Military Review

In the future program of the Navy there are naval aircraft-carrying complexes.

191
Marine aircraft carrier complexes (MAC) are present in the future plans for the development of the Navy, they will be used to ensure the security of Russia in the foreseeable future. Interfax a message from a member of the board of the military industrial complex of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Pospelov.


In the future program of the Navy there are naval aircraft-carrying complexes.


“In those programs that we form for the future, ships of this class are present. I am sure that the goals and tasks that are being decided by the Russian Navy will be solved in the future by ships of this class, ”
- he said.

When asked by the agency, which way would the construction of the newest aircraft carrier go, Pospelov answered that “several options are always being considered.”

Ships of this class are “an expensive pleasure for any country, especially given that some of the tasks can be solved by other effective naval means,” in particular, using the capabilities of missile ships, which have recently replenished fleethe noted.

The agency recalls that in September, Industry Minister Denis Manturov said that Russian enterprises are able to build an aircraft carrier, but in this matter it is better to focus on demand from the military department.
Photos used:
TASS, Lev Fedoseev
191 comment
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. Monos
    Monos 2 December 2016 17: 19
    +14
    A strange situation in our country always develops: there is always no money and aircraft carriers are always needed. We must understand that if our main potential adversary is overseas, then we cannot do without aircraft carriers.
    1. DIVAN SOLDIER
      DIVAN SOLDIER 2 December 2016 17: 23
      +3
      And what kind of aircraft carrier can they offer ?? Only the Soviet groundwork in the form of "Ulyanovsk" ...
      1. Pirogov
        Pirogov 2 December 2016 17: 44
        +9
        Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
        And what kind of aircraft carrier can they offer ?? Only the Soviet groundwork in the form of "Ulyanovsk" ..

        Yes, even if it was like the Italians or the French, they would cost an order of magnitude less, but no, we also need the largest and most nuclear, and then bare ass ................. ............
        1. Temples
          Temples 2 December 2016 17: 52
          +18
          Airplanes took off (if they had time), after that a small bukh on the deck, it (the deck) went out of order and all taking off planes drowned in the sea. It’s sad. You don’t even need to drown it.
          Dry it and in Africa dry.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 2 December 2016 18: 05
            +14
            Quote: Temples
            Airplanes took off (if they had time), after that a small bukh on the deck, it (the deck) went out of order and all taking off planes drowned in the sea. It’s sad. You don’t even need to drown it.
            Dry it and in Africa dry.

            Airplanes took off from the coast, flew into the fleet's operational area - and there were only debris and spasplots there. Late.
            I don’t even say how long it takes to build airfields on the shore in order to ensure that coastal aviation forces are comparable to 2-3 AB air groups in the required areas of the sea.
            1. kuz363
              kuz363 2 December 2016 20: 58
              0
              And the planes remaining on the aircraft carrier, too, will not take off. Because there will be nowhere to sit.
        2. Alexdark
          Alexdark 3 December 2016 03: 51
          +1
          It is important. Yes, the largest and most nuclear. That is the principle. It has always been like this with us. And it will be a shame if, like some Italians there, etc. We love records, and everything should be record-breaking, epic.
      2. 210ox
        210ox 2 December 2016 18: 00
        +2
        Yes, at least the same "Ulyanovsk". Equipment only of a different level ... True, before that it is necessary to build an appropriate shipbuilding plant ..
        1. cniza
          cniza 2 December 2016 18: 21
          +8
          This is a difficult question, and not because it is very expensive, but rather because modern technology changes its qualities very quickly and whether an aircraft carrier is needed is a question.
          1. Starley from the south
            Starley from the south 2 December 2016 22: 44
            +3
            In this desire to have an aircraft carrier, there is also show-off: why, this is a sign of a superpower! ... But in my humble opinion, we need ships of comparable power, but more self-sufficient (independent) ships like heavy missile cruisers of the Peter the Great type, only better. Although it will be comparable in price to a good aircraft carrier, it will definitely be cheaper in operation. And he will be able to solve most of the tasks.
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 December 2016 18: 26
          +10
          Quote: 210ox
          . The truth before that it is necessary to build an appropriate shipyard ..


          They threaten to build on Sevmash ... while there are two options so far, atomic for 85-100 thousand tons, or non-nuclear for -55-65 thousand tons. Moreover, the second option is now considered as export.
          But it seems like there is infa that one or two aircraft carrier-class shipyards are being built.
          Quote: Muvka
          In contact with this enemy aircraft carriers are useless. Only ICBMs and CRDCs. Carriers are needed only for the war with the Papuans.

          And how to provide cover for our naval strike formations? You must understand that the fleet will also be part of our missile defense system in the future.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 2 December 2016 20: 02
            +5
            Quote: NEXUS
            They threaten to build on Sevmash ..

            It will be super-tin if it is built and it comes out into the operational space under the name "Soviet Union", as in the video! laughing The stupor of American pilots and other representatives of the US Navy is 100% guaranteed! good
            1. Roman 11
              Roman 11 3 December 2016 13: 56
              0
              Quote: GSH-18
              It will be super-tin if it is built and it comes out into the operational space under the name "Soviet Union", as in the video

              This is somewhat archaic, let it be "Russian Federation" ..... or just "Russia", just "Federation", etc.
            2. woron333444
              woron333444 3 December 2016 15: 17
              +1
              It will be super-tin if it is built and it goes out into the operational space under the name "Soviet Union"

              Better yet, "Joseph Stalin", then very many people will get sick and not only abroad.
          2. GSH-18
            GSH-18 2 December 2016 20: 12
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            On Sevmash

            Greetings, NEXUS! Good vidosik and good news good
            R&D on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is in full swing. If our Such a 100-ton-ton two-band is laid on a slipway, it can be considered that the country is really protected and will have a real tool to protect its interests and support its allies around the world yes
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 December 2016 20: 57
              +3
              Quote: GSH-18
              Greetings, NEXUS!

              Greetings!
              Quote: GSH-18
              R&D on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is in full swing. If our Such a 100-thousand-ton double-stripe is laid on a slipway, we can assume that the country is really protected,

              It will have to be built 10 years. This is not a frigate or even a destroyer. And we need at least 3-4 of them, at least. Apparently because of this, several carrier-class shipyards are being built in order to lay more than one.
              Quote: GSH-18
              will have a real tool to protect their interests and support their allies around the world

              By the 30th year, can you imagine what volume of work to be done? Build a shipyard, recruit staff of specialists, and ALREADY build new escort ships (the Leader project is also not small), support ships, develop a new deck, helicopters or airborne avionics and so on, while concentrating the power of the whole country ... and for the money it’s very smartly get it. And all this will have to be done, if possible, without prejudice to other projects.
              In general, there is a lot of work ahead, and God forbid, we will master it.
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 2 December 2016 21: 16
                +1
                Quote: NEXUS
                It will have to be built 10 years.

                Yes, about that.
                Quote: NEXUS
                And we need at least 3-4 of them, at least.

                Three will be enough, + Kuzya in the wings. One at a time, Northern Fleet, Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet good

                Quote: NEXUS
                Apparently because of this, several carrier-class shipyards are being built in order to lay more than one.

                Now I only know about "Zvezdochka", there is a real fast movement going on, the docks are being rebuilt. It should be 450 meters high!
                Quote: NEXUS
                By the 30th year, can you imagine what volume of work to be done?

                Yes, work is VERY much, but it only pleases good
                Quote: NEXUS
                Leader project is also not small

                The Leader is almost as important as the Aircraft Carrier yes
                Quote: NEXUS
                And all this will need to be done, if possible not to the detriment of other projects.

                Strengthening the fleet is already priority No. 1, and then it will only be better. It is impossible without the Russian Carrier Fleet. This is all understood yes
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 2 December 2016 21: 26
                  +4
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  + Kuzya in the wings

                  Kuzya by the 30th year except that as a simulator for our sea flyers will do. He is already over 30 years old.
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  One at a time, Northern Fleet, Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet

                  In the Northern Fleet, you need a springboard carrier without a catapult (it has proved itself poorly in those latitudes). At the Black Sea Fleet, drina of 100 thousand tons is not needed. In the Russian Sea there will be Leaders with Zircons, frigates and corvettes with Caliber or with the same Zircons. This is there for the eyes. But at the Pacific Fleet, with an eye on the Atlantic, 3-4 aircraft carriers with catapults will be the most ...
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Now I only know about "Zvezdochka", there is a real fast movement going on, the docks are being rebuilt. It should be 450 meters high!

                  There was infa that not only on Zvyozdochka such a shipyard is being built ...
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  The Leader is almost as important as the Aircraft Carrier

                  Today, the Leader is even more important than the projects of Ash, Husky and Kalina ... the fleet of destroyers and cruisers is aging, but there is no replacement yet.

                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Strengthening the fleet is now priority No. 1

                  It’s true. You only need to understand what it will cost us, and to realize that for all this we need specialists, high-level engineers and designers before the cut. At the same time, for managers who are not clean at hand, can you imagine what kind of field will not be plowed there? Accordingly, control over the budget of the respective structures.
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 2 December 2016 23: 19
                    +1
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    At the Black Sea Fleet, drina of 100 thousand tons is not needed. In the Russian Sea there will be Leaders with Zircons, frigates and corvettes with Caliber or with the same Zircons. This is there for the eyes.

                    No. Not the right approach.
                    Black Sea Fleet - the most belligerent fleet of all (Black Sea Fleet Northern Fleet Pacific Fleet BF) - history. Because it is always in the thick of things. In Soviet times, the Black Sea Fleet had helicopter carriers "Leningrad", the same Kuzya was assigned in Sevastopol as "Brezhnev" request
                    Well, you understand me, huh?
                    After all, the water area of ​​responsibility is not limited to the Black Sea, the Black Sea, we can say this is its NEST lol
                    All of Europe is under the responsibility of the Black Sea Fleet, therefore it is so important for Russia, it was, is and will be. And an aircraft carrier for the Black Sea Fleet is not a luxury, but a necessity.
                    Indeed, in the middle-earth, in addition to the NATO countries, there is always the 6th operational fleet of the United States, led by the Aircraft Carrier Enterprise. Such things, buddy.
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 2 December 2016 23: 34
                      +4
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      The Black Sea Fleet is the most belligerent fleet of all (Black Sea Fleet SF Pacific Fleet BF) -history.

