, with numbers in hand, showed that even for the USSR, the program for the serial construction of ships for 7-8 AUGs would cost less than everything that the USSR built as an "asymmetric response" - TAVKR, TARKR, RKR, large BODs, a crowd of ships 2 rank, SSGN, coastal maritime, etc.
          1. ism_ek
            ism_ek 9 November 2016 18: 44
            0
            Your fabrications are not backed up by numbers.
        4. avt
          avt 8 November 2016 16: 33
          +4
          Quote: xetai9977
          Russia has no colonies in the oceans.

          laughing Take a look at the map of the Caspian Sea. Make sure of the length of the Russian coastline and the need for a "floating airfield" mobile. This is only a type of "coastal voyage".
          Quote: xetai9977
          Yes, aircraft carriers are prestige, but they cost crazy money!

          Carriers are a vital necessity for any power in which the fleet is not welded to the wall, but goes to the Ocean regularly. Moreover, in the medium term and beyond, it is irreplaceable. But this is if this power is able to independently exploit this type, and even more so to manufacture it with a full set of carrier-based aircraft. And this, like its own production of nuclear submarines, is the lot of highly developed scientific and industrial states. Today, the independent development and production of a nuclear aircraft carrier and nuclear submarines with subsequent trouble-free operation is the highest level and indicator of the level of development of science and industry of the state. This is not a panegyric, but a statement of fact, so complex tasks are in the design and construction, and the trouble-free operation of these types of ships.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 8 November 2016 16: 46
            +5
            Quote: avt
            Take a look at the map of the Caspian Sea. Make sure of the length of the Russian coastline and the need for a "floating airfield" mobile. This is only a type of "coastal voyage".

            He-he-he ... it is also very useful to look - where exactly our Navy might need air cover. And estimate the cost of building, maintaining readiness and supplying a "cluster" of airfields (with a capacity based on counteracting at least a couple of AUG) in this area. For example - to cover PLOWs operating in the area of ​​the throat of the White Sea. smile
            Quote: avt
            Carriers are a vital necessity for any power in which the fleet is not welded to the wall, but goes to the Ocean regularly.

            Not only in the ocean. Soviet admirals even needed AB to cover forces operating off their shores. For we need to cover not San Diego, Norfolk or the Gulf of Mexico, around which there are a lot of airfields, but the same north, where the airfield network is so developed that not every airplane without a PTB can fly to a neighboring airfield. smile
        5. Giant thought
          Giant thought 8 November 2016 18: 42
          +2
          The French are trying to have a completely modern fleet, I must admit, while they succeed.
      2. gray smeet
        gray smeet 8 November 2016 14: 33
        +5
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
        Here is the answer to the question, does Russia need an aircraft carrier? The answer is undeniably YES!

        what reply"? did not see .. because the French wanted a second? but you never know what will climb into their heads, they don't even need the first one ... they are tortured with him. why should we?


        Ah ha ha ... Brilliant +

        With their Charles, 24 fighter jets are rolling across the Mediterranean - why? The threshing floor is rare ...
      3. Banishing liberoids
        Banishing liberoids 8 November 2016 14: 40
        +6
        Andrei Yurievich - for a situation like the one that we have in Syria and we need a separate naval group, headed by a carrier, so as not to drive Kuzya later (take pity on the old man) you need to have an aircraft carrier. Believe me, the work of his aviation will always be found.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 8 November 2016 17: 46
          +2
          Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
          Andrei Yurievich - for a situation like the one that we have in Syria and we need a separate naval force, headed by a vianosets

          Sergey Vitalievich, what's the point? do we have a base there? planes have nowhere to "sit down"? work freely from our territory, and return, this time, and secondly, to transfer the air group there - a question for 2-3 hours, and "Kuzya" "sawed" as much from the North? I don’t think that he is indispensable there, well, it’s convenient at this time of year, to train pilots there, test weapons, the conditions allow, well, he “dragged” under him “something” well, also good, but he does not specifically do the weather.
      4. gispanec
        gispanec 8 November 2016 15: 59
        +3
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        and why should we?

