And a little more about aircraft carriers

218


The campaign of our only heavy aircraft cruiser Admiral Fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov "to the coast of Syria, as well as the first combat experience gained by the Russian deck aviation, as well as its first losses in conditions close to combat, gave rise to a lot of articles, comments, reasoning and speculation. Of course, no one expected that such a momentous event for the Russian Navy would go unnoticed. Of course, the sacred war lasting for many decades between opponents and supporters of aircraft carriers could not help breaking out with renewed vigor. And certainly, no one doubted that Kuznetsov’s failure in the warm waters of the Mediterranean Sea would provoke further statements about the uselessness of decked aircraft and its flaws compared to air force planes.

Here, perhaps, begin. The fact is that there is one indisputable fact - deck aircraft, with proper use of it, are not inferior in efficiency to land-based aircraft. This fact, if someone doubts, Oleg Kaptsov irrefutably proves in his numerous articles on aircraft carrier topics.

Dear readers will surely be surprised by such a statement - after all, among the authors of TOPWAR, there is probably no greater opponent of aircraft carriers than O. Kaptsov. The number of articles published for his authorship and dedicated to carrier-based aviation is already in the tens, and in each of them Oleg Kaptsov draws conclusions about the inferiority of carrier-based aviation ... everything is so. But if we give less attention to the conclusions that the distinguished author draws, and focus on the facts that he gives in support of his point of view, we will be surprised to find that ...

One of the fundamental proofs of the theory of O. Kaptsov about the futility of carrier-based aviation is his analysis of the use of deck-mounted aircraft in the famous “Desert Storm”. Here, for example, in the article “The Flyers believe in the power of heaven. And, of course, in the landing cable ", dear author writes:

"Iraq? Yes, all too, over 80% of sorties fell on airplanes of the air force. "


It would seem - well, really, what can be discussed if the total number of sorties of carrier-based aviation with 6 AUG USA reached hardly 15-17% of the total number of air force sorties ... And if you also remember another article by O. Kaptsov “Storm in the Desert . Strike deck aircraft ", in which he writes:

“Aircraft carriers dropped 10 thousand tons of bombs on Iraq. During the same time, Air Force planes poured thousands of tons of death on 78 Iraqi heads. Impressive? "


That, of course, remains only to unconditionally agree with the statement of the author:

“Figures irrefutably indicate that carrier-based aviation, because of its small size and unsatisfactory aircraft performance characteristics, is a useless tool in local wars.”


But after all, what the matter is ... Let's take the article by O. Kaptsov “How victories are forged. Operation Desert Storm, which lists in detail all types of aircraft, and how many sorties each made. And then - let's analyze the figures presented by the author.

So, according to O. Kaptsov, the US Air Force was represented by the following combat aircraft:

Heavy fighters of air supremacy - F-15 “Eagle”, 120 units.
Stormtroopers - A-10 Tandrebolt, 132 units.
Tactical bombers - F-111 "Anteater" (modifications E and F), 82 units.
Other tactical combat aircraft, in the number of 395 units, including:
F-16 Fighting Falken - 244 units
F-117A "Nighthok" - 42 units
F-15E "Strike Eagle" - 48 units.
F-4G Wild Weasel - 61 units

And all, it turns out, 729 tactical aircraft machines, but in addition to it was also involved a strategic - 66 units. strategic B-52G Stratoforthress. As for the many supporting aircraft, such as EF-111 EW-XNUMX “Raven” aircraft, flying Sentry radar, refueling aircraft and so on and so forth, today we will leave them behind the scenes, especially since Oleg Kaptsov does not give statistics on departures .

But not the same air force ... In addition to the air force, 190 US Marine Corps aircraft operated from ground airfields:
AV-8B Harrier II - 86 units
F / A-18 “Hornet” (mod. A, C and D) - 84 unit.
A-6E Intruder - 20 units

To be fair, let us clarify that some of the Harriers "worked" from the landing craft, but nevertheless they were not included in the carrier-based carrier aircraft.

Based on the US aircraft carriers:
F-14 "Tomcat" - 99 units
F / A-18 - 85 units
A-6E Intruder - 95 units
A-7 Corsair II - 24 units

All in all, it turns out that the Americans threw 985 land based aircraft and 303 of deck-based aircraft, that is, 1288 combat aircraft, with the proportion of deck-based aircraft being very noticeable 23,5%.



Could the Americans ensure the basing of the mentioned 303 aircraft carrier planes + a bunch of E-2C Hokai and other deckers on land? On the one hand, as if no problems. Everyone knows that the US has more than 800 military bases around the world, and that there are several hundred planes just lost ... probably. But in practice everything is a little more complicated, which we know again thanks to Oleg Kaptsov. Indeed, despite the fact that the crusade against the evil Saddam, who had offended little Kuwait, lined up a whole line of democratic (and not so) countries, neither American bases, nor bases of their allies (Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, and other etc.) ) for the basing of aviation MNS for some reason did not have:

"When the Americans lacked countless bases, aircraft were deployed without a word at international airports: Al Ain (UAE), King Fahd (Saudi Arabia), Muscat (Oman), at Sharjah International Airport and Cairo - wherever the place and necessary infrastructure. ”


In other words, even the existing forces had to be based at international airports, and if you still had to deploy deck aircraft there too? Would there be enough airports? On 303, aircraft with the aviation supporting their operations would require 10-15 of large aerodromes (capable of operating an aviation regiment with attached planes) —and large aerodromes were already dismantled.