                      To do this, there is Crimea in the future bases in the Middle East. Moreover, the Leader destroyers will be equipped with Zircons with a range of 1000 km. And if we deploy a satellite targeting group, which will be able to online correct the flight of the Kyrgyz Republic until it captures the target, then the same Caliber will hit 1500 km on surface targets, which is more than the range of carrier-based aviation. At the same time, there are also Bastion coastal complexes ... and there is an opinion that he is able to beat not only Onyxes, but also such KRs as Grenade-M (according to rumors), which, in the version of a simple Grenade, flew 70 more in the 2500s km
                      At the same time, there is Iskander-M, in which the nomenclature of missiles does not end with one missile, which hits 500 km. Also, on the approach of the ICBM Boundary, which can be used with a non-nuclear warhead and with a flight range of at least 5000 km. Moreover, besides the Boundaries, they can still be easily transferred to different regions on the same Ruslan ... Enough for you to control the Black Sea Fleet and Europe?
                      1. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 3 December 2016 00: 17
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        then the same Caliber will hit 1500 km on surface targets

                        Caliber is now able to hit stationary targets at a distance of 4000km. But only I didn’t tell you anything about it! drinks

                        Quote: NEXUS
                        At the same time, there are also coastal complexes Bastion

                        Man, all this is either stationary, or little mobile complexes.
                        How can they compare with your armada of ultra-modern carrier-based fighters armed with a huge arsenal of various missile weapons, target designation and unlimited mobility of a floating airfield? request
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        At the same time, there is Iskander-M, in which the nomenclature of missiles does not end with one missile, which hits 500 km.

                        Practice has shown that missiles in peacetime do not solve diplomatic life. Only by the real presence of real power. Well, for example, as we are now in Khmeimim .. And then they could not do without carrier-based aviation .. request
                  2. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 2 December 2016 23: 43
                    +1
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    It’s true. You only need to understand what it will cost us

                    I take this as an investment in the future of my beloved country and as providing a future for my children. So everything is fine. FSB just has to make oligarchs fork out, and no problem yes We have enough money in our country for EVERYTHING, it’s just that now they are not yet distributed as it should. This can be understood, the President is not a god; very little time has passed since the collapse of the USSR. Hucksters keep loot. But this will not always be. The process goes much faster than the Americans suggested yes
                  3. Monarchist
                    Monarchist 3 December 2016 10: 30
                    0
                    Nexus, Allow me to express my vision of the situation: an aircraft carrier is unnecessary on the Black Sea Fleet, even without the Leader, you can do 11356 pieces 8-9 and at least a couple of "Admiral Golovko" + Kara to urty. This is enough for others to be "meek".
                    Aircraft carriers need at least 3. In addition to "Zvezdochka", "Severnaya" can pull and I don't know anymore
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 3 December 2016 10: 51
                      +2
                      Quote: Monarchist
                      , even without a Leader you can do

                      A leader is needed anyway. It replaces three classes of ships. Look how old the cruiser Moscow is (about 40!). At the same time, the series of Leaders with YaSU must be at least 8 ships. In non-nuclear version (possibly with a smaller displacement), another 10-15 ships at least. As for the Black Sea Fleet, we must proceed from the fact that we are going to build there, I’m talking about bases, Crimea, and so on ...
                      Quote: Monarchist
                      Aircraft carriers need at least 3. In addition to "Zvezdochka", "Severnaya" can pull and I don't know anymore

                      I said no less than 3-4 aircraft carriers. It would be good if 5. Through the northern latitudes in the long term exit to the Atlantic, where our presence now is several nuclear submarines. And the Atlantic, this is the patrimony of the American fleets. Therefore, we need Leaders in good numbers and aircraft carriers with nuclear weapons.
                      1. Monarchist
                        Monarchist 4 December 2016 09: 33
                        +1
                        Nexus, Look: frigates 22380 is a good destroyer. Yes, and 11356 abruptly will be a guard.
                        If as you say: "As for the Black Sea Fleet, then we must proceed from the fact that we are going to build there, I mean the basics, the Crimea, etc." as I understand it: companions for an aircraft carrier in Tartu? In this case, the "Leader" with YSU is the same cruiser, perhaps you are right.
                  4. PSih2097
                    PSih2097 3 December 2016 11: 36
                    +1
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    We need a springboard carrier on the SFwithout catapult. (in those latitudes, it worked poorly).

                    steam yes, but EM is needed more than ever, without it, the AWACS aircraft with AB will not take off ...
                    although according to calculations this was supposed to take off without a catapult.

                    In the final version (project 1984 of the year), the Yak-44E was equipped with two D-27 turboprop-fan engines developed by Zaporozhye Machine-Building Design Bureau Progress. According to its characteristics, the D-27 engine has no analogues in the global aircraft engine building industry. The use of these engines with a heightened load on the take-off mode, as well as taking into account the wing airflow, made it possible to provide a springboard Yak-44E springboard from aircraft carriers. Both of the key engine elements that determine the high technological level — the gearbox and the fan-driver — are Russian-made.
              2. GSH-18
                GSH-18 2 December 2016 23: 50
                +1
                Quote: NEXUS
                And we need at least 3-4 of them, at least. Apparently because of this, several carrier-class shipyards are being built in order to lay more than one.

                God bless your words! yes
              3. Vadim237
                Vadim237 3 December 2016 11: 06
                0
                And this nuclear carrier will cost from 500 billion rubles apiece.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 3 December 2016 12: 34
                  +2
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  And this nuclear carrier will cost from 500 billion rubles apiece.

                  And the fleet is not a cheap pleasure at all. As they say, if you want to ruin a small state, give him an atomic cruiser.
              4. Roman 11
                Roman 11 3 December 2016 13: 59
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                And we need at least 3-4 of them, at least.

                Better 30-40 laughing God is the discretion of the sufferers laughing
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 3 December 2016 14: 23
                  +2
                  Quote: Novel 11
                  Yes, it’s better. 30-40 Good luck to the sufferers.

                  What did you forget here? You have the same place in the Shoigu chair! Such a special disappears, it is necessary ... laughing
                  1. Monarchist
                    Monarchist 3 December 2016 21: 38
                    0
                    Nexus, applaud you: a good answer
            2. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 December 2016 22: 08
              +3
              Quote: GSH-18
              Good vidosik and good news

              Here is another video with approximate performance characteristics of the future aircraft carrier ...
          3. Dart2027
            Dart2027 2 December 2016 20: 59
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            or non-nuclear at -55-65 thousand tons

            Some do not learn anything. Any aircraft carrier must be nuclear. So what, but we have the technology for creating shipboard ACs.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 December 2016 21: 10
              +3
              Quote: Dart2027
              Some do not learn anything. Any aircraft carrier must be nuclear. So what, but we have the technology for creating shipboard ACs.

              Everything rests on money and dimensions, as well as on the time required for construction. Today, we have one non-nuclear-armed pre-carrier, and that’s all. It’s clear that an aircraft carrier is preferable with a nuclear warhead, but so far we don’t even have a Leader with a nuclear warhead, not to mention the aircraft carriers. And by the age of 25, the Leader of our destroyers should be (if they don’t lie) as many as 8 pieces with a total series of previously 15 pieces (it is believed that there will be up to 30 destroyers in the series). At the same time, 8 of them will be exactly nuclear.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 2 December 2016 21: 32
                +1
                Quote: NEXUS
                Everything depends on money and dimensions, as well as on the time required for construction ... but so far we don’t even have a destroyer Leader with nuclear warheads, not to mention aircraft carriers

                Well, given that we have no problems with nuclear weapons, it is more about stuffing.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 2 December 2016 21: 42
                  +2
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Well, given that we have no problems with nuclear weapons, it is more about stuffing.

                  Just not just in money ... is it worth building an aircraft carrier of 55 tons with nuclear warheads (for about one thousand tons there is about one deck, that is, about 000 to 45 aircraft)? And in terms of size, this aircraft carrier will be much smaller than the aircraft carrier of 50 tons. At the same time, there is a time difference, to build a relative analogue of Kuzi (I'm talking about displacement) or ships are almost twice as large. And an aircraft carrier of at least 100 tons will be a priori equipped with catapults, avionics and avionics, and at the same time have a good strike wing, and not 000 IFIs ...
              2. GSH-18
                GSH-18 2 December 2016 21: 48
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                Everything depends on money and dimensions, as well as during

                Ничего подобного.
                In military affairs, everything depends on expediency.
                When money runs into, we have an incomprehensible vessel of the "Kuznetsov" type, but for the first time you can make a discount ...
                An aircraft carrier, like a front-line fighter, must be ahead of the time!
                By the fact that the aircraft carrier in the ship’s warrant is the tip of the blade.
                If we have a project for a two-lane, ejection, and trampoline carrier, then we must hold on to it! Tomorrow may be too late. The situation is changing too fast. China, India-build in all, France, UK, Australia ,, The United States is now launching an Aircraft Carrier Update program! Type 2.0! Gerald Ford is replacing the Nimits, so here are the guys request
                And here we are chewing all snot .. for now, like.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 2 December 2016 21: 57
                  +2
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Ничего подобного.
                  In military affairs, everything depends on expediency.

                  No, first of all, in the possibility of the military-industrial complex and the defense industry. And then in time, specialists, the presence of large shipyards, etc. ... and the expediency here is that we need a 100 ton aircraft carrier, but want and build slightly different concepts.
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  When money runs into, we have an incomprehensible vessel of the "Kuznetsov" type, but for the first time you can make a discount ...

                  Kuzya was originally built for other tasks and for a different application. His main weapon was the Granites, and the wing was auxiliary. That was the concept at that time, and that is why its TARK class, and not an aircraft carrier. Now, having removed Granites from him, we proudly call him an aircraft carrier. But what kind of aircraft carrier is it, for example, without avionics?
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  An aircraft carrier, like a front-line fighter, must be ahead of the time!

                  It is built at least for 50 years.
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  If we have a project for a two-lane, ejection, and trampoline carrier, then we must hold on to it!

                  And in the northern latitudes what to do with catapults? Either springboard carriers or a mixed type are needed ...
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  China, India-build in all, France, UK, Australia ,, The United States is now launching an Aircraft Carrier Update program!

                  That's right ... but the school then the construction of aircraft carriers was safely buried in the 90s ... and now we have to start from scratch. There are no specialists who built the same Ulyanovsk or Kuzyu ...
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 3 December 2016 00: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    No, first of all, in the possibility of the military-industrial complex and the defense industry.

                    Yes.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    100 ton aircraft carrier, but want and build slightly different concepts.

                    Well, with all the R&D and modernization of production facilities and Shipyards, it will still cost less than the Olympics in Sochi. But the Aircraft Carrier is a priori much more serious than at least 10 Olympiads for our state, don’t you?
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Kuzya was originally built for other tasks.

                    And under the doctrine of the USSR. RF is not the USSR
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    But what kind of aircraft carrier is it, for example, without avionics?

                    No yes
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    And in the northern latitudes what to do with catapults? Either springboard carriers of a mixed type are needed ..

                    It let the engineers be determined. But for the Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet there are no cold restrictions.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    There are no specialists who built the same Ulyanovsk or Kuzyu ...

                    I have already been minusanuli 4 times for similar reasons ... Some mothers, I'm sorry .. request
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 3 December 2016 00: 11
                      +3
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      But the Aircraft Carrier is a priori much more serious than at least 10 Olympiads for our state, don’t you?