        are you kidding me right now? ... we gently need at least 2 aircraft carriers .... to the Pacific Fleet and to the North + Kuzyu to leave for a replacement .... favorite question of all anti-aircraft carriers - why do we need it ?? ... but do not care we need different kinds of troops .... leave only the Strategic Missile Forces and border guards .... just what immediately to hit with missiles ... what kind of approach ?? ... One Pacific Ocean, at least requires an aircraft carrier + 2 helicopter carrier + eagle + Atlant + 6 potty + 8 corvettes ... about EM I’ll keep quiet ... bpk modify as pure anti-submarine air defense .... without shock. (this is except for apl and diesel / / ... .... we are really only threatened by sasha ... and this is sasha across the sea-ocean ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 November 2016 16: 51
          +2
          Quote: gispanec
          are you kidding me right now? ... we gently need at least 2 aircraft carriers .... to the Pacific Fleet and to the North + Kuzyu to leave for a replacement ....

          Are you stepping on the Soviet rake again - one ship for each fleet? smile
          Why do we need one AB in the Pacific Fleet?
          Our main fleet is the Northern Fleet - and all AB must be focused on it so that at least one of them is at any time combat ready. In addition, it will be 2 percent cheaper to secure the deployment of 80 AUGs in one fleet than to build one base on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet.
          Well, again, you should not tear off new AVs from the plant that built them (and it seems that they will be built in Severodvinsk).
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 8 November 2016 21: 02
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Our main fleet is the SF - and all AB should be focused on it initially

            All eggs in one basket is clever.
            Is it okay that our Kuzya was originally assigned to the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in Sevastopol under the USSR? This is the question of the "main" fleet.
            It is necessary for EACH of the three main fleets of the sf Black Sea Fleet to have an Aircraft Carrier, because these fleets are responsible for the most serious TVDs. And in order not to drive warships from tof and sph into Middle-earth through half-earth with cancer, they must be in sufficient quantity on the spot.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 10 November 2016 10: 57
              0
              Quote: GSH-18
              All eggs in one basket is clever.

              Otherwise, it’s impossible - otherwise our SF or Pacific Fleet will regularly remain without AB. Or the only AV fleet will be ready only on paper, but in fact it will simply be regularly kicked out to sea instead of regular repairs.
              Quote: GSH-18
              It is necessary for EACH of the three main fleets of the SF Black Sea Fleet to have an aircraft carrier, because these fleets are responsible for the most serious TVD

              That is, every couple of years the fleets will remain without their AB.
              Quote: GSH-18
              And in order not to drive warships from the tof and sph into the middle earth through half the earth with cancer, they must be in sufficient quantity on the spot.

              If you have 1 AB per fleet, then you have to drive - when the only AB Black Sea Fleet gets up for scheduled repairs.
              Or you have to drive a sky-ready ship, hoping once again that the warhead-5 will come up with something and somehow pull it out. And then marvel at puffs of smoke over the AB. smile
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 10 November 2016 11: 04
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                That is, every couple of years the fleets will remain without their AB.

                What is the problem? Now is peacetime. In addition, now ALL of our fleets are deprived of an aircraft carrier component. An aircraft carrier is needed (among other things) to perform fleet combat missions on a remote TVD. For example, as it is now in the Mediterranean Sea.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Warhead-5 will come up with something and somehow pull it out. And then marvel at puffs of smoke over the AB.

                bch-5 in any case, well done, all that could with what is. And this is not theirs, but the fleet’s task is to provide our decks with normal modern Aircraft carriers.
          2. gispanec
            gispanec 9 November 2016 10: 01
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Why do we need one AB in the Pacific Fleet?

            I wrote (read carefully) AS MINIMUM !! ... aug very well covers the areas of combat patrol of strategists (apl) ... from the Pacific Ovean it is somehow handy to beat the states .... since amers have early detection systems and the Vikings and the Eskimos (Greenland) and Canadians are the same in one system about ...
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 10 November 2016 11: 03
              0
              Quote: gispanec
              from the Pacific Ovean, it’s somehow handy to beat the states .... since the Amers have early detection systems for the Vikings and the Eskimos (Greenland) and Canadians are the same in the same system ...