But even if they were enough - there is another problem. The fact is that the entire power of the MNF, relying on the global technical superiority of the United States, did not cope with the most primitive Scuds of Saddam Hussein. And if Iraq would have had modern tactical missiles (OTR)? And if Iraq had, albeit many times the weakest, but still efficient aircraft? In this case, would the Americans with their allies be able to provide air cover for all airfields, which could protect the latter from the threats listed above? And what extra strength would such a cover require? At the same time, aircraft carriers cannot be hit by OTR, as they represent a moving target, and the US AUG air defense system has extremely powerful defense against air attack. Accordingly, in any assessment of the comparative effectiveness of carrier-based and ground-based aviation, one should remember that the bases and infrastructure of the latter are much more vulnerable to the impact weapons the adversary. In the case of admonishing some "barmaleev" on the edge of geography, who do not dare to dream of an ordinary MANPADS, this is probably not critical. But in the event of a war with a serious and technically developed adversary, the advantages of a mobile and well-protected aerodrome, such as an aircraft carrier, cannot be overestimated.

But we were distracted - we will return to the comparison of the aviation capabilities of the deck and ground based on materials kindly provided to us by Oleg Kaptsov.

Of course, an extremely important indicator that demonstrates the combat capability of an aircraft is the number of sorties made by it in a certain period of time. We now count the number of sorties per aircraft for the entire war - with all the conventionality of this indicator, it is a good demonstration of the technical capabilities of each type of aircraft.

And a little more about aircraft carriers


And from these materials we clearly see that deck-based aviation is almost as good as ordinary land-based combat aircraft. On average, one Air Force aircraft for this war made 47,9 departures, while the aircraft of carrier-based aircraft - 46,3, i.e. According to this indicator, the advantage of the Air Force planes was already 3,5%. If we compare the number of sorties of all ground-based aircraft, i.e. Air Force and Marine Corps with a baton, then the superiority of "land carriers" will be as much as 2,9%. In essence, this value is within the limits of statistical error; according to it, it is generally impossible to diagnose any superiority of ground aviation.

It becomes even funnier if you do not compare deck-based aviation with the air force en masse, but look at the types of aircraft. By the number of aircraft flights per plane, undoubtedly, Thunderbolt is in the lead (almost 65 aircraft flights per plane), but for the most mass F-16 this indicator is only slightly (by 2,5%) higher than that of deck F / A-18. Interestingly, the F-15 of any modification pretty much loses to the deck "Hornet."

In general, for the umpteenth time, you need to remember the proverb that there is a lie, there is a big lie, and there are statistics. On the one hand, yes, in the total number of sorties, deck aircraft "gained" only some 15-17%. And everything seems to be right (because in this case, not only are there any stratotankers and so forth, but also, it seems, aviation of other countries of the MNS), and the conclusion seems to be that the carrier-based aircraft is completely incapable against the ground aircraft basing ... but let's look at the question a little from a different angle.

If we count fighters and ground attack aircraft of tactical aviation (excluding the B-66 “strategists” of the 52 airplanes), then we get that the US military had the 1222 tactical aircraft of the specified types, of which the descendants were 303 or 24,8%. And these 24.8% made 23% of all sorties of the total number accomplished by US tactical aviation combat aircraft (46 866 of land aviation sorties against 14 014 - deck). And now we will analyze the total number of departures according to their types.





And when we are surprised to find that the US carrier-based aviation, which had only about a quarter of the total number of American tactical aircraft, turned out to provide 41,3% of all heavy fighter sorties and 30,9% of all attack aircraft, we can estimate the role carrier-based aviation of the US Navy in Operation Desert Storm, isn't it?

As for the bomb load ... It’s pointless to compare how many bombs dumped ground-based tactical airplanes and how many deck-based airplanes and to draw conclusions on the basis of the usefulness / uselessness of those or others. First, because in this parameter, the absolute leader is US strategic aviation. Sixty-six "Stress Fortress" was only 5,12% of the total number of US combat aircraft (listed in the table above), but at the same time, according to Oleg Kaptsov, carpet bombing

38% of US bombs (relative to their total mass) were dropped in this way.


In fact, the number in 38% is somewhat doubtful, probably, this is a trivial typo, but rather it’s all about 29%. For example, the article “B-52. Combat use ”, published in“ Aviation and Astronautics ”2001 04 points out 25 700 tons of free-falling bombs. In this case, the total mass of ammunition consumed by the B-52 is obviously higher, since the latter also used guided munitions (the same AGM-86C cruise missiles).

But even if we assume that out of the total mass of air munitions that hit the long-suffering Iraqi heads in the number of 88 500 tons, "only" 25 700 T was dropped by strategic bombers - it turns out that 5,12% of the planes threw 29% of all ammunition on the enemy. In other words, according to the results of such an analysis, tactical aviation must be scrapped, it is outdated, incapable, and instead of any Igls, Fighting Falcons and other Raptors, there is a need to build a B-2 Spirit, which, of course, will tear all ... funny? Here I am about the same.