                      For starters, we would overpower the Leader ... without it, the construction of an aircraft carrier is meaningless. At the same time, it would be nice to move with the Ashes and Husky.
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      It let the engineers be determined.

                      That's why I said that you need 3-4 aircraft carriers, at least. At the same time, I think that the issue of shock screen-flights is undeservedly forgotten. The same Eaglet was able to not only move as an ekranoplane, but also fly at an altitude of up to 2000 m. And if, for example, imagine the same Lun (or a similar apparatus) and RCC ZIRCON?
                      1. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 3 December 2016 00: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        That's why I said that you need 3-4 aircraft carriers, at least. At the same time, I think that the issue of shock screen-flights is undeservedly forgotten.

                        A little about the properties of the reservoir (Black Sea), I did not find this, but according to my ancestors, in the 60s there was a rise in hydrogen sulfide and flashes of this gas in the sea - the shock wave destroyed light buildings on the shore, the effect is comparable to the use of ammunition of a megaton class .. The Black Sea has depths of up to FOUR kilometers! The hydrogen sulfide layer begins at about 250 meters from the water surface .. Under such conditions, our Varshavyanki will have to work request Hydrogen sulfide in water is an acid! Because of this, the bulk of the Black Sea Fleet is the surface fleet.
                        You, dear NEXUS, should know this.
                        And nevertheless, the Black Sea Fleet carries out containment of NATO in the European theater of operations, and most importantly keeps under control the American destroyers of the 6th Fleet with the IJIS systems (sm-3 interceptor missiles) that threaten our nuclear potential of interception "but start", and their nuclear Middle-earth with nuclear missiles on board, of which there are many .. This is our Black Sea Fleet .. unknown to our people request
                      2. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 3 December 2016 01: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        For starters, we would have to master the Leader ... without it, the construction of an aircraft carrier is meaningless.

                        The inverse relationship - without the Aircraft Carrier, the construction of a "leader" is meaningless - that's for sure. It's like building a fleet in half request
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        At the same time, I think that the issue of shock ekranolletov undeservedly forgotten

                        In the relevant water areas this is very relevant. But let's not be distracted, we are talking about creating real AUGs, which we cannot do without in the future.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        And if, for example, imagine the same Lun

                        These are all Soviet coast guard fleet projects.
                        We are now interested in the aircraft carrier strike group of the ocean zone. yes
                  2. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 3 December 2016 02: 50
                    +1
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Kuzya was originally built for other tasks and for a different application.

                    Soviet coast guard fleet doctrine request Understand what follows from this? Soviet admirals protested at the time, many were imprisoned, Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov was an ardent supporter of the carrier fleet .. USSR request . request It all ended with the nuclear submarine (SSBN) generally not covered by the US Navy in patrol areas near the coast of the enemy ..
                    And until now, the problem has not been solved, even in the presence of multi-purpose submarines.
                    Amerikozy laid EVERYWHERE hoses with sensors 70-100km from the coast.
                    Starting this is difficult (the Gulf of Mexico is shallow in unladen areas for strategic nuclear submarines of the Russian Federation) request
                    I don’t even know what to say .. AUGs cover our SSBNs in these areas completely thanks to the destroyers of the URO ..
                2. Starley from the south
                  Starley from the south 2 December 2016 22: 55
                  +2
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Gerald Ford is replacing the Nimits,

                  Yes, this Gerald Ford didn’t really recommend something to himself, American warriors no longer know how many years they have been adopting it - everything is undergoing tests and improvements.
                  If you build an aircraft carrier, then you must immediately build several destroyers, other cover and support ships.
                  So far, we have experience that aircraft carriers are very well suited to crushing a weaker enemy. And the means to destroy aircraft carriers are much cheaper and easier than the aircraft carriers themselves.
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 3 December 2016 01: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: Starley from the South
                    So far, we have experience that aircraft carriers are very well suited to crushing a weaker enemy. And the means to destroy aircraft carriers are much cheaper and easier than the aircraft carriers themselves.

                    Man, you don’t understand, AUG is a model of the fleet, and not just the postscript of the aircraft carrier built by the port and squadron. Everything else is immediately there.
          4. Waterfowl
            Waterfowl 3 December 2016 01: 10
            0
            If you build - just not at Sevmash. Delivery of materials, labor .... is more expensive there.
        3. Orlenok ILLI4A
          Orlenok ILLI4A 3 December 2016 09: 53
          0
          Kerch, Zaliv shipyard, after the restoration of course, there is enough dry dock, outfitting wall too.
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 2 December 2016 19: 54
        +1
        In the future program of the Navy there are naval aircraft-carrying complexes.

        It would be strange if after the lessons of Syria this would not come to the surface, although the fleet needed it yesterday!
      4. GSH-18
        GSH-18 2 December 2016 20: 42
        +2
        My opinion is the following: since we have nuclear weapons, we need at least TWO nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to provide cover for nuclear submarines in the areas of deployment and to protect our and allied interests in the far sea zone. Further expansion of their fleet for the foreseeable future is not necessary.
        Conclusion: Russia needs heavy strike aircraft carriers with a displacement of 100 thousand. or more tons, with an aircraft wing from 100 aircraft. Protection of the naval formations of the fleet in this situation will be provided 100%. We work guys! good
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 December 2016 21: 03
          +3
          Quote: GSH-18
          since we have nuclear weapons, we need at least TWO nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in order to provide cover for nuclear submarines in the areas of deployment and to protect our and allied interests in the far sea zone.

          3-4 minimum ... for several reasons. The first one is rotation, the second one. For the North, you will need a springboard aircraft carrier, but for the Pacific, with catapults. But there is also the Caspian flotilla and a sight on the Atlantic. And in order to feel confident in all these waters, you need 3-4 aircraft carriers with a good escort and wing from new decks.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 2 December 2016 21: 31
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            3-4 minimum.

            I agree to 3.
            And I think this will be enough. Since we will have "Leaders" at the AUG.
            And in the current global situation, with such a Russian Navy, no one dares to attack us!
            I just proceed from considerations of expediency. Why do we need 10 AUGs like the USA? After all, the United States will not even be able to sink one destroyer from our AUG without formidable retaliation! We need aircraft carriers in the first place to cover the deployment zones of our SSBNs, for the stability of the connections of surface ships of the fleet, and for projecting military power in the regions of our allies, so that no one ate them! But since AUG is a universal tool, there can be many options, and for this reason we have to have heavy strike nuclear carrier carriers yes
            1. Starley from the south
              Starley from the south 2 December 2016 23: 02
              0
              It’s interesting, but how will the need for aircraft carriers change (and will it change?) If a new generation of UAVs is created (it is just around the corner)? Indeed, for such devices, aircraft carriers will be too fat ...
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 2 December 2016 23: 41
                +3
                Quote: Starley from the South
                Indeed, for such devices, aircraft carriers will be too fat ...

                Impact UAVs up to 20 tons are being developed now. In size, they will be smaller than MFIs, so they can be placed quantitatively more on an aircraft carrier. Imagine such an aircraft carrier on which we say 200 UAVs, which are cheaper than manned aircraft, but at the same time more speedy, more maneuverable and there is no human factor of piloting error. At the same time, what will such a swarm of multi-purpose UAVs be capable of?
                1. Starley from the south
                  Starley from the south 3 December 2016 15: 21
                  0
                  And why the fig for this swarm aircraft carrier? 200 pieces - it will be a bit much, and a smaller amount will fit freely on the cruiser. And it is not necessary to make all sea-based UAVs strike, more important, in my opinion, reconnaissance, for detection and target designation.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 3 December 2016 15: 29
                    +2
                    Quote: Starley from the South
                    And why the fig for this swarm aircraft carrier?

                    And in the same Atlantic, how are you going to deliver these UAVs? We have no bases there.
                    Quote: Starley from the South
                    200 pieces - it will be too much

                    I talked about the total number of UAVs on an aircraft carrier ... of course there should not only be drums, but also UAVs, AWACS, avionics, etc.
                    Quote: Starley from the South
                    more important, in my opinion, reconnaissance, for detection and target designation.

                    They certainly should be in sufficient stock.
      5. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 2 December 2016 20: 47
        +3
        Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
        And what kind of aircraft carrier can they offer ??

        You read the article inattentively. It refers to the airborne COMPLEXES. And this is not just an Aircraft Carrier (!) In its classical sense.
        Here, for example, how it represents the Krylovsky Center:
        “Project 23000“ Storm ”is a project of a promising Russian multi-purpose heavy aircraft carrier (super-carrier) developed at the Krylov State Research Center (KSCC). The ship is designed to perform various tasks in the far ocean zone, will be able to strike at ground and sea targets of the enemy using their own weapons and aircraft of the airborne aviation group, in addition, it will be able to provide air defense airborne defense systems and means of the air group, to ensure combat stability and air defense of naval groups, as well as provide support for landing.

        That is, we see the commitment of the domestic shipbuilding idea to the idea of ​​a "combat unit" with powerful missile (anti-ship missile / air defense) weapons, and not just a floating "airfield" like the Anglo-Saxons.
        This is exactly what MAK differs from AVU.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 3 December 2016 02: 03
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          That is, we see the commitment of the domestic shipbuilding idea to the idea of ​​a "combat unit"

          This is not good, this concept of "ship-separate combat unit" became obsolete in the late 60s, if not earlier!
          AUG is a group of highly specialized and multifunctional combat units, united by a network-centric AUG BUS! This is her power and strength.
      6. GSH-18
        GSH-18 2 December 2016 23: 06
        +1
        Maritime aircraft carrier complexes (IAC) are present in the long-term plans for the development of the Navy

        What the .. MAK ???
        AGAIN we invent a bicycle for people's money ??? am angry fool
        RUSSIA NEEDS AIRCRAFT-CARS !!! soldier
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 December 2016 23: 54
          +3
          Quote: GSH-18
          What the .. MAK ???

          A promising IAC - aircraft carrier of project 23000E (code "Storm") - so far exists only in the form of a model
          hi .
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 3 December 2016 02: 13
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            Quote: GSH-18
            What the .. MAK ???

            A promising IAC - aircraft carrier of project 23000E (code "Storm") - so far exists only in the form of a model
            hi .

            Beautiful sketch, two-way, straight breakthrough in the carrier building! I AM, with two arms and legs good but why the hell is it weird to call it? Name beautifully-Aircraft carrier "Soviet Union"! Let the foe dirty the diapers laughing
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 3 December 2016 00: 02
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          What the .. MAK ???

          By the way, the abbreviation IAC in the fleet is deciphered as follows: Small Artillery Ship. Example-IAC Makhachkala. hi
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 3 December 2016 03: 16
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            By the way, the abbreviation IAC in the fleet is deciphered as follows: Small Artillery Ship. Example-IAC Makhachkala.