              The US Pacific area is also tightly covered: 2 early warning radars - in Alaska and California, plus Cobra Day in the Aleuts.
        2. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 8 November 2016 17: 51
          +1
          Quote: gispanec
          are you kidding me right now? ... we gently leave at least 2 aircraft carriers .... to the Pacific Fleet and to the North + Kuzyu to leave for a replacement.

          I understood from your passionate speech, only that we "need !!!" and that's all .... I didn't see any arguments, nor did I see an example of a real situation where we desperately need an aircraft carrier ..- Don't put Syria as an example, I've already answered above about this ... it's easier for us to fly to Africa than walk by sea ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 8 November 2016 18: 15
            +3
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            I didn’t see any arguments, but I didn’t see an example of a real situation where we desperately need an aircraft carrier

            The real situation remained the same as in the 70s - when the Navy insistently demanded AB: defense of the SSBN position areas. Alas, to cover the fleet's forces defending these areas, it is precisely AB that is needed - coastal aviation cannot do this because of greater inertia (often, in the areas where our forces operate, even the reinforcements approach time is comparable to the time between detection of enemy aircraft and their exit to the launch distance of RCC) and employment by other matters. Simply put, an air regiment with AWACS 50 miles behind the KPAG is a division on the shore.
          2. gispanec
            gispanec 9 November 2016 10: 07
            +1
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            I understood from your passionate speech, only that we "need !!!" and that's it .... I didn't see any arguments, nor did I see an example of a real situation

            your arguments aren’t the same, but as I wrote above, aug is guaranteed to provide a salvo of underwater missile carriers from (e.g. the Pacific Ocean), which will be unacceptable damage to the United States ... and the fact that you can shoot from the pier is from the same series - but what for to shoot from a nuclear submarine pier ?? ... it is possible from ground-based mines .... or from moving poplars ...... and by the way, why do we need chemical and engineering troops ??? because in the event of a conflict we-nato (usa) will have a nuclear exchange and everyone will die, so why spend the money on something that we don’t apply ??? ... by the way, this is your logic!
      5. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 9 November 2016 01: 04
        +3
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        and why should we?

        The answer of the idiot: - But it would be, Oh!
        The layman’s answer: “But why are they needed in our village!”
        The answer of the redneck: - And why are they needed? It would be better if they gave money to the people!
        The answer of a land person: It would be better if they had done tanks for this money ....
        Sailor's answer: For the combat stability of fleet forces on the high seas ...
        The answer of the statesman: And in order to defend the Motherland not at the walls of Moscow, but on the meridian of Gibraltar.
        Liberal answer: There will be no war, why do we need aircraft carriers? States are our everything! They are a beacon of democracy! It’s more expensive to get involved against them ...
        From the answer to the question: "Why do we need aircraft carriers?" - Everyone can decide - Hu is Hu!
        Somehow, however ...
        Yours faithfully, drinks
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 10 November 2016 11: 40
          0
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          and why should we?

          The answer of the idiot: - But it would be, Oh!
          The layman’s answer: “But why are they needed in our village!”
          The answer of the redneck: - And why are they needed? It would be better if they gave money to the people!
          The answer of a land person: It would be better if they had done tanks for this money ....
          Sailor's answer: For the combat stability of fleet forces on the high seas ...
          The answer of the statesman: And in order to defend the Motherland not at the walls of Moscow, but on the meridian of Gibraltar.
          Liberal answer: There will be no war, why do we need aircraft carriers? States are our everything! They are a beacon of democracy! It’s more expensive to get involved against them ...
          From the answer to the question: "Why do we need aircraft carriers?" - Everyone can decide - Hu is Hu!
          Somehow, however ...
          Yours faithfully, drinks