The second problem of the “bombing” approach is that it simply does not take into account the tasks that were set for the deck and ground planes. Some may suggest that this is a pretense, but let's be impartial. A simple example: US strategic bombers usually covered fighter planes of carrier-based aircraft - they preferred to go to Iraq’s borders across the sea, which was to a certain extent justified by the location of the airfields on which the “super-strongholds” were based. According to some reports, 20 B-52 operated - from the Spanish base Moron, eight - from the English airfield Feyford and 20 - from the atoll Diego Garcia. Well, if we compare those 10 thous. Tons of bombs that deck aircraft expended to 78,5 ths tons, which other aircraft dropped, then it seems like little is obtained - deck aircraft spent unfortunate 11,2% of the total (88 500 tons) of their numbers. And if you compare with the same 88 500 t 35 700 t bombs that were dropped on Iraqis during the joint operations of the strategic and carrier-based aviation of the US Navy (and also the latter - independently)? Then it turns out that 369 aircraft of the US Navy and "strategists" (28,6% of the total number) dropped on the enemy over 40% of all ammunition, is not it?

Statistics, she is such statistics ... just close your eyes to several factors, recognize them as irrelevant, and - please, the rationale for your point of view is ready. By the way, the last thesis cited by the author of this article (about 40% of the total amount of bombs dropped by deck and strategic aviation) is also not correct. This is an example of how manipulation with tsifiry allows justify any point of view.

It remains only to repeat that the mass of the bombs can in no way serve as a measure of the efficiency of the aircraft. The deck aircraft of the US Navy made 14 014 sorties, of which 4 004 departed to perform air defense missions with heavy fighters. So, about a third (28,6%) of all sorties were limited to providing air defense. At the same time, a similar ratio for land-based aircraft is only 12,1%. Different goals, different tasks, so why should we measure combat effectiveness exclusively “in bombs”?

And finally, third. Despite the fact that the "bombing" approach to evaluating the effectiveness in this case is not applicable, using it, we find ... that the aircraft of carrier-based aircraft and in this parameter are not inferior to the ground!



So all in all, 88 500 t bombs were dropped on Iraq. Of these, 10 000 T is carrier-based aircraft and 25 700 T-strategic aviation. Accordingly, the share of tactical aviation accounted for 52 800 t bombs.

At the same time, with the exception of the F-15C (which were engaged almost exclusively in air hunting), ground aircraft made an 39 561 aircraft departure. But here's the thing, bombs on Iraq were dropped not only by planes of the US armed forces ... Oleg Kaptsov writes:

“In addition to the US Air Force, combat aircraft of nine countries took part in the operation. The contribution of the Allies was small - 17 300 departures for all, including departures of tankers and scouts "


It’s hard to say how many airplanes the combat aircraft made and how many providing the allies of the United States, the author doesn’t have exact data on this. But some assumptions can still be made. Oleg Kaptsov indicates that all the aircraft of the MNS has made 98 000 sorties. 18 117 airplanes made deck aircraft, another 17 300 - Allied aviation. Total for the share of the USAF and KMP remains 62 583 of departure, of which combat aircraft (according to our table) made 46 866 departures. Accordingly, all other flights that ensure the operation of combat vehicles constituted 15 717 sorties. Those. the actual sorties were 46 866 / 62 583 * 100% = 74,9% of their total number.

Applying the same relation to the allied sorties, we get that from 17 300 purely combat sorties were of the order of 12 975. Probably, some of them were done to provide air defense, rather than shock missions, the Americans have this ratio for ground aviation 12%, but we assume that the MNS aviation made 10 000 sorties for attacking Iraqis (this is an exaggeration, but okay ). In this case, the total number of MNS ground aviation sorties (except for heavy fighters performing air defense tasks) will be 39 561 + 10 000 = 49 571 aircraft sortie, for which 52 800 t bombs were spent. Or approximately 1 065 kg of ammunition for one sortie.

And what about deck aircraft? Everything is simple - “Hornets”, “Intruders” and “Corsairs” made a total of 10 010 aircraft sorties, having spent 10 000 t bombs or 999 kg for one aircraft sortie. In other words, by the mass of delivered ammunition, the aircraft of deck aircraft lost to the ground (minus the strategic bombers) ... by as much as 6%!

The conclusion from the above is extremely simple. All these horror stories about the fact that carrier-based aviation is not able to keep up with land-based airplanes neither by the number of sorties, nor by the mass of transported ammunition, have no basis and are completely erroneous. That, on the basis of irrefutable facts, Oleg Kaptsov proved to us, for which he thanks us, grateful readers, a big human thanks.

Here, however, there is another nuance. Someone might say that for a long period, that is, “on average in the hospital,” aircraft carriers may be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of ground aviation, but they will not be enough for a sharp spurt. On this account there is a most interesting material about the teachings of the Nimitz wing in 1997. (A link to an English-language source can be found here) Over the course of 4-ex days, the giant aircraft carrier provided an average 244 departure per day, including attack aircraft - an average 193 departure per day.




On average, one F / A-18 made 4,5 departures per day, and one such aircraft managed to leave 4 deck (THIRTY) times in 30 days!

So, in order to properly assess the role of carrier-based aviation in future conflicts, you need to understand and accept the following. Firstly, the deck aircraft is in no way inferior to the ground class equal to it. More precisely, of course, it can be inferior, for example, if the outdated models of a chariot are compared with the newest - a “ground”. But, in addition to the inevitable obsolescence of equipment or the curvature of designers, there are no fundamental reasons why a deck tactical aircraft must lose ground effectiveness. Secondly, an aircraft carrier, representing a mobile and very well-protected aerodrome, is a much more complex goal than stationary ground air bases, especially since air force deployment plans usually provide for the use of a conventional, civilian aerodrome network.