            Well that's not Faq laughing Joke. Right now the admins will write me another minute competently lol with the link "MAT" ..
        3. dr.star75
          dr.star75 3 December 2016 02: 08
          0
          RUSSIA NEEDS AIRCRAFT-CARS !!! soldier
          I completely agree with you, but where can aircraft carriers be used? Northern Fleet. - doubtful. The Baltic Fleet is not real. The Black Sea Fleet is not real. The Pacific Fleet is real, but there is nobody to use against anyone.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 3 December 2016 14: 26
            +2
            Quote: dr.star75
            Northern Fleet - doubtful

            Across the North, exit to the Atlantic ...
            Quote: dr.star75
            The Pacific Fleet is real, but there is nobody to use against anyone.

            And the same Japan forgot about the Kuril Islands for example?
            1. dr.star75
              dr.star75 3 December 2016 14: 35
              0
              Through access to the Atlantic, it is doubtful in terms of what they have nothing to do there. I think about Yapov (it's just me)
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 3 December 2016 14: 40
                +2
                Quote: dr.star75
                Through access to the Atlantic is doubtful

                And what is going to the Atlantic today? And there is the patrimony of mattresses, and now China is strengthening ...
      7. Titsen
        Titsen 2 December 2016 23: 15
        0
        Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
        can they offer an aircraft carrier ??


        Article blah blah blah!

        What is she talking about?

        About Pospelov?

        To not forget about him?

        Complete nonsense!
    2. Muvka
      Muvka 2 December 2016 17: 25
      +15
      In contact with this enemy aircraft carriers are useless. Only ICBMs and CRDCs. Carriers are needed only for the war with the Papuans.
      1. Pirogov
        Pirogov 2 December 2016 17: 40
        +5
        Quote: Muvka
        In contact with this enemy aircraft carriers are useless. Only ICBMs and CRDCs. Carriers needed only for the war with the Papuans

        I do not agree with you, aviation at sea and in the ocean gives an undeniable advantage.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 2 December 2016 17: 42
          +8
          The problem is that this case is relatively easily destroyed. With appropriate technologies that are available to both them and us.
          1. Pirogov
            Pirogov 2 December 2016 17: 55
            0
            What, well, enlighten. Hope for the satellites and they were taken and shot down, and that we still have unfinished POLYMENT EDIT which is still to be tested and tested?
          2. Pirogov
            Pirogov 2 December 2016 18: 45
            +2
            Quote: Muvka
            The problem is that this case is relatively easily destroyed. With appropriate technologies that are available to both them and us.

            There is one problem in Russia ,,,, FOOLS ,,,
          3. GSH-18
            GSH-18 2 December 2016 20: 57
            0
            Quote: Muvka
            The problem is that this case is relatively easily destroyed. With appropriate technologies that are available to both them and us.

            As well as ICBMs and RAC request
            Only an aircraft carrier is not a rocket, but a platform for weapons. But what it will be today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, question number 2, but the platform will remain unchanged-Aircraft carrier.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 December 2016 17: 53
        +7
        Quote: Muvka
        In contact with this enemy aircraft carriers are useless. Only ICBMs and CRDCs. Carriers are needed only for the war with the Papuans.

        By no means.
        Ever since the times of the USSR, the Navy has demanded an AB for the pre-nuclear part of a large war: to ensure the combat stability of the SSBN cover forces - so that the naval "strategists" have a chance to wait for that order. And so that the adversary thinks three times - is it worth it at all to climb, if the probability of destroying the SSBN before launch is below the minimum permissible.
        1. Pirogov
          Pirogov 2 December 2016 18: 04
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Ever since the times of the USSR, the Navy has demanded an AB for the pre-nuclear part of a large war: to ensure the combat stability of the SSBN cover forces - so that the naval "strategists" have a chance to wait for that order. And so that the adversary thinks three times - is it worth it at all to climb, if the probability of destroying the SSBN before launch is below the minimum permissible.

          I completely agree with you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, unfortunately lately people have been loving to leave their caps on the VO.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 2 December 2016 20: 59
            0
            Quote: Pirogov
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Ever since the times of the USSR, the Navy has demanded an AB for the pre-nuclear part of a large war: to ensure the combat stability of the SSBN cover forces - so that the naval "strategists" have a chance to wait for that order. And so that the adversary thinks three times - is it worth it at all to climb, if the probability of destroying the SSBN before launch is below the minimum permissible.

            I completely agree with you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, unfortunately lately people have been loving to leave their caps on the VO.

            I join with your permission your opinion yes good
      3. 210ox
        210ox 2 December 2016 18: 02
        +5
        The Japanese during the Second World War .... also Papuans ..? For a couple of years, these "Papuans" JANQUES HAVE ...
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 2 December 2016 18: 20
          +4
          During the Second World War, were X-32 missiles a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 1Mt?
          1. 210ox
            210ox 2 December 2016 18: 27
            +5
            I understand your bet on missiles .. Well, almost Nikita Sergeevich ... We can cover any point ... Only you first find this floating airfield then try to strike with the same rocket if you allow the grouping of ships and not only included in order
            Quote: Muvka
            During the Second World War, were X-32 missiles a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 1Mt?
            1. Muvka
              Muvka 2 December 2016 19: 26
              +2
              Do not detect AUG? It is something. And what can a group against a supersonic missile launched from a distance of 1000 km?
              1. 210ox
                210ox 2 December 2016 19: 59
                +3
                I am not a naval aviation pilot and I don’t even sit anywhere in the VKS control center ... But the skills of reading books and articles of knowledgeable people allow me to conclude that it is very difficult to detect AUGs ..
                Quote: Muvka
                Do not detect AUG? It is something. And what can a group against a supersonic missile launched from a distance of 1000 km?
                1. Genry
                  Genry 2 December 2016 20: 37
                  +1
                  Quote: 210ox
                  books and articles of knowledgeable people allow me to conclude that it is very difficult to detect AUG.

                  And what to detect her.?!
                  Once a day, all the headquarters of long-range aviation receive telegrams with the coordinates of all relevant aircraft carrier formations. They are constantly led by different types of scouts.
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 2 December 2016 21: 04
                    +2
                    Quote: Genry
                    And what to detect her.?!


                    Frets. Since everything is so simple, please give us the coordinates of the Aircraft Carrier Enterprise of the 6th US operational fleet. This is a relatively simple task, because it is located in the Mediterranean Sea (hint), and not in the vast Pacific Ocean. Well, expert, coordinates to the studio? Or will you continue to carry nonsense here ??
                    1. Genry
                      Genry 2 December 2016 21: 47
                      0
                      Go to any long-range aviation headquarters (if allowed) and there, according to operational reports, you will be told where and what "floats".
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      ... Aircraft carrier Enterprise 6th US operational fleet. This is a relatively simple task, because it is located in the Mediterranean Sea (hint), and not in the vast Pacific Ocean.

                      How far are you from this question ... Well, you don’t even know that if the 6th fleet, then this is definitely the Mediterranean Sea. Fleet number refers to the territory. When changing the water area, the numbering of the fleet changes.
                      1. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 3 December 2016 03: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Genry
                        Go to any long-range aviation headquarters (if allowed) and there, according to operational reports, you will be told where and what "floats".

                        Yeah, if only ... I used to be in the fleet headquarters often, only my own water area of ​​responsibility, and truncated! World Ocean? kanai to the "other" service request
                        Therefore there is nothing to be clever!
                  2. 210ox
                    210ox 2 December 2016 21: 53
                    +1
                    How simple it is for you ... And hats flew .. with squadrons ..
                    Quote: Genry
                    Quote: 210ox
                    books and articles of knowledgeable people allow me to conclude that it is very difficult to detect AUG.

                    And what to detect her.?!
                    Once a day, all the headquarters of long-range aviation receive telegrams with the coordinates of all relevant aircraft carrier formations. They are constantly led by different types of scouts.
                    1. Genry
                      Genry 2 December 2016 22: 29
                      +1
                      Quote: 210ox
                      And hats flew .. squadrons ..

                      Yes, even skullcaps ...
                      This does not change the real state of affairs. Everyone grazes and you too ...
              2. GSH-18
                GSH-18 2 December 2016 20: 27
                +4
                Quote: Muvka
                Do not detect AUG? It is something. And what can a group against a supersonic missile launched from a distance of 1000 km?

                Shoot it down once 50-60, well, practice for one.
                Before you write funny comments, should you read about the main techniques of the AUG and the AUG air defense echelons?
                I look, do you want to earn points on wacklers?
                1. Genry
                  Genry 2 December 2016 22: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Shoot it down once 50-60,

                  Uh .. xxx .. Yoyo !!!
                  Yes, how many planes from an aircraft carrier do you have to fly in the air for such a performance. A pair of fighter jets flies once every 30 minutes. Well, on alarm, they’ll have time to raise a couple more. And truncated ... Only in propaganda films does a mass departure occur in a short period of time.
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 3 December 2016 03: 43
                    0
                    Quote: Genry
                    Only in propaganda films does a mass departure occur in a short period of time.

                    Yo! Can you take a look at the performance characteristics of "Gerald Ford" at the rate of rotation of the wing, so as not to write kindergarten mindsets on the site? wassat
                    Pot to bring? lol
              3. NEXUS
                NEXUS 3 December 2016 14: 32
                +2
                Quote: Muvka
                Do not detect AUG?

                And how were you going to discover her?
                Quote: Muvka
                And what can a group against a supersonic missile launched from a distance of 1000 km?

                To begin with, the same anti-ship missiles, in order for it to be able to hit targets at 1000 km, we need target designation data along the flight path with route adjustment, since ships are not a stationary target, until the target is captured by a rocket ... question- do we have today a satellite constellation capable of providing such target designation online?
                And second ... AUG is not a helpless congestion of ships, but a very tenacious "organism", which includes escort ships. And in order to penetrate the ABM AUG, you need a fairly good simultaneous volley of several dozen anti-ship missiles (preferably from several sides) to penetrate this layered defense.
            2. Starley from the south
              Starley from the south 2 December 2016 23: 12
              0
              Quote: 210ox
              Only you first find this floating airfield then try to strike with the same rocket, if the grouping of ships allows you

              Finding an aircraft carrier is not a problem, only it is moving. If anyone remembers, we have developed submarines with Granit missiles specifically against aircraft carriers. Now these are multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Severodvinsk type. The aircraft carrier can be destroyed guaranteed and not give itself out. That is why the Americans consider these nuclear submarines to be their most terrible threat. It's a pity that we have only one such nuclear submarine ...
          2. activator
            activator 2 December 2016 19: 28
            +1
            Quote: Muvka
            During the Second World War, were X-32 missiles a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 1Mt?

            It’s as if to say that an aircraft carrier is like you own boxing, it’s really long and difficult, but you can knock out a presumptuous boor, you’ll knock out a couple of teeth, you’ll break your nose, or you can just knock it out and whoever knows will not climb. it’s even possible to scare something to bomb in order to intimidate. But the rocket got it like a gun, that is, kill because simply by waving the gun or just swimming in a submarine it may not believe that it’s enough to use it.
            1. Genry
              Genry 2 December 2016 20: 43
              +1
              Quote: activator
              But the rocket is like a gun got a shot, that is, kill because just waving a gun or just swimming a submarine, it may not even believe that it’s enough to use the spirit.