          The answer is comprehensive. Frantically plyusuyu! good
    2. 34 region
      34 region 8 November 2016 15: 36
      +5
      14.13. Exorcist! And with the advent of modern anti-ship missiles, is there any point in building such expensive targets? Maybe it’s better to build a dozen, another boats with launchers? Launchers can be put on civilian ships. Then the escort still needs escort ships. Can the range of our aviation and missiles from it be sufficient? Could it be cheaper to build our bases in places convenient for us? And how many aircraft carriers do we need then? One in the campaign, the other in the repair? It is not yet visible that someone has made economic calculations of the construction and maintenance of the floating target. Costs will not be limited only to the construction of the building. In case of conflict, the cost of missiles capable of incapacitating an aircraft carrier and the cost of an aircraft carrier? While we butt here at the level of hotelok. But the level of costs and efficiency is still quiet. If we take the cost of an anti-ship missile per unit, then how many units does an aircraft carrier with cover cost and how many units are needed to incapacitate it? So far, all our comments from the category have show-offs (aircraft carrier).
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 8 November 2016 17: 56
        +8
        Quote: Region 34
        And with the advent of modern anti-ship missiles, is there any point in building such expensive targets?

        Yes, if the range of the air wing is greater than the range of the enemy's anti-ship missiles. And also, it makes sense when the defense systems of the aircraft carrier group, guaranteed or almost certainly will be able to intercept any threat flying in the direction of the AUG (by systems I mean the "combat retinue" of the aircraft carrier).
        Quote: Region 34
        Could it be cheaper to build our bases in places convenient for us?

        Again, to build such bases, you need their naval support and cover from the sea. And for this you need ships of the first and second rank (cruisers, destroyers, frigates, heavy corvettes). And again everything depends on the construction of ships in the ocean zone.
        Quote: Region 34
        If we take the cost of an anti-ship missile per unit, then how many units does an aircraft carrier with cover cost and how many units are needed to incapacitate it?

        Somewhere there were figures that missiles such as Granite, on the aircraft carrier, to sink it, it was necessary from 6 to 12 anti-ship missiles, on the Tikanderog class cruiser, from 3 to 4 Granites, etc. At the same time, we consider how many Granites will break through the AUG missile defense system and how many should be in the salvo of anti-ship missiles in order to destroy at least an aircraft carrier, not to mention the entire group.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 November 2016 18: 18
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          Somewhere there were figures that missiles such as Granite, on the aircraft carrier, to sink it, it was necessary from 6 to 12 anti-ship missiles, on the Tikanderog class cruiser, from 3 to 4 Granites, etc.

          EMNIP, they wrote to VIF2-NE that in order to guarantee the failure of AUGs in the 80s, the calculation required the work of two SSGNs pr. 949, two SSGNs pr. 670M and one or two meters.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 8 November 2016 18: 24
            +2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            EMNIP, they wrote to VIF2-NE that in order to guarantee the failure of AUGs in the 80s, the calculation required the work of two SSGNs pr. 949, two SSGNs pr. 670M and one or two meters.

            Well, then it can certainly be calculated ... but the big question is, well, all these submarines will be launched at a distance of a volley?
            In the USSR, the most real and effective destruction of the AUG (without the use of nuclear weapons) was recognized as a Tu-22-x raid in the amount, if sclerosis does not change me, of two regiments that were almost guaranteed to be destroyed. All other methods so far from the category of Wishlist, luck and fantasy.
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 10 November 2016 11: 54
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          Somewhere there were figures that missiles such as Granite, on the aircraft carrier, to sink it, it was necessary from 6 to 12 anti-ship missiles, on the Tikanderog class cruiser, from 3 to 4 Granites, etc. At the same time, we consider how many Granites will break through the AUG missile defense system and how many should be in the salvo of anti-ship missiles in order to destroy at least an aircraft carrier, not to mention the entire group.