Based on the above, it can be argued that an aircraft carrier is by no means a means of fighting “against the Papuans,” as the opponents of this type of weapons like to say. The Papuans do not care who will bring death to them - the Air Force or Navy, whether the squadron that kills them will rise from the deck or from the concrete path ... But in the war against the technically equal enemy, the presence of mobile airfields capable of striking from areas inaccessible to ground aviation basing, and even extremely vulnerable at the same time, it may well be the very straw that breaks the ridge of a camel.



At the same time, no one has ever argued that carrier aircraft should replace the Air Force - this is absurd. Deck aviation today is one of the elements of the balanced armed forces - it does not replace, but complements the air force, ground forces, navy, etc. Deck aviation will never be comparable in size to Air Force planes, and she doesn’t need this, it’s not created for these tasks. The aircraft carrier is designed to dominate the ocean spaces, providing intelligence, target designation and combat stability of surface and submarine fleet ships. In the war against the enemy, possessing a powerful land army, he is able to perfectly support his Air Force, creating a threat to which the enemy is forced to react, diverting planes, air defense systems and ground forces (and suddenly - landing?) To cover its own coast. In peacetime, an aircraft carrier is an instrument of politics and power projection.

Someone will argue that a single AUG does not constitute a big threat to a large state, because it is unable to defeat its air force and armed forces defending their home country? Of course. I would like to note, however, that the 11 frigates and corvettes of the Russian squadron commanded by SS. Lesovsky could not do the slightest harm to the British Isles. Nevertheless, they became a factor that forced Britain to refrain from entering the war and which strengthened the position of the US federal government in international relations. But Russia got its benefit from this - the coalition "England-France-Austria" against Russia and Prussia did not take place because of the change in the position of England, so that afterwards Austria even helped Russia with the Polish insurgency ... Cases of bygone days, you say? But if something distinguishes the diplomacy of those years from today, it is this that today diplomatic games have become much more complicated and sophisticated. And the presence of such a pounding weight in the form of an AUG in a political store will warm the hearts of the diplomats of any country that has this aircraft carrier strike group ...

Someone still disagree? Well, look how the world came to life after sending Kuznetsov to Syria. Western democracies will always react nervously to the movement of the naval forces not controlled by them for one simple reason: approximately 80% of world foreign trade is carried by sea transport. And as long as the main foreign trade turnover goes by sea, the one who rules the sea will rule the world.

And why should we rule the world? Maybe there is no need. But not allowing others to do this is a very important task for Russia. For one simple reason: somehow it has historically happened that as soon as a country starts to rule the seas, it immediately begins to oppose to the strongest on the Eurasian continent the alliances of smaller and weaker states. Recall England. When France was the strongest in Europe - they organized the anti-Napoleonic coalition, the Kaiser became the “king of the mountains” - please come to Entente ...

And who is the strongest country today (and tomorrow ... and the day after tomorrow ...) in Eurasia? Russian Federation. Despite all our (and not only our) attempts to kill our own science and education, we are still quite technologically advanced and are still the only country in the world that can powder the world hegemon (that is, the United States) in about 40 minutes. And while we will be a strong land power, but we will not have a powerful fleet, puppet governments will be viciously yelping along our borders - the offspring of orange revolutions, disguised by the authority and power of NATO. Do we need such a future?

But even here it can be argued that the Russian Federation is now unable to create a fleet capable of challenging US force at sea. This is definitely the case. So, according to many opponents, we don’t need to try - since the goal is still unattainable, let’s invest in the VKS for the time being, and we will manage to get boats on the sea, not really fat ... But then, when there is enough money, you can start building ocean fleet with aircraft carriers and all the rest. It seems to be true, but ...



Let's look at the campaign "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov." The ship arrived within a reasonable time on the shores of Syria ... what made everyone sympathizing with the Russian Navy and the author of this article happy. Here is just a reason for joy purely ours, Russian, American, he will not be clear. Because for their aircraft carriers, the ocean cruise is a routine, and if the Nimitz has gone somewhere, its arrival is not what is expected, but simply no one even thinks that the ship will disrupt the deadlines set for it. For Americans, this has long become technology. But for us, no, we all know about the Kuznetsov’s problematic undercarriage and cross our fingers behind our backs (as long as it’s gone by, as long as it’s gone, as long as the tugs are not needed!). The Internet, and what's more insulting, TOPWAR contains links to a bunch of articles, in all the chilling details describing how heavy our aircraft-carrying cruiser is able to tear apart an American supercarrier. After all, ours is a fighter! In one fell swoop seven pobivahom! Not some miserable airfield, but a real cruiser, stuffed with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles!

But it came to the point. The fleet seems to have passed the 24 MiG-29KR and KUBR, and the Su-33, perhaps, a dozen still remained. And how many "Kuznetsov" brought with him the aircraft? And with what intensity are they fighting? We didn’t have time to start - MiG-29 drowned, after it - Su-33 fell from the deck into the sea ... In general, if someone doesn’t see it, it’s easy to tell: the actions of Kuznetsov off the coast of Syria are pretty sad a parody of the actions of any American aircraft carrier off the coast of Iraq. And why? Because MiG-29 did not pass all the required tests? Because the pilots were not given proper training, since the simulator in Yeisk was not ready, and in NITKA in the Crimea it was not repaired? Because the ship commander did not train the crew entrusted to him properly?

And this, too, of course, but only the problem has much deeper, systemic roots. Imagine an elderly, but strong Evenk, or Chukchu, who from his youngest nails lived in unity with nature, although he did not shun civilization. But still, most of the time he walked through the forest with his faithful gun: he spent decades of his life mostly in the bosom of wild nature. A person who knows all the habits of the beast, all the features of the taiga, who started with his father, who taught him the game of hunting, and then for many years learned this wild world and understood it like no other.