              The cruiser "Moskva" is not an aircraft carrier, but NATO is making a detour 600 km so that something does not happen spontaneously.
              1. activator
                activator 2 December 2016 22: 22
                0
                Quote: Genry
                The cruiser "Moskva" is not an aircraft carrier, but NATO is making a detour 600 km so that something does not happen spontaneously.

                It goes without saying that the smart ones and they understand it’s not worthwhile to escalate once again, but there are a lot of all Papuans who run with Kalash and RPG 7 and even try to stir up some kind of organization of a group, organize a coup in the country, there are a lot of such igles in Africa and others lobuda. And if this country has interests, it may be possible to seize some objects, bases, hostages and, in that case, offer bullets from a missile cruiser in them, then it will certainly be effective to arrange a semi-palateisk in Africa, but it’s harmful for the environment they don’t understand. But aug on the coast can significantly cool the hot heads up to the ambient temperature. yes
                1. Genry
                  Genry 2 December 2016 22: 45
                  +1
                  The Americans, a couple of years ago, tried to intimidate Iran. Four (!!!) aircraft carriers caught up with the Persian Gulf. The result was that Iran’s small (very meager) missile boats dispersed them all.
          3. Dart2027
            Dart2027 2 December 2016 21: 02
            0
            And then rockets like Bulava, Sineva, Liner and Minuteman will fly. How amateurs of nuclear weapons are tired of - well, they don’t want to think about what will happen after its use.
            1. Genry
              Genry 2 December 2016 23: 19
              0
              Japan - a visual aid ...
              Although now there is more explosion power, but this is due to the large charge efficiency and not its volume. The infection will not be stronger.
              I am a cynical optimist.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 3 December 2016 10: 34
                0
                Quote: Genry
                Although now there is more explosion power, but this is due to the large charge efficiency and not its volume.

                That is, the fact that most of the major cities will be razed to the ground, and the losses will amount to tens of millions is a trifle? In addition, there are dirty bombs that are aimed specifically at radioactive contamination of the area.
      4. GSH-18
        GSH-18 2 December 2016 20: 23
        +1
        Quote: Muvka
        In contact with this enemy aircraft carriers are useless. Only ICBMs and CRDCs. Carriers are needed only for the war with the Papuans.

        The nonsense of the amateur.
        1. Genry
          Genry 2 December 2016 23: 04
          +1
          And you can see that you are a great scientist.
          Maybe they even studied in Britain ....
    3. Stalker.1977
      Stalker.1977 2 December 2016 18: 08
      +7
      Chet can not believe it, with one cosmodrome there are already how many hemorrhoids, and with and with stadiums for 2018, and here the Aircraft Carrier !!! Here it’s time to impose the death penalty for misappropriation of the budget!
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 2 December 2016 20: 04
        +6
        Quote: Stalker.1977
        Then damn it is time to introduce the death penalty for misappropriation budget!

        That is, if the budget steal intentionallythen should such figures be PROMOTED? laughing
        1. samoletil18
          samoletil18 2 December 2016 21: 02
          0
          This is if corrupt officials will throw themselves on a couple of aircraft carriers. Then encourage.
    4. rubin6286
      rubin6286 2 December 2016 18: 12
      +3
      Until now, they have completely managed without aircraft carriers. I understand that if the enemy is overseas, you cannot do without aircraft and missiles, and what is the aircraft carrier for? "Kuzya" is ours like a suitcase without a handle - it's hard to carry, and it's a pity to leave.
      1. Pirogov
        Pirogov 2 December 2016 18: 19
        +3
        Quote: rubin6286
        Until now, they have completely managed without aircraft carriers. I understand that if the enemy is overseas, you cannot do without aircraft and missiles, and what is the aircraft carrier for? "Kuzya" is ours like a suitcase without a handle - it's hard to carry, and it's a pity to leave.

        Who will highlight the missiles or will we send you a hat? , and where will the planes take off from Russian domestic bases so is it funny?
        1. Genry
          Genry 2 December 2016 20: 55
          +1
          Quote: Pirogov
          Who will highlight the missiles or will we send you a hat? , and where will the planes take off from Russian domestic bases so is it funny?

          Well, the rockets are already working without illumination. For example, a flock of "Granites" itself chooses and distributes targets. And you can deliver them at any trough. Rockets are unmanned single-use attack aircraft, optimized in functionality and volume. They began to make them from the MiG-15, with developed engines.
          1. Pirogov
            Pirogov 2 December 2016 21: 44
            0
            Quote: Genry
            Well, the rockets are already working without illumination. For example, a flock of "Granites" itself chooses and distributes targets. And you can deliver them at any trough. Rockets are unmanned single-use attack aircraft, optimized in functionality and volume. They began to make them from the MiG-15, with developed engines.

            The first one to discover the enemy defeated him, and with the help of an airplane, even let the distance of detection be up to 500 km, and it’s good for our ships if it’s 300 V, that I don’t believe and all hope remains for the satellite, and if the satellite is shot down ....... .........
            1. Genry
              Genry 2 December 2016 23: 31
              0
              Well, even in the USSR there were scouts, for example Tu-143 "Reis". It doesn't need anything to start from its container. He sits down on a parachute, then gets up and prepares for the next flight.
              A modern radar, similar to the MiG-29, can be shoved into such an envelope.
      2. 210ox
        210ox 2 December 2016 18: 33
        +5
        "Kuzyu" turned into a suitcase without a handle standing idle .. I do not mean participation in hostilities, but simply in real campaigns
        Quote: rubin6286
        Until now, they have completely managed without aircraft carriers. I understand that if the enemy is overseas, you cannot do without aircraft and missiles, and what is the aircraft carrier for? "Kuzya" is ours like a suitcase without a handle - it's hard to carry, and it's a pity to leave.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 December 2016 18: 38
        +5
        Quote: rubin6286
        Until now, they have completely dispensed with aircraft carriers

        Until now, the fleet since the late 50s has been asking for a normal AB. Because without AB it is possible to provide the same anti-aircraft defense only if it maneuvers at Kildin or the Russian island. smile
        The fleet needed project 85 — they killed it.
        The fleet has almost penetrated the atomic pr. 1160 (more precisely, its stripped-down version - pr. 1153) - Ustinov killed him.
        The fleet wore down and designed a non-nuclear 1143.5 normal scheme (an early version of the Kuznetsov) - Ustinov and Amelko killed him and demanded to reduce the displacement, throw out conventional aircraft and base only KVVP on 1143.5. It's good that a springboard was knocked out under the KVVP - otherwise Kuznetsov would have remained without an air group, like the previous 1143 after the termination of work on the Yak-141. And so at least Su and MiG were able to shove them onto the deck.
        1. Monos
          Monos 2 December 2016 20: 46
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Ustinov and Amelko killed him, demanding to reduce the displacement

          Because of this, by the way, the landing deck is not deployed at 10 degrees, like all normal people, but at 7,5.
        2. Genry
          Genry 2 December 2016 21: 09
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Because without AB it is possible to provide the same anti-aircraft defense only if it maneuvers at Kildin or the Russian island.

          And how can an aircraft carrier provide air defense? He himself is the object of protection from enemy aircraft, the fleet, ...
          An aircraft carrier is useful in that it makes it easy to dock aircraft delivery (crew rotation, urgent cargo delivery) with a group of ships. But this can be done with a seaplane or ekranoplan with landing on water or dumping in unsinkable containers ..
      4. GSH-18
        GSH-18 2 December 2016 20: 52
        0
        Quote: rubin6286
        Until now, they have completely dispensed with aircraft carriers.

        It was realized that without the USSR they remained without the Warsaw Treaty. Propose to continue ??? am
    5. afrikanez
      afrikanez 2 December 2016 18: 36
      +2
      The impression is that YOU are going to attack America. Personal opinion: aircraft carriers, like everything like that, are not necessary for us in FIG, but if they are useful, then only in the form of complete "invisibility", ie. "stealth" specific and not so-so!
      1. Krabik
        Krabik 2 December 2016 19: 14
        +1
        It is for this that aircraft carriers are needed, to cover the RKPSN, to control trade routes and to defend the landing troops.

        Or do you propose to fight again on your territory?

        PS
        There was some confusion in the United States, for example, the Negroes began to rebel, the aircraft carrier groups and landing parties swam up and finish off military bases.
        After that, the government in exile is landed and it takes the leadership of the liberated states into its own hands.
      2. activator
        activator 2 December 2016 19: 32
        0
        Quote: afrikanez
        but if it is useful, then only in the form of complete "invisibility", ie. "stealth" specific and not so-so!

        T-ss quietly they already are there only they are not visible bully
        1. samoletil18
          samoletil18 2 December 2016 21: 06
          0
          Yes Yes! Nuclear submarine with take-off deck and hangars.
    6. The comment was deleted.
      1. vovanpain
        vovanpain 2 December 2016 19: 13
        +9
        Quote: Vz.58
        Just do not confuse patriotism and slavish idiocy

        You have already confused him dear, I also can’t understand, and the Czech aircraft carrier request Which sea will you sail what Well, in Russia, believe me, dear, we’ll figure it out somehow, thanks for mutual understanding. hi
        1. Vz.58
          Vz.58 2 December 2016 22: 16
          +1
          Hey shooter, this is where I wrote about the Czech aircraft carrier? Quote!
          1. vovanpain
            vovanpain 2 December 2016 23: 31
            +7
            Quote: Vz.58
            Hey shooter, this is where I wrote about the Czech aircraft carrier? Quote!

            Hey submachine gun, you are the sweetest thing about kvass patriotism, meowed and deleted comments laughing good well done good I will repeat for you the most beloved submachine gunner.
            Quote: Vz.58
            Well, in Russia, believe me, dear, we’ll figure it out somehow, thanks for mutual understanding.
            And you understand in the Czech Republic with what you want and with whom you want, here and without your good advice and wishes we will somehow live. yes All the best to you, you stay there, thanks for the pleasant conversation.
      2. Monos
        Monos 2 December 2016 20: 55
        +5
        Quote: Vz.58
        Just do not confuse patriotism and slavish idiocy

        "Drink foamy beer, there will be a hefty muzzle!" That's all your patriotism. Leave it to yourself. What difference does it make to you in which barn you drink it?
    7. evge-malyshev
      evge-malyshev 2 December 2016 20: 02
      +2
      Quote: Monos
      if our main potential adversary is overseas, then we cannot do without aircraft carriers.