          Absolutely agree with you.
          Actually, in order to break through the network-centric AUG air defense for its overload, it is necessary to have at least Hundred RCC in the salvo!
          Where do they really get ??? Deck aviation will not allow approaching the salvo range not only to surface missile ships, but also to a sufficient number of submarines.
          Yes, some damage to the ACG is possible and will be caused as a result of such an attempt, but the outcome is known in advance - the attacking side will retaliate to shreds without a doubt. That's exactly why we need aircraft carriers as part of at least the Northern Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, Pacific Fleet.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 10 November 2016 13: 22
            +2
            Quote: GSH-18
            That's exactly why we need aircraft carriers as part of at least the Northern Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, Pacific Fleet.

            The aircraft carrier on the Black Sea Fleet, as well as on the BF, is redundant. I will say more, and the cruisers in those "puddles" are also superfluous. Above the destroyer, the ships have nothing to do there. And no one has yet canceled the agreements with the Turks on the passage of the aircraft carrier into those waters.
            As for the destruction of the AUG, I already wrote that today, the most effective probable way (not nuclear) to drown, if not the entire AUG, but at least the aircraft carrier itself, is a Tu-22 raid consisting of two regiments. even Soviet specialists, little will remain of these regiments. The way I will tell you is not very good, therefore we are developing a "long arm" anti-ship missile system with a radius of action greater than the radius of action of the enemy's carrier-based aircraft.
    3. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 8 November 2016 15: 44
      +2
      The Russian Federation does not yet have suitable (in size) shipyards for the construction of an aircraft carrier. Another thing is that the experience of building (sectional method) Mistral can be useful. Well, even if they finish building the shipyard in Big Stone near Vladivostok (they promise to build ships up to 300 meters)
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 9 November 2016 18: 48
        0
        The Mistral consisted of two sections, and Ronald Reagan of 170 sections.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 10 November 2016 12: 48
        0
        Quote: ArikKhab
        The Russian Federation does not yet have suitable (in size) shipyards for the construction of an aircraft carrier. Another thing is that the experience of building (sectional method) Mistral can be useful. Well, even if they finish building the shipyard in Big Stone near Vladivostok (they promise to build ships up to 300 meters)

        Work is underway at Zvezdochka in Severodvinsk, the docks are being rebuilt (up to 400 meters) ... But I didn’t tell you anything.
    4. NEXUS
      NEXUS 8 November 2016 17: 35
      +5
      Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
      Another thing is that we do not yet have free shipyards for the construction of an aircraft carrier.

      The phrase is not true. We are not that we do not have free shipyards, but we do not have such dimensions of shipyards for the construction of an aircraft carrier.
      Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
      Here is the answer to the question, does Russia need an aircraft carrier? The answer is undeniably YES!

      In order to begin the construction of an aircraft carrier, you must first build ships that will ensure its survivability and will be part of the AUG. At the same time, I am talking not only about warships and submarines, but also about support ships. And in the short term, neither destroyers nor cruisers are available for us.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 8 November 2016 20: 52
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        The phrase is not true. We are not that we do not have free shipyards, but we do not have such dimensions of shipyards for the construction of an aircraft carrier.

        This bold statement can be answered as follows: work is ongoing. Without too much noise and advertising.
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 8 November 2016 20: 00
      0
      Drian noted that the combat capabilities of the ship did not impress him. He allegedly was convinced of this when the cruiser was walking along the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea.

      Yes, Dryan along the psychic! laughing
  2. User
    User 8 November 2016 14: 18
    +17
    There is a bit too much pride in a country that surrendered to the Third Reich in a month.
    1. Trigger-Happy
      Trigger-Happy 8 November 2016 14: 24
      +12
      They left all their pride in taverns and brothels under the fascists.
  3. BOB044
    BOB044 8 November 2016 14: 20
    +4
    In passing, mentioning the Russian aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov, Drian noted that the ship’s combat capabilities are not impressive. He allegedly became convinced of this when the cruiser was sailing across the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
    Blessed is he who believes. Do not be famously pack it is quiet. I also have a great sea power.
  4. Engineer
    Engineer 8 November 2016 14: 27
    +15
    England is building a second, France is thinking, Brazil is designing, I am silent about China, Japan has helicopter carriers as aircraft carriers and only we have an aircraft carrier - this is an imperialist weapon against banana republics. Interestingly, but Brazil was going to bomb whom? Guinea?
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 8 November 2016 14: 35
      +4
      Brazil has no money, so CV2020 has turned into CV2030.