Now let us imagine an eighteen-year-old student who has learned how to shoot a dash well, and even received the Voroshilovsky Arrow badge. A young man who had been taught the subject of “extreme survival” for an entire semester, he passed the subject perfectly. The guy who was engaged in school in the section of orienteering, who was curious and saw in the encyclopedia both lynx and elk, and also read and memorized descriptions of the habits of these animals.

Send these two to the wild taiga separately. Can we seriously expect that an eighteen-year-old youth will extract at least one fifth of what a seasoned hunter? Are we surprised if something bad happens to the young man?

Well, the Nimitz standoff against Kuznetsov is from the same opera. The problem of our aircraft carrier is not that someone did not learn something, or was wrong or did something wrong or wrong. All this is only a consequence, and the problem is that we simply do not know how to exploit carrier-based aircraft as the Americans can. They have experience in systemic use of aircraft carriers is not even measured in decades - it will soon be 100 years, and we? How many wars with the use of aircraft carriers have passed, and we?

But if we really want to once get a real and highly efficient ocean fleet - we need to catch up, and the most interesting thing - we are quite capable of doing it. Yes, you just have to start now, not postponing for tomorrow, which, as is well known, in such cases has the dirty characteristic of never stepping on. Because only the most intensive use of sea deck-based aviation — whether in exercises or in battle — can give us “experience, son of difficult mistakes”. The experience that will be put ... no, not our warriors of the skies - those who are now flying from Kuznetsov will come out one-on-one without any problems against any American pillower pilot. The experience that can turn an aircraft carrier into a single organism, in which all its components work in unison, creating a harmony of perfect naval weapons.

May we have only a couple of aircraft carriers today, may we not yet be able to challenge American dominance of the sea. But having saved the aircraft carriers in the Navy, we will give our descendants the knowledge and experience to do this.

Thank you for attention!
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

218 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    15 December 2016 04: 55
    I don’t really know Comrade Kaptsov except for a couple of articles, so I won’t draw conclusions .. I’m on the site relatively recently. But with "Kuznetsov" our top and high command just hurried and people made fun of ... alas, but this is a fact, as it were, who did not say there ...
    1. +14
      15 December 2016 05: 53
      Quote: sofa but smart general
      But with "Kuznetsov" our top and high command only hurried and made people laugh ... alas, but this is a fact, as it were, what and who did not say ...


      With all my PERSONAL RESPECT OF THE AUTHOR of this article drinks totally agree with you soldier

      Andrey, friend ... the article is very good and informative, there was once such a magazine "Foreign Military Review" ... there was a lot of similar material, but ... that's just the introductory part and the end (well, what concerns ours " Kuznetsov "... it should be removed), because. it is impossible to compare THAT that is with THAT ... WHAT is essentially NOT (I tried as much as possible to "soften" everything ... "the capabilities" of our ... "aircraft carrier" and its ... "escort") soldier
      And you have in your article "controversial" points (aspects of the AUG and the land base as objects of impact), but this is a topic for ... discussions wink - even take the moment that runway repair does not take so much time, but if there are several lanes? And the takeoff according to the MRD? And what about "moving" to "public" roads?
      Further ..stats objects are always easier to defend with air defense and electronic warfare and P (increase the outfit of forces and means ... a couple of trifles) ... well, etc. etc.
      1. +3
        15 December 2016 05: 59
        Nootka on the spot (at the very aircraft carrier for sure) knew that it was too early .... if the commander of this vessel was intelligent, he knew the identity and did not want to be .... but as always, the staff rats (to pull out their legs like that) with a desire to lick the top of the government said forward to the mines ".... and they brushed off those who disagreed .... or even worse, they stupidly obeyed the order without putting any arguments against ... but whatever ... I think that's how it was ... however, nothing new .. ...
      2. +10
        15 December 2016 06: 15
        Greetings, dear Sergey!
        Quote: ancient
        Andrew, friend .. the article is very good and informative

        Thank you!
        Quote: ancient
        but ... that's just the introductory part and the end (well, what concerns our "Kuznetsov" ... it would be worth removing), because. it is impossible to compare THAT that is with THAT ... WHAT is essentially NOT (I tried as much as possible to "soften" everything ... "the capabilities" of our ... "aircraft carrier" and its ... "escort")

        Nuuuuu :))))) You need to train on something :))) And besides Kuznetsov we don’t have anything
        Quote: ancient
        And you have in your article "controversial" points (aspects of the AUG and the land base as objects of impact), but this is a topic for ... discussions

        So after all, for this I am writing in order to discuss the possibility was :)
        Quote: ancient
        even take the moment that the runway repair does not take so much time, but if there are several lanes?