      I am not opposed to aircraft carriers, but even as part of the AUG in the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean, an aircraft carrier will be a rather vulnerable target for (modern) submarines and strategic aviation with a RCC launch range of 2 - 2,5 thousand km.
    8. Samarin
      Samarin 2 December 2016 20: 07
      0
      Quote: Monos
      aircraft carriers are always needed. One must understand if our main potential adversary is overseas

      that is, are we going to conquer it? opponent of this overseas
    9. Sotskiy
      Sotskiy 3 December 2016 03: 04
      0
      Quote: Monos
      We must understand that if our main potential adversary is overseas, then we cannot do without aircraft carriers.

      Don't they understand? For "opponents overseas" specially created ICBMs or are you going to seize territories contaminated with radiation with the help of aircraft carriers in case of war? lol
      And Russia has never suffered from "gunboat diplomacy." Do you lack your territories? North with the Far East who would have brought to mind.
    10. Sergey Voronezhsky
      Sergey Voronezhsky 3 December 2016 04: 25
      0
      I believe that he is right - these aircraft carriers are not needed to protect the borders. Economically, it can afford the states that print money as needed and plunge the country into poverty just a crime, just to show off an aircraft carrier - you can’t get involved in the arms race, they are just waiting for this. You need to be smarter ....
    11. 33 Watcher
      33 Watcher 3 December 2016 06: 53
      0
      Quote: Monos
      We must understand that if our main potential adversary is overseas, then we cannot do without aircraft carriers.

      So I don’t understand anything at all in this area, but let’s speculate ..? In my understanding, aircraft carriers are expeditionary forces, but this is about their own safety ..? I see everything, and the Syrian experience, and that there may be a need anywhere, even in Australia, but ... Maybe all the same, first destroyers, helicopter carriers?
      And who, what thinks of aircraft carriers easier, who carry not 40, but say 20 aircraft? Not easier and faster?
    12. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 3 December 2016 08: 48
      0
      I don’t understand the desire of our leadership to get involved in the arms race! We need to look for cheaper solutions! soldier
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 3 December 2016 10: 31
        0
        Quote: Uncle Murzik
        need to look for cheaper solutions

        No need to reinvent the wheel.
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 3 December 2016 11: 52
        0
        Quote: Uncle Murzik
        I don’t understand the desire of our leadership to get involved in the arms race! We need to look for cheaper solutions!

        Calm down. Nobody will build any aircraft carriers. To put it mildly, this is a crazy idea.
        As for the words of the naval authorities, this is just PR. Such speeches that we will build aircraft carriers, but sometime later they will be pronounced for about 20 years. Only the terms change.
  2. vovanpain
    vovanpain 2 December 2016 17: 20
    +12
    Of course, there are a lot of plans, first it would be necessary to complete the current program for the Navy,
    1. 210ox
      210ox 2 December 2016 18: 03
      +3
      I completely agree .. To build and build what is planned. And only then to a new level.
  3. koshmarik
    koshmarik 2 December 2016 17: 21
    +10
    I think the point is that, firstly, it became finally clear - in the era of endless local wars, aircraft carriers are needed; secondly, the Americans have 12 aircraft carrier groups (of which 6 are active) and many years of experience in their combat use, and we have one scanty "Admiral Kuznetsov" without combat experience. Hence the quite justified haste - to see the ship and aircraft in combat conditions, which is extremely important for the creation of a Russian, in addition to a modern nuclear aircraft carrier and the training of specialists.
    1. Vz.58
      Vz.58 2 December 2016 19: 03
      +2
      Ultramodern? go to you and go (from Afghan sayings)
      1. 33 Watcher
        33 Watcher 3 December 2016 06: 57
        0
        Quote: Vz.58
        Ultramodern? go to you and go (from Afghan sayings)

        Pancake! Who would say ... Going to places where it has been much easier than from a brewery to an aircraft carrier.
        Road going by walking!
  4. aleksfill
    aleksfill 2 December 2016 17: 35
    +4
    Quote: Monos
    you can’t do without aircraft carriers

    Existing aircraft carriers of potential adversaries - targets for which have not yet worked.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 2 December 2016 21: 14
      0
      Thank God they are not POSSIBLE, but PROBABLE opponents.
  5. Holoy
    Holoy 2 December 2016 17: 43
    +3
    Do not build them ...
    1. JIaIIoTb
      JIaIIoTb 2 December 2016 17: 51
      +9
      For once I agree with you. We are a continental country. We are not going to conquer the world. All our interests are continental. A maximum of 1-2 aircraft carrying cruisers, this is enough for us. We will fight with the enemy’s aug near our coast and not in the ocean. And near the coast, an aircraft carrier is not an advantage but a target.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 December 2016 18: 29
        +4
        Quote: JIaIIoTb
        We will fight with the enemy’s aug near our coast and not in the ocean. And near the coast, an aircraft carrier is not an advantage but a target.

        Just an advantage because we will need to cover areas where there are no airfields on the coast, or very few.
        For example, the north (the same throat of the White Sea). Or passages of the Kuril ridge. How many airfields are there on the shore from which coastal aviation will have time to reach the cover area before the adversary approaches?
        AB is good in that for it the time of approaching reinforcements to the forces on duty is always less than for basic aviation. Moreover, the AB can use less force to provide the same cover density as coastal bases - it does not need to spend time flying from the airfield to the patrol zone and vice versa. And for aircraft carrier aviation there is no need to build airfield bushes next to each potentially important area of ​​the coast - and then also supply them and maintain combat readiness (and according to the law of meanness, these areas are usually located in a zone of zero infrastructure).
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 2 December 2016 20: 20
        0
        Quote: JIaIIoTb
        A maximum of 1-2 aircraft carrying cruisers, this is enough for us

        And this is not necessary. It's just a waste of money. The question has been discussed a hundred times.
  6. Joker787
    Joker787 2 December 2016 17: 53
    0
    Where is our company that can at least simply weld the hull of a ship with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons? And what are the backlogs of the Russian Federation for stuffing such a prodigy? Undoubtedly, one AUG would not be bad to keep in the Mediterranean Sea and a couple in the Pacific Fleet. But for now, this is a very distant prospect.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 December 2016 18: 07
      +4
      Quote: Joker787
      Where is our company that can at least simply weld the hull of a ship with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons?

      Theoretically - the Kerch "Zaliv" (Soviet supertankers were brewed there). But so far the newly acquired factory trains on cats - on small ships for the fleet.
      Plus, a new plant is being built on the basis of DV "Zvezda" - vessels with a displacement of about 250 thousand tons, up to 350 meters long and 60 meters wide.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 2 December 2016 18: 21
      +4
      Quote: Joker787
      Where is our company that can at least simply weld the hull of a ship with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons?

      Not the largest in the country Admiralty Shipyard in two years issued a tanker with a displacement of 70000 tons.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 December 2016 20: 21
      +4
      Quote: Joker787
      Where is our company that can at least simply weld the hull of a ship with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons?

      The Sevmash will be built after the end of the series of strategists and Ash trees. We already have experience: Gorshkov / Vikramaditya.
      Quote: Joker787
      And what are the backlogs of the Russian Federation for stuffing such a prodigy?
      There are some developments. By the time of construction, "live" samples will appear.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 2 December 2016 21: 13
        +2
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The Sevmash will be built after the end of the series of strategists and Ash trees. I already have experience: Gorshkov / Vikramaditya

        Do not mislead people. In Russia, fools are stockpiled, but not as much.
        We need nuclear submarines and they will build nuclear submarines.
        Well, if you can call the current squalor when, in 23 years, one Ash-tree was put into operation by construction ...
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 3 December 2016 21: 59
          +2
          Quote: Odyssey
          We need nuclear submarines and they will build nuclear submarines.

          And what will cover the nuclear submarines? Or what kind of cover provide the connection of ships and submarines in the open ocean?
          Quote: Odyssey
          Well, if you can call the current squalor when, in 23 years, one Ash-tree was put into operation

          Severodvinsk is the head ship, as indeed all Yaseni, as each will be equipped with new developments and innovations, and therefore they will all be different. At the same time, in addition to the construction of submarines and nuclear submarines, repair and modernization of the existing fleet of submarines is underway. If at such a pace as now, we will build and put into operation submarines, then in 6-7 years, our fleet of submarines will be more quantitative than in the United States.
          And returning to Yasenyu and Yasenyu-M I will say that the technologies and developments worked out on them will allow us to build Husky faster, while in a good series, and not in the amount of 7 pieces.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 4 December 2016 05: 37
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            A cover for the submarine than you will

            belay And how an aircraft carrier will "cover" them. Yes, there was such a concept in the 60s and early 70s, when the range of our SSBN missiles was low and they had to go to the Atlantic.
            But even then it was considered unpromising because with the absolute superiority of NATO forces in the Atlantic (even over the Soviet fleet), the aircraft carrier would only unmask the SSBNs and not cover it. And from the beginning of the 80s, our missile range was enough to fire from its territorial waters and this concept has completely lost its relevance.
            Think for yourself how Kuznetsov (or another aircraft carrier) will "cover" the shooting of our SSBNs from their territorial waters in the Arctic in winter.
            Quote: NEXUS
            Or what kind of cover provide the connection of ships and submarines in the open ocean?

            Which ocean? Why are you going to go there? Fight America for World Domination? Storm the Mariana Islands?
            Understand that a weapon is a means of killing people, and if people give their strength and means to create it, then not just to make it, but to solve specific tasks facing their state. It’s their own and not someone’s still.
            Tell me, at least one conflict in which modern Russia (and not the USSR, China, or the USA) may require an aircraft carrier, what is one problem that it can solve?
            Quote: NEXUS
            And returning to Yasenyu and Yasenyu-M I will say that the technologies and developments worked out on them will allow us to build Husky faster, while in a good series, and not in the amount of 7 pieces.

            It’s just a sin to argue with your optimism. I tell you the fact that for 23 years we have launched one (!!!) submarine (and 3 more SSBNs with unreliable missiles).
            And you tell me that soon we will build a Husky in a large number and catch up with America in the number of boats.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 4 December 2016 11: 28
              +2
              Quote: Odyssey
              Since the beginning of the 80s, the range of our missiles has become enough to fire from their territorial waters, and this concept has completely lost its relevance.

              Shooting from the pier is certainly convenient, but there is such a thing as the distance of the revolver shot. That is, there is a big difference when a missile flies several thousand kilometers and the adversary has 20 minutes to counteract and retaliate. But when the same ICBM or CD with nuclear warheads is launched from "revolving distance", no missile defense will help. Do you understand the difference?
              Quote: Odyssey
              And as an aircraft carrier they will be "covered".

              Being close to the patrol area of ​​the submarine.
              Quote: Odyssey
              an aircraft carrier would only unmask SSBN,

              How? Or do you think that our SSBN will okkurat go under the aircraft carrier? The range of the AUG is 800-1000 km. Go find this SSBN.



              Quote: Odyssey
              Which ocean?

              Atlantic, Pacific Ocean ...
              Quote: Odyssey
              Why are you going to go there?