      Now San Paolo let us down, replaced the catapult - lifting the weight to Rafal. All money is raised to replace the wing from prehistoric Skyhawks to something new.

      When Rousseff - the favorite was Grippen, they even saw the prototype of the sea now under the Brazilians.
      The new president is still unclear, but he seems more pro-French, so Rafal is also likely.
  5. AlexTires
    AlexTires 8 November 2016 14: 28
    +4
    Comrade Frenchman is an amateur, for he compares two different classes of ships! Or, he has not yet been informed that there are no aircraft carriers in Russia?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. gray smeet
        gray smeet 8 November 2016 14: 41
        +7
        Quote: rudolff
        I am also an amateur, because I consider Kuznetsov to be an aircraft carrier, and not a cruiser.


        Rather, the prototype of an aircraft carrier is taught to flyers ... more precisely, they will develop the methodology of operation of an aircraft carrier and a company. To the aircraft carrier, as to Paris with cancer.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 8 November 2016 17: 45
          +5
          Quote: gray smeet
          Rather, an aircraft carrier prototype

          Kuzya, despite the fact that I am proud of the Soviet legacy, is, let’s say, not the prototype of an aircraft carrier, but its greatly curtailed shadow. The prototype of the aircraft carrier was his brother, Ulyanovsk with an aircraft wing for 70 cars, and the alleged catapult. So to speak, the first and so far the only full-fledged aircraft carrier.
      2. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 8 November 2016 15: 26
        +2
        I’m not a sailor, but I read that an aircraft carrier simply carries aircraft and helicopters, without essentially serious weapons, and Kuznetsov has an aircraft carrying cruiser, that is, in addition to aircraft, it also has its own weapons ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 8 November 2016 20: 21
          +2
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          I’m not a sailor, but I read that an aircraft carrier simply carries aircraft and helicopters, without essentially serious weapons, and Kuznetsov has an aircraft carrying cruiser, that is, in addition to aircraft, it also has its own weapons ...

          My friend, any sailor will tell you that the most serious weapon in the sea is military aircraft. If the KUG is not covered from the air, its combat stability, in comparison with the AUG, tends to zero.
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 8 November 2016 17: 40
        +5
        Quote: rudolff
        I am also an amateur, because I consider Kuznetsov to be an aircraft carrier, and not a cruiser.

        Rudolph, welcome.
        No cunning. The only full-fledged aircraft carrier of this series was Ulyanovsk, but we safely cut it on the stocks at the shipyards, allegedly not finding the possibility of using this aircraft carrier. Another question is that they came up with such a deep thought when they threw in a lot of money, resources and time. All his other "brothers" in the series were heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  6. m.cempbell
    m.cempbell 8 November 2016 14: 43
    +3
    Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
    Here is the answer to the question: Does Russia need an aircraft carrier?

    But I think that what we need is not an aircraft carrier, but a Kuznetsov-class ship - that is, aircraft carrier CRUISER. It is very expensive to create a full-fledged AUG, and we don't even need to. But the KUG is exactly what will act as a cold shower in local conflicts, such as Syria.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 November 2016 15: 21
      +8
      Quote: m.cempbell
      But I think that what we need is not an aircraft carrier, but a Kuznetsov-class ship. aircraft carrier CRUISER. It is very expensive to create a full-fledged AUG, and we don't even need to.

      Gorgeous. And it’s nothing that just for KUG air defense it is necessary to have a full-fledged AB - with the possibility of basing at least 4 AWACS vehicles.
      Without AWACS, the AV loses more than half of its air defense capabilities: it is impossible to "emulate" AWACS radars with airborne radars of fighters, except to inflate the AB air group to 100 sides (to ensure round-the-clock duty of fighters in the 360-degree sector within a radius of 100 miles from AB).
      1. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 8 November 2016 15: 49
        +1
        there was the Yak-44 project, so why not revive it? very useful plane, and "from the ground" can be used so as not to drive expensive A-50
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 November 2016 16: 59
          +1
          Quote: ArikKhab
          was the Yak-44 project, so why not revive it?