        The runway - yes, but the planes themselves at the civil airfield - it will be more difficult to repair them in case of damage, I think. They have to be placed openly, as I understand it
        Quote: ancient
        Further ..stats objects are always easier to defend with air defense and electronic warfare and P (increase the outfit of forces and means ... a couple of trifles) ... well, etc. and so on

        That is, of course, yes, but in the case of our American friends, their air defense against the Scuds was not very good. But at that time there was a missile weapon much more advanced. hi drinks
        1. +4
          15 December 2016 08: 05
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Greetings, dear Sergey!
          Quote: ancient
          Andrew, friend .. the article is very good and informative

          Thank you!
          Quote: ancient
          but ... that's just the introductory part and the end (well, what concerns our "Kuznetsov" ... it would be worth removing), because. it is impossible to compare THAT that is with THAT ... WHAT is essentially NOT (I tried as much as possible to "soften" everything ... "the capabilities" of our ... "aircraft carrier" and its ... "escort")

          Nuuuuu :))))) You need to train on something :))) And besides Kuznetsov we don’t have anything
          Quote: ancient
          And you have in your article "controversial" points (aspects of the AUG and the land base as objects of impact), but this is a topic for ... discussions

          So after all, for this I am writing in order to discuss the possibility was :)
          Quote: ancient
          even take the moment that the runway repair does not take so much time, but if there are several lanes?

          The runway - yes, but the planes themselves at the civil airfield - it will be more difficult to repair them in case of damage, I think. They have to be placed openly, as I understand it
          Quote: ancient
          Further ..stats objects are always easier to defend with air defense and electronic warfare and P (increase the outfit of forces and means ... a couple of trifles) ... well, etc. and so on

          That is, of course, yes, but in the case of our American friends, their air defense against the Scuds was not very good. But at that time there was a missile weapon much more advanced. hi drinks



          Thanks for the article, as promised posted the answer.
          You have beautifully expressed what I'm trying to clarify in the comments the last couple of days.
          Unfortunately, from the commenters above, some are deaf to simple rules of life and continue to repeat the same thing.
          Probably Peter should not have created a fleet either, it was expensive and so many lives were ruined. After all, the facts and statistics probably confirmed about this then.
          1. +8
            15 December 2016 09: 29
            Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf
            Probably Peter should not have created a fleet either, it was expensive and so many lives were ruined. After all, the facts and statistics probably confirmed about this then.

            And besides, there was not enough money in the treasury for the immediate needs of equipping the army :))))
            That's right, thanks! drinks
            1. +1
              15 December 2016 22: 18
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And besides, there was not enough money in the treasury for the immediate needs of equipping the army :))))

              Yes, by the way about that.
              and the most interesting is that we are quite capable of doing this.

              Dear Andrey! Recently I read quite a lot of your work on another site. Accordingly, I know that you know that any alternative to the USSR Navy needs to include questions
              1. Where will it be built.
              2. Who will build it and, most importantly, design.
              3. Instead, what it will be built.
              The answer to the third question, by the way, excludes AB and LC during the first five-year periods, since the (more) active (than in RI) construction of ships of these classes gives our German partners another ten or two kilometers in the winter of the 41st (in real life, whoever forgot, they got just to Sheremetyevo).
              Obviously, applying these questions to the situation described in the article excludes statements like
              Why do we need to rule the world?

              And who today (and tomorrow ... and the day after tomorrow ...) in Eurasia is the strongest country?

              and even
              we will give our descendants the knowledge and experience in order to do this.


              Speak, by the way, with descendants who are older. If you are lucky and you have smart descendants, then they may have very strange plans for your life. The descendants are well aware of how, for example, stadiums are being built in Russia. And you offer them harness in aircraft carriers.

              By the way, if you are not in the know, the reasoning of the "fifth column" is based on this. We need to do what is beneficial for Russia. Now, today. And Aviks (and indeed large NKs) fit surprisingly poorly into this "liberal" system of values. American aviks, by the way, also fit badly, but there they are much cheaper (as a percentage).
              With regard to the current situation, you are exchanging aviks for social services, roads, and much more. It is unlikely that the German partners will again trample from Berlin to Sheremetyevo, but the fact that the "descendants" (a very small part of the descendants who are able to design, build and operate aviks) use this route in the other direction - do not go to the fortuneteller. It is incredible to believe in it, but the better a person is educated and the smarter he is, the more difficult he understands the word "patriotism".
              1. +1
                16 December 2016 19: 34
                Quote: Octopus
                Obviously, applying these questions to the situation described in the article excludes statements like

                I’m afraid that it’s obviously a little different here, namely, your unfamiliarity with the realities of the current situation in the Russian Federation.
                Quote: Octopus
                If you are lucky and you have smart descendants, then they may have very strange plans for your life.

                Judging by these words, you consider yourself very, very smart :))) And you consider those who share your views as such. However, this is just normal - I myself am the same.
                Quote: Octopus
                The descendants are well aware of how, for example, stadiums are being built in Russia.

                Often yes. And so they understand very well that aircraft carriers are quite within our reach. And not only aircraft carriers
                Quote: Octopus
                It is incredible to believe in it, but the better a person is educated and the smarter he is, the more difficult he understands the word "patriotism".

                Where am I, with my higher education in Russia laughing By nature stupid and uncouth.
                Quote: Octopus
                In relation to the current situation, you exchange aviki for social programs, roads, and much more.

                Nope. What for? And without them there are enough sources
                1. +1
                  17 December 2016 03: 06
                  You see, the content of my post boiled down to the fact that
                  Your proposals for aviks resemble either the Two-Ocean Navy in the 3rd five-year plan (if by the word "aircraft carrier" we mean Ford with the appropriate escort), or a couple of Sevastopolis in the same place (if the "aircraft carrier" is Kuznetsov with an escort from the fact that there is).
                  You, however, focused on stylistic details.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  What for? And without them there are enough sources

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  therefore, they are well aware that aircraft carriers are quite up to us. And not only aircraft carriers

                  The author, of course, knows best, but I personally do not respect military-historical, and especially military-technical AI with magic, relocation of souls, or direct intervention of aliens.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Where am I, with my higher education in Russia

                  I am a little interested in domestic education. Read, for example, in between, a sweet Christmas story.
                  https://snob.ru/selected/entry/117509
                  I do not know what quality of higher education you specifically received. But, I hope, it is clear why I try not to use references to my education.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  By nature stupid and uncouth.