              Then you answer, for what purpose is the US building its missile defense at our borders? And for what purpose is the NATO fleet a part of this missile defense? I think my idea is clear?
              Quote: Odyssey
              Tell me, at least one conflict in which modern Russia (and not the USSR, China, or the USA) may require an aircraft carrier, what is one problem that it can solve?

              The presence and projection of our strength, for example. In the event of a nuclear conflict, to provide cover for our nuclear submarines and thereby prevent the adversary from even thinking that it is possible to destroy our SSBNs before they respond to a nuclear strike on our territory. At the same time, the Leader and Orlan destroyers, taking into account the new defensive complexes that they intend to put on them (I am about the S-500 in the naval version), will be part of our missile defense system and will also need cover.
              Quote: Odyssey
              It’s just a sin to argue with your optimism. I tell you the fact that for 23 years we have launched one (!!!) submarine (and 3 more SSBNs with unreliable missiles).

              At the same time, how many Varshavyanks were transferred to the fleet, and how many submarines were modernized and repaired? Yes, while the marine part of our nuclear triad rests on the Dolphins with Sineva, but so far. You haven’t been involved in the fleet for so many years, and you want, like in Emely’s, everything by pike dictation in an instant to appear ...
              Quote: Odyssey
              And you tell me that soon we will build a Husky in a large number and catch up with America in the number of boats.

              And I'm talking not only about multi-purpose and strategic submarines ... you probably forget about the same Varshavyanki. With Husky, everything goes as usual. I think the MAPL Kazan will be transferred to the fleet in the 18th year. As for the Mace, Samsonov understands that if he does not solve this problem in a short time, they will not pat him on the head.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 5 December 2016 08: 51
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                and the adversary 20 minutes

                That's exactly 20 minutes, which is very short, and missiles fly through the Arctic. There can be no "retaliatory actions" here.
                Quote: NEXUS
                But when the same ICBM or CD with nuclear warheads is fired from "revolving distance", no ABM will help.

                That is, for 40 years, designers have worked to increase the range of missiles, and now you propose to return everything back to the 60s and to the remaining scanty number of Russian SSBNs to break through all anti-submarine lines and go to Washington.
                Excuse me, this is just nonsense. Forget you about the "cover" of the nuclear submarines by aircraft carriers, someone blamed stupidity, and you repeat.
                Quote: NEXUS
                How? Or do you think that our SSBN will okkurat go under the aircraft carrier? The range of the AUG is 800-1000 km. Go find this SSBN.

                Once again, this is the concept of 50 years ago. It has nothing to do with reality. You propose to discuss why it was rejected then?
                The answer is simple, because of the huge superiority of NATO in the fleet, which has now been strengthened many times, and also because the fact that any AUG reaches the Atlantic activates NATO forces, and our SSBNs had little chance of reaching the target.
                Quote: NEXUS
                The presence and projection of our strength, for example

                These are words. The question was, what is the purpose of this "projection"?
                Quote: NEXUS
                Then you answer, for what purpose is the US building its missile defense at our borders? And for what purpose is the NATO fleet a part of this missile defense?

                It is easy. 1) For the purpose, under the guise of a missile defense, deploy ground-based missiles with a nuclear warhead. This, by the way, is really dangerous.
                2) In order to intercept the missiles of our strategic missile forces in the first section of the trajectory.
                The offshore missile defense system is deployed primarily in the Pacific Ocean and against the PRC and DPRK. SM-3 destroyers can’t physically intercept the missiles of our SSBNs (flying across the Arctic). And, by the way, this threat is blocked by an increase in KOH (primarily for the submarines of the Pacific Fleet), and not by aircraft carriers.
                Quote: NEXUS
                In the event of a nuclear conflict, to provide cover for our nuclear submarines and thereby prevent the adversary from even thinking that our SSBNs can be destroyed

                Again twenty five. Well, think about how an aircraft carrier that hibernates in the Northern Fleet can "cover" our SSBNs in case of a surprise attack? In the event of a nuclear war and a surprise attack by the United States, everything is simple: those nuclear submarines that are at the base will be destroyed by nuclear weapons, those that are on the base will shoot from their territorial waters across the United States.
                Quote: NEXUS
                At the same time, how many Varshavyanks were transferred to the fleet

                6 Varshavyanka for the Black Sea Fleet with the Kyrgyz Republic is good. This is really useful and relevant.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 5 December 2016 10: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  That is, for 40 years, designers have worked to increase the range of missiles, and now you propose to return everything back to the 60s and to the remaining scanty number of Russian SSBNs to break through all anti-submarine lines and go to Washington.

                  Sorry, but is there a difference to beat from the pier, say from the same Severodvinsk for example, or from the Atlantic, without giving the adversary a chance to counter?
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  Excuse me, this is just nonsense. Forget you about the "cover" of the nuclear submarines by aircraft carriers, someone blamed stupidity, and you repeat.

                  Well, apparently our military are stupid people.
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  The answer is simple because of NATO’s tremendous superiority in the navy, which has now intensified many times over.

                  Contradict yourself. There is superiority, and at the same time you propose to carry out tasks, as in the 50s ... that is, the submarine will diligently make its way to the patrol site, hoping that they will not spot it. And what are the chances of our submarine not being detected, tell me?
                  At the same time, our fleet pressed to its shores, due to its small number in comparison with the US fleet, will fulfill the function of coastal forces. Great invented.
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  Again twenty five. Well, think for yourself how an aircraft carrier that hibernates in the Northern Fleet can "cover" our SSBNs in the event of a surprise attack?

                  And where did you get the idea that aircraft carriers will be based on the Northern Fleet? More precisely, only in the SF ... I remind you that there is still the Atlantic and Indian Ocean in the waters of which, today, we are in no way present. And AUG is quite capable of covering our SSBNs, giving time for our submarines to shoot back.
                  You do not want to understand one thing, that for our country to be strong in the military sense, it needs an OCEAN fleet with ASG, destroyers, cruisers and nuclear submarines ... And in open water, the aircraft carrier’s wing is the most effective cover for our cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines.
  7. Buffet
    Buffet 2 December 2016 18: 26
    0
    "And where is Zin's money?" ... again they will tear veins from the people ...
    1. OLD FART
      OLD FART 2 December 2016 18: 54
      +1
      Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
      "And where is Zin's money?" ... again they will tear veins from the people ...

      Most likely ... The limit of patience of the people has not yet been reached! Something I don’t like these Napoleonic plans .. As if Russia weren’t used again in some kind of slaughter .. I’d better surround Israel with tanks and, in case of tension in the world situation, I gave the order for gas refueling to tankmen (to dig up everything in an hour ..) I think any world problems in an hour would be solved, these are my conclusions and observations on the network and TV .. hi
      1. Pulya
        Pulya 2 December 2016 19: 27
        +1
        Quote: STARPER
        Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
        "And where is Zin's money?" ... again they will tear veins from the people ...

        I’d better have surrounded Israel with tanks and in case of tension in the world situation I gave the order for gas refueling to tankers (to dig everything up in an hour ..) I think any global problems would be solved in an hour, these are my conclusions and observations on the network and TV .. hi


        Now they will fly at you from the promised land .... and they will tear like a tusik - a heating pad.
        :)
        1. OLD FART
          OLD FART 2 December 2016 19: 36
          0
          Quote: Pulya
          Quote: STARPER
          Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
          "And where is Zin's money?" ... again they will tear veins from the people ...

          I’d better have surrounded Israel with tanks and in case of tension in the world situation I gave the order for gas refueling to tankers (to dig everything up in an hour ..) I think any global problems would be solved in an hour, these are my conclusions and observations on the network and TV .. hi


          Now they will fly at you from the promised land .... and they will tear like a tusik - a heating pad.
          :)

          I have a toothache...! I will not give up alive ... laughing am
      2. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 2 December 2016 19: 28
        +1
        Hmm ... Jews are again to blame for everything? Already Israeli than you annoyed? Almost everyone left Russia, they don’t interfere with life. Or telepathically affect? Well, it's a psychiatrist ...
        1. Pulya
          Pulya 2 December 2016 19: 43
          +2
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Hmm ... Jews are again to blame for everything? Already Israeli than you annoyed? Almost everyone left Russia, they don’t interfere with life. Or telepathically affect? Well, it's a psychiatrist ...


          All right and left ????
          Take a closer look at our Kremlin retinue ...
          You will be very surprised!
          1. Roman 11
            Roman 11 3 December 2016 14: 12
            0
            Quote: Pulya
            Take a closer look at our Kremlin retinue ...

            Is Putin really? ..... Or Medvedev?
            Oh how to disguise laughing
        2. OLD FART
          OLD FART 2 December 2016 19: 44
          0
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Hmm ... Jews are again to blame for everything? Already Israeli than you annoyed? Almost everyone left Russia, they don’t interfere with life.

          It was not in vain that we did not let them out of the USSR .... We knew that they would begin to create in the global financial and political system ...! Here's what to do with them now, such greyhounds have begun, we are being taught life .. Arabs are offended! drinks Not all then left Russia, then some were squeezed out (Abramovich, Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkkhkhhhhhh ... I can’t list everything ..)))) And how much is left ..?
          I think they whisper AUGs to us in order to protect them from Arabs ... This is my opinion!
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. vovanpain
        vovanpain 2 December 2016 19: 54
        +8
        Quote: STARPER
        I’d better have surrounded Israel with tanks and in case of tension in the world situation I gave the order for gas refueling to tankers (to dig everything up in an hour ..) I think any global problems would be solved in an hour, these are my conclusions and observations on the network and TV ..

        Vitaly, leave Israel behind and watch Soviet comedies on TV or on the net there, "Ivan Vasilyevich" for example, or "Afonya", then there will be positive thoughts, otherwise you watch everything Chapay and Chapay, then go to the attack on the site.
        Quote: STARPER
        Something I do not like these Napoleonic plans.

        Well, it seems like you wrote that, according to your information, you have already laid down, and now do not like the plans, read my opinion above, this program should be completed, and these are all plans for the prospect, but whether it will come true or not, time will tell.
        Quote: STARPER
        I have a toothache...! I will not give up alive ...

        Vitaly, urgently to a doctor, otherwise the whole world, in a small vinaigrette crush
        1. OLD FART
          OLD FART 2 December 2016 20: 07
          +1
          Quote: vovanpain
          Vitaly, leave Israel behind and watch Soviet comedies on TV or on the net there, "Ivan Vasilyevich" for example, or "Afonya", then there will be positive thoughts, otherwise you watch everything Chapay and Chapay, then go to the attack on the site.

          They only dream about it ... You just read their comments, these are "only comrades" ... And what is going on in the heads of those in power ..? That's what is scary ..... They know how to secure their future with someone else's hands ..! We wet the devils in Syria, and they quietly wet us in the back .. (like, fight longer and bloody and remember Who is in charge in the world! ..) And they also whisper that you need a lot of aircraft carriers to cheer to shout and protect us .. I figured out ..! negative
          1. vovanpain
            vovanpain 2 December 2016 20: 31
            +7
            Quote: STARPER
            I figured them out ..!