          The D-27 engine is semi-Russian, semi-Ukrainian.
          Plus, the Yak-44 was the ultimate machine - the take-off run when taking off from the springboard was 150-200 m. For comparison: at 1143.5, the starting position No. 3 (far) provides a take-off run of 180 m.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 8 November 2016 20: 28
        0
        I read the comments and my soul rejoices. Over the course of several years, my explanations to a horde of rabid anti-aircraft carriers about the need for Aircraft Carriers for our Navy did not go to waste. But as history shows, the best explanation is the practical poking of the nose into the "unexpected" situation with Syria, which indicated this urgent need.
        And now no one is arguing with this.
    2. tomket
      tomket 8 November 2016 15: 37
      +4
      Excuse me, "Lexington" also carried cruising cannons, did it shoot many of these cannons? The issue of mixed weapons was removed back in World War II. And only here they stubbornly or persistently want an aircraft-carrying cruiser ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 November 2016 17: 17
        +2
        Quote: tomket
        Excuse me, "Lexington" also carried cruising cannons, did it shoot many of these cannons?

        He-he-he ... it’s better not to remember Lady Lex, but “Ise” with “Hyuga” after the 1943 modernization. smile
    3. tomket
      tomket 8 November 2016 20: 21
      +1
      Enter poverty for a benefactor?
  7. K-50
    K-50 8 November 2016 14: 50
    +3
    In passing, mentioning the Russian aircraft carrier cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov, Drian noted that the combat capabilities of the ship did not impress him.

    How likely is a mistake if you look only at how the ship moves, and not how it uses weapons? fool
    Moreover, the quantity and quality of weapons is superior to the French pelvis. Or until they get it on their foreheads? laughing
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 November 2016 15: 35
      +3
      Quote: K-50
      Moreover, the quantity and quality of weapons is superior to the French pelvis. Or until they get it on their foreheads?

      Su-33 has already been taught to carry something other than "cast iron"? wink
      Or resumed production of "Granites"?
      1. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 8 November 2016 15: 52
        +2
        there is a joint project with the Indians Brahmos ... under the same Su-30 is suspended. why not hang under the naval Su-33?
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 8 November 2016 20: 38
          0
          Quote: ArikKhab
          there is a joint project with the Indians Brahmos ... under the same Su-30 is suspended. why not hang under the naval Su-33?

          Until there is a normal plane-deck nuclear-powered aircraft carrier about the outboard Bramos to the Su-33 you can not remember. With this unfortunate springboard, Sushi can take off with Kuzi with only half combat load. With Brahmos, it’s not realistic to take off, but to sit down even more so is too short.
      2. K-50
        K-50 8 November 2016 16: 18
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Su-33 has already been taught to carry something other than "cast iron"?

        At this stage, the "Kuzya" acts as an air defense shield for the ship's formation, which is what other KUG units will find to screw up the enemy.
        Therefore, about the "cast iron" span. In the end, only TWO aircraft there are not equipped with systems for striking a ground object with high-precision weapons. They can apply all other strategic offensive weapons at a sufficient level. hi
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 November 2016 17: 01
          +3
          Quote: K-50
          In the end, there are only TWO aircraft not equipped with high-precision weapon systems for hitting a ground object.

          "Hephaestus" has nothing to do with precision weapons. This system is designed to improve the accuracy of blows with "cast iron".
          1. K-50
            K-50 8 November 2016 17: 34
            +2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            "Hephaestus" has nothing to do with precision weapons. This system is designed to improve the accuracy of blows with "cast iron".