                  You have successful work.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Judging by these words, you consider yourself very, very smart

                  Seriously? It seems quite a banality. In general, I try to work for Captain Evidence.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  However, this is just normal - I myself am the same.

                  It’s a pity to upset you, but this is just stupid. Smart people are different. Even worse, smart people also talk and write nonsense from time to time.
                  Nevertheless, all completely smart people are attentive to terms. In particular, when dealing with the word "patriotism" (for example, why is it absolutely impossible to combine Jefferson's "tree of freedom" with the so-called Russian "patriotism"), sooner or later a curious person will come to Cato the Younger. On this, the topic of patriotism will most likely be closed forever. Worse, a person who really loves his homeland can be cut out of such historical parallels. Like Cato. It’s getting very lousy at heart, even for a rootless cosmopolitan like me.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  obviously here is a little different, namely, your unfamiliarity with the realities of the current situation of the Russian Federation.

                  You see, I have to read something at work. Yes, and there are some own observations. Subjective, of course, but there are some.
                  1. +1
                    17 December 2016 09: 52
                    Quote: Octopus
                    It’s a pity to upset you, but this is just stupid.

                    And why did you get the idea that you can upset me? :))) I understand you and people like you I have met many times.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    You see, the content of my post

                    Your post is missing the content.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Your suggestions for aviks are either reminiscent of the Two-Ocean Navy in the 3rd Five-Year Plan (if by the word "aircraft carrier" we mean Ford with appropriate escort)

                    Yes, you stated that. But you see, what’s the matter, the postulate is not in itself a substantial part, it needs a minimal evidence base. Yours, if you discard unnecessary words, boils down to the fact that
                    You compared the current Russian Federation with the USSR of the early five-year plans (which is completely absurd, since the Russian Federation does not have fundamental differences - there simply aren’t any similarities there) and said that aircraft carriers cannot be built because smart descendants know how stadiums are built in our country .
                    "Flawless" logical chain :)))) I don't even dare to ask how you manage to compare mechanical engineering and construction and on the basis of what criteria do you compare them.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    I am a little interested in domestic education. Read, for example, in between, a sweet Christmas story.

                    Why do I need Christmas stories? I have the opportunity to compare the results of foreign and domestic education, both students and people with work experience.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    In general, I try to work for Captain Evidence.

                    I know that you will not understand me, but Captain Evidence suggests that in addition to creating a certain emotional background, your messages do not carry any meaning. Talking about domestic education with Christmas stories is strong.
                    You (and not only you) very much remind me of a certain character from Asimov's excellent work "The Founders". You talk a lot, you create a certain emotional background, you convince the audience that you are right - but if you look closely at your words, it turns out that you did not say nothing... This is also art, of course, but much stronger demagogues than you have been unsuccessfully practiced on me (in this case, the word "demagogue" does not have a derogatory connotation - in fact, it is just a method of conducting a discussion)
                    Quote: Octopus
                    In particular, when dealing with the word "patriotism" (for example, why is it absolutely impossible to combine Jefferson's "tree of freedom" with the so-called Russian "patriotism"), sooner or later a curious person will come to Cato the Younger.

                    I always like the way these
                    Quote: Octopus
                    a rootless cosmopolitan like me.

                    Having created a certain personal philosophical concept on some issue (like the one described above), we are convinced that any rational person will come to it sooner or later. Well, yes, you are the ultimate truth and you cannot be wrong :)))
                    Personally, having a certain picture of the world, I don’t consider it either complete or complete and am ready to change it as a result of new information for me. Since I initially see how arbitrary my personal philosophy is, etc. I just can not raise it to absolute and assume that
                    Quote: Octopus
                    curious person

                    will come to the same thing that I have come to. It’s another question that I try not to judge from floundering bay and have thought over (and continue to do so) my personal outlook on life, so in order to change my outlook I need powerful enough reasoning or reliable information that is extremely different from that what i saw before. And here are common words like
                    Quote: Octopus
                    You see, I have to read something at work. Yes, and there are some own observations

                    don't mean anything
                    1. +1
                      17 December 2016 13: 45
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I understand you and people like you I have met many times.

                      Yes? Happy for you. Apparently, everyone, like me, came to Chelyabinsk. It will be necessary to look there, thanks for the help.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      the postulate is not in itself a meaningful part

                      Perhaps I was not clear enough. The postulate was that the Russian part of your text was worked out at the level of the 500 Kt battleship-trimaran known to you ("let's say it already exists"). Earlier you wrote more thoroughly. However, times change, people change.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You did not say anything

                      I wrote to the author of the text that, in my opinion, the text is not sufficiently developed in the Russian part. Kmk, the author of the text may be interested. You, for your part, considered it necessary to discuss all the lace that I had wrapped in this simple thesis, but ignored the thesis itself. I can’t understand, intentionally or inadvertently.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I have the opportunity to compare the results of foreign and domestic education

                      And here, it seems, I expressed myself clearly. I cannot assess the quality of your education or the education of your friends. Moreover, I am ready to admit that some of your statements, which seem to me to be dense ignorance, in theory, may simply be careless formulations or polemical sharpening of the thesis. Or extravagance, which everyone is entitled to. Moreover, I'm not going to "Tell about Russian education with Christmas stories."
                      I just pointed out that the mention of your (or my) diploma does not carry a semantic load. The Christmas story, kmk, comprehensively illustrates this idea.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      a personal philosophical concept on some issue (like the one described above) is firmly convinced that any intelligent person will come to it sooner or later.