            All Vitaly, tomorrow you’ll be in the General Staff of the Russian Federation, you will advise Gerasimov and prompt Putin and Shoigu.
            Quote: STARPER
            They only dream about it ... You just read their comments, these are "only comrades"

            Yes Vitaly, Ezhkin cat, imagine one of them is my sister’s husband yes So I’m not only reading their comments, but sometimes I sit at the table together and sip vodka or cognac (Alexander does not have a VO, he has other interests).
            Quote: STARPER
            And what is going on in the heads of the powerful ..? That's scary

            Vitaly, I’m not a telepath, I can’t read their thoughts of those in power, I only feel with my skin.
            Quote: STARPER
            Tipo fight longer and bloody and remember who is the main in the world! ..) And

            And who is the main one in the world? Mattresses fingers bend that they, the Chinese chuckle, we call them partners, but we are doing our job.
            Quote: STARPER
            And they whisper, you need a lot of aircraft carriers to scream cheers and protect us

            Damn Vital, but you yourself most of all are screaming at VO that Russia needs aircraft carriers, it is Russia to protect, and not Israel. yes
            1. OLD FART
              OLD FART 2 December 2016 21: 00
              0
              Quote: vovanpain
              Damn Vital, but you yourself most of all are screaming at VO that Russia needs aircraft carriers, it is Russia to protect, and not Israel.

              I offered AUG RF to Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua ... There would be more sense ..! And "Kuzya" Israel protects ... it turns out
              1. vovanpain
                vovanpain 2 December 2016 21: 23
                +8
                Quote: STARPER
                more would be ..! And "Kuzya" Israel protects ... it turns out

                It turns out that the cat’s pancake already choked on fish with laughter, I actually thought that the barmalei carrier-based aircraft in Idlib and near Allepo were dropping into the sand, the ATS armies were helping, and here it’s that request It turns out on a tip from Israel to work. belay Vital, you believe it or not, Israel itself can even bump its barmales without us and with Israel, by the way, Putin and Netanyahu personally agreed on Syria and Israel didn’t stab a knife in our back, although they flew into their air more than once, unlike from the same Turks. Yes, and in general Vitaly, you already live a lot in the world, separate white from black, every nation has a lousy sheep, and the people themselves are not to blame. hi
                1. OLD FART
                  OLD FART 2 December 2016 21: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: vovanpain
                  It turns out that the cat’s pancake already choked on fish with laughter, I actually thought that the barmalei carrier-based aircraft in Idlib and near Allepo were dropping into the sand, the ATS armies were helping, and here it’s that

                  Volod himself think just why Kuzya is there ..? If we can drive fighter jets directly to Syria and Iran, has been offering us its airfields for a long time ..? Now, instead of the USA, Russia will have to cover Israel, and the aircraft carrier is right there in the subject ... And all these Israeli strikes in the back of Assad say a lot ...! In Ukraine, the same thing is happening and the devil knows what our peoples will bring! Such things are going on ...
    2. bald
      bald 2 December 2016 19: 15
      0
      And you don’t have to pay for the rental of bases on the territory of other states --- let them pay --- that's the money (continued view below).
    3. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 2 December 2016 19: 38
      +3
      How much steel is required for such a vessel? How many devices, nuclear reactors, turbines, aircraft, finally. This is how many JOBS, worthy salaries ... Everything is better than "to drive the air" on the stock exchanges ... I will tell you a terrible secret, in order to provide the ALL population with goods and food, the ALL working population is not needed. And the use of productive forces in the military-industrial complex (it is true, there are also consequences - the development of technologies, space, nuclear energy and much more) is not the worst thing. And about the veins that "tear from the people" - this is liberalistic chatter. People should work USEFULLY, for themselves and the Society.
      1. OLD FART
        OLD FART 2 December 2016 20: 53
        0
        That’s when we’ll cover the entire territory of Russia’s air defense (and not just Moscow and several large cities) .. And then you can build aircraft carriers ... Muscovites, what extra money appeared? Confiscated from your seized ..? Look, let's go and pitchfork throw everything ... To be honest everything was! hi
  8. bald
    bald 2 December 2016 19: 12
    0
    Marine Aircraft Carrier Complexes (IAC) are necessary for Russia, not in the future, but now, as soon as possible. And the military department is thinking for a long time. Russia has to dodge in order to create a new base on the territory of other states (of course, not for aggression), while spending huge amounts of money. And here he is! One such complex is located anywhere in the world (according to the political situation) and will be the same state capable of hitting any targets. So what am I with, with both arms and legs.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 2 December 2016 21: 22
      0
      And what about utnas with the means of tracking and providing these complexes? First, do it.
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 2 December 2016 19: 24
    0
    Aircraft carriers are powerful pieces for NON-NUCLEAR warfare. It makes sense to have more, since 6th generation fighters may turn out to be UNMANNED. And robots are not people, they see better, and their reaction is faster, and they do not get tired, and "have no fear."
  10. ride78
    ride78 2 December 2016 19: 37
    0
    Yes, to begin with, make frigates and destroyers. And then everywhere it is - who act ... in the form of one Grigorovich so far. The same screams about Bookm3 - two launchers were installed, we’ll go over to Birch. Window dressing alone.
  11. mik6403
    mik6403 2 December 2016 20: 07
    0
    Undoubtedly, Russia will need aircraft carriers in the near future, if only to indicate its presence in ALL water areas of the oceans. Another question is that the economic situation of the country is such that first ships will be delivered to the fleet with displacement of less than which are cheaper in the cost of construction and operation. But if matters with the supply of equipment to the Armed Forces go at the current pace, by 2025 the issue of building aircraft carriers will most likely be resolved positively.
    1. fif21
      fif21 3 December 2016 08: 54
      0
      Quote: mik6403
      Undoubtedly, Russia will need aircraft carriers in the near future, if only to indicate its presence in ALL water areas of the oceans.
      For what? For show-offs? hi
      1. mik6403
        mik6403 3 December 2016 23: 14
        0
        Yeah, they would have been nice if in the days of Hugo Chavez our carrier group (instead of the arrival of a pair of Tu-160) would have sailed to Venezuela .... A good show is more expensive than money ....
        laughing
  12. VadimSt
    VadimSt 2 December 2016 20: 08
    +1
    Why discuss in the light of need or not, shout about what is urgently needed. Russia has just grown out of "short pants" in which reformers and Leberasts have dressed it, since the 90s. Everything will be - it will take time!
  13. AIR ZNAK
    AIR ZNAK 2 December 2016 20: 20
    0
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Aircraft carriers are powerful pieces for NON-NUCLEAR warfare. It makes sense to have more, since 6th generation fighters may turn out to be UNMANNED. And robots are not people, they see better, and their reaction is faster, and they do not get tired, and "have no fear."

    M daaa Robots certainly do not have logic and abstract thinking. There is a program from and to. And if improvisation is required in the presence of communication interference?
  14. kuz363
    kuz363 2 December 2016 20: 55
    0
    "Denis Manturov said that Russian enterprises are capable of building an aircraft carrier, but in this matter it is better to focus on the demand from the military department."
    Not capable, because there is no experience and technology. The unfortunate Kuzya was built in Nikolaev. But it is better not to focus on the military department, because their appetites are always great. What are they going to protect in a poor country and a poor population with a share of world production of about 2%?
    1. OLD FART
      OLD FART 2 December 2016 21: 27
      +1
      Quote: kuz363
      Not capable, because there is no experience and technology. The unfortunate Kuzya was built in Nikolaev

      We don’t need to take us weak! .... You Kazakhs have built a lot of things at home ..? .. You would have kept silent in a rag felt cloth .. In Nikolaev, inflatable boats have been built for a long time .. They all sold and destroyed ...! We just managed to save Kuzya (otherwise they would also sell it to the Chinese on metal))) We have capacities and specialists too .. (and they didn’t build it ..)))
      1. Warrior-80
        Warrior-80 2 December 2016 23: 28
        0
        I am amazed at your performance, in each post, insert a comment that does not make sense, I see you are a patriot and a site lover, so take on the responsibility if it is possible to upload weapon parameters, at least from the wiki
    2. mik6403
      mik6403 3 December 2016 23: 17
      0
      .. yeah and half the world's mineral reserves ....
  15. Warrior-80
    Warrior-80 2 December 2016 22: 31
    0
    If anyone understands strategy, aircraft carrier groups are expensive strike weapons, in fact, weapons of expansion or projection of force. The Americans have driven now and are driving themselves into an increasing dependence on the military machine, many say they are everywhere, they can no longer do otherwise, they need to feed a gigantic military budget, in fact, they are unlikely to stop this disease of any empire. Russia needs to get together, I think we can have a couple of Augs, to defend our interests. And we must remember our motto "we don't need someone else's, but we won't give up ours either."
  16. bk316
    bk316 2 December 2016 23: 12
    +2
    Sorry comrades for the flood, I can not help but share.
    Just returned from the cinema, watched with his son 28 panfilovtsev.
    This is the best war movie I've seen.
    I thought nothing like hot snow or I will not see the living and the dead, thank God - I was mistaken.
  17. dr.star75
    dr.star75 3 December 2016 00: 57
    +1
    GSH-18,
    Sorry that I got into your dispute, and rather you will not answer, because my comment due to the latest innovations will pop up where it is unknown. Of course, I am for the Russian carrier fleet, but where can I use it?
  18. Phosgene
    Phosgene 3 December 2016 01: 13
    +2
    You need to build airfields on the Kuril Islands, here you have the aircraft carriers, and unsinkable.
  19. fif21
    fif21 3 December 2016 08: 48
    0
    US AUG serves the US military and political interests. The question is, is there a need, and where, to ensure the military-political interests of the Russian Federation with the help of the AUG? The war in Europe? -With modern means of defeating AUG are useless. Middle East, Africa - Against the Barmalei - Effective. War with the USA? - Useless. Pacific island nations are effective. And yet, will the economic condition of the Russian Federation allow the construction of an AUG? Or 2 for export, one yourself? hi
  20. Rostov 2016
    Rostov 2016 3 December 2016 09: 58
    0
    Yes, it would be better if they mastered space ... we mess around, poking around on the ball. How long?
  21. Monarchist
    Monarchist 3 December 2016 10: 38
    +1
    GSH-18,
    You are right "real presence" can achieve results. So that the "especially gifted" also understand.
    As a rule, even frostbitten when they see a club, they become reasonable.
  22. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 4 December 2016 14: 41
    0
    What, what, but they always knew how to dream in Russia. The modern capabilities of the defense industry are such that while they build it, they will run in a bit, so they will begin to repeat about utilization! Do not get used to it.
  23. Raspberries
    Raspberries 25 December 2016 02: 05
    0
    guys, thanks for talking about Kerch
    And of course, our Fleet is the strongest in the world!