            Why do you think that "Kuzya" is going to bomb someone in Syria? belay
            As part of the KUG, for example, "Petya" is coming, will he also bomb? belay
            It's just that a situation has developed that in order to support Russian ships in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, they decided to add several units with "Calibers". To this they decided to add "Kuzya" and "Petya". Indeed, never before in the foreseeable history of Russia have two of our most powerful ships set out together on a campaign simultaneously and together. This is a unique case for increasing the amalgamation of such a large group of our ships, an excellent training, and for one and smaller combat units in a tense international situation. Finally "troll" our "sworn friends". Finally, it's easy to remind everyone that if something doesn't seem enough to anyone and will not "offend" anyone.
            The campaign of warships solves a COMPLEX of conditionally combat tasks, and not just a TAVK campaign to the shores of Syria. Give the adversary "boiling water", especially at the main election of the new head of crap. hi
  8. m.cempbell
    m.cempbell 8 November 2016 16: 25
    +2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    full AV - with the possibility of basing at least 4 AWACS vehicles.

    There are also AWACS helicopters. I am very interested to see how, for example, our A-50 takes off from an aircraft carrier! This is to give him such acceleration so that he takes off from such a short deck; he must be pushed into four catapults, and there is still a magic pendal from behind! And it's not a fact that they will disperse ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 November 2016 17: 06
      +3
      Quote: m.cempbell
      There are also AWACS helicopters.

      Their capabilities (in terms of avionics and range / patrol time) are several times lower than those of an airplane.
      For example, for the organization of round-the-clock duty within a radius of 100 miles of the AUG (taking into account the maintenance and repair of AWACS vehicles), the Americans need to have only 4 Hawaias in the air wing.
      Quote: m.cempbell
      I am very interested to see how, for example, our A-50 takes off from an aircraft carrier!

      Well ... the C-130 took off from the Forrestal. 21 times. smile
  9. Stone
    Stone 8 November 2016 17: 19
    0
    The AUG will not live in a big mess for a long time, in the end, it will be fucked up with something nuclear, therefore the aircraft carrier needs only Papuans to drive and for the sake of prestige. But to create a massive cheap cruise missile, albeit a low-speed one, with a piston engine (it is possible with a jet accelerator to launch and / or accelerate at the final section), with a relatively simple guidance system, for example, only with the help of external illumination, to carry containers with these missiles there could be almost any transport (yes even a barge) - this is necessary. For hacking anti-aircraft defense and destroying important targets there is Iskander and Caliber, but for the fight, for example, with terrorists or with not very important and not protected targets, these missiles will be the very thing. And most likely the use of such missiles will be even cheaper and safer than the use of aviation.
  10. antivirus
    antivirus 8 November 2016 19: 52
    0
    Every sandpiper praises its swamp
    if only I hadn’t hit the hens like a hen
    HOLDING BEAC IN THE WIND
  11. Holoy
    Holoy 8 November 2016 21: 33
    +1
    Brazilians, Italians, Spaniards, Thailand have Carriers ...
  12. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan 9 November 2016 01: 33
    0
    Russia also needs nuclear-powered aircraft carriers similar to the American ones. These should be ships with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons, carrying 70-90 aircraft and helicopters and equipped with a steam or electromagnetic catapult. Only the presence of a catapult will allow launching AWACS aircraft from the deck and fully utilizing the potential of fighter aircraft. The main emphasis should be placed on the striking power of the wing and the air defense system of the ship, and separate strike weapons on board must be abandoned. Aircraft are capable of hitting any type of target. An aircraft carrier is a huge floating air base that is constantly moving, making it very difficult to destroy it with conventional means.
    1. jayich
      jayich 9 November 2016 15: 31
      0
      A catapult is optional, the B25 took off without a catapult, and they have a mass of 15 tons, the Yak 44 is about 35, but the engines are only 2000 hp., And the Yak 44 15000 hp, even without a catapult it will fly.
  13. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan 9 November 2016 01: 40
    0
    Only the presence of AUG in the Navy will make the fleet balanced. Russia doesn't need 10 aircraft carriers, but 2-4 AUGs would be quite useful. I am 100% sure that Russia has all the necessary technologies to build a Nimitz-class ship. This is the level of technology of the late 60s.
  14. Katman
    Katman 9 November 2016 11: 42
    0
    He said three, then three: France, USA and China! And do not cross! And then, wow!