                      You see, there is no talk of a philosophical concept here. Yes, I'm really sure that any reasonable person interested in the topic can distinguish between the meanings of terms such as "patriot", "pi * bol", "ass licking" and "cannon fodder". Using the first term instead of one of the following speaks at least of academic slovenliness.
                      However, he went into a malicious offtopic, sorry.
                      Get to the point.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You compared the current Russian Federation with the USSR early five-year plans

                      Nothing like this. I pointed out the need to link the capabilities of the budget and industry in RI with the tasks set in AI. If it occurred to me to compare the current state of mechanical engineering in the Russian Federation with something, I would definitely not remember the times when the USSR bought turnkey factories in the USA. The period of the civil war is much better suited.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      how do you manage to compare engineering and construction and based on what criteria do you compare them.

                      This is elementary. If your AI does not imply unconstitutional actions, such as the mass substitution of civil servants, at least from a minister or higher, by aliens, or the mystical instillation of figures with a fundamentally different background into their bodies, then exactly the same people will build aircraft carriers in your AI in RI are building stadiums.
                      1. +1
                        17 December 2016 14: 51
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Apparently, everyone, like me, came to Chelyabinsk

                        That is, you are sincerely sure that I have not seen anything except my hometown in my life. I am not surprised:)))
                        Quote: Octopus
                        You, for your part, considered it necessary to discuss all the lace that I had wrapped in this simple thesis, but ignored the thesis itself. I can’t understand, intentionally or inadvertently.

                        Intentionally. And I will ignore your thesis until you deign to justify it. Christmas stories and what your descendants think are not justification.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        I pointed out the need to link the budget and industry in RI with the tasks set in AI.

                        The government cut costs from 626 to 620 billion rubles for the World Cup, which will be held in Russia from June 14 to July 15, 2018.
                        According to the resolution published on the website of legal information, the mundial costs should be less than 620,9 billion rubles instead of almost 626 billion. Of these, 9 billion will be allocated from the federal budget, 330,6 from the regional.
                        Read on: http://izvestia.ru/news/605093#ixzz4T5vRZK2R

                        There are many different rumors about the 2014 Olympics, but its cost was usually estimated in the range from 214 billion to 1,5 trillion rubles.
                        Now we remember that the creation of a domestic aircraft carrier will take about 12-15 years, taking into account the construction of an industrial base for it. Obviously, if Russia managed to finance the Olympics and the World Cup in even less time, despite the fact that these "construction projects of the century" gobbled up much more funds than the aircraft carrier program could have, then we are quite capable of creating our own aircraft carrier fleet
                        Quote: Octopus
                        then exactly the same people who build stadiums in RI will build aircraft carriers in your AI

                        Explain what you are not comfortable with in stadiums. Do you know how many are being built now? About 20 - large. And - completely different people will build the aircraft carriers :) Who are now creating military equipment much cheaper than foreign analogues
                      2. 0
                        17 December 2016 18: 19
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That is, you are sincerely sure that I have not seen anything except my hometown in my life.

                        I will not go to Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I'm not surprised

                        What a nuisance.
                        Andrey, you should not diagnose me in ten posts online. I refrained from personal evaluations, but would ask not to provoke me.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        until you deign to justify him

                        Firstly, it’s impossible to talk about the details if it is not clear what you are building there - Fords, Chakri Narubet or generally lake aviks
                        http://warspot.ru/2421-avianostsy-ozera-michigan
                        Secondly, the thesis "you have no connection between RI and AI" does not require any justification. Specifically, between phrases
                        . in the period 1990-2010. the industry did not live, but survived, having received a blow, perhaps even more powerful than in the period 1917 - 1927, when the revolution and civil war nearly put an end to domestic shipbuilding

                        In general, we have to state that the shipbuilding program in the framework of HPV 2011-2020. did not take place, and for some reason not because of a lack of funding, but as a result of systemic errors in the strategy of the development of the Navy, the organization of the work of the military-industrial complex and the control of this work by the state.

                        и
                        . to get a real and highly efficient ocean fleet - we need to catch up, and the most interesting - we are quite capable of doing this

                        a hefty text is missing describing the revolutionary changes in the industry in recent months. I have not seen this text.
                        Accordingly, I was counting on 1 of 2 options
                        1. The bunch is written and I missed it.
                        2. "Don't burden me with details, the article is not about that at all. And in general, go with your AI, you know where, colleague, I'm writing fantasy, I need traffic."
                        I perceive our discussion as the second answer. OK, right of the author.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Obviously, if Russia managed to finance the Olympics and the World Cup in even less time, despite the fact that these "construction projects of the century" gobbled up much more funds than the aircraft carrier program could have, then we are quite capable of creating our own aircraft carrier fleet

                        It's not the same for everybody. It is obvious to me that one excludes the second.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And - completely different people will build aircraft carriers :)

                        Above, I gave an assessment of the actions of "completely different people." Your appraisal.
              2. 0
                21 December 2016 10: 49
                Quote: Octopus
                but the better a person is educated and the smarter he is, the more difficult he understands the word "patriotism."

                Not that controversial. Alas, NOW it is. This is the trend. In view of the ideology of consumerism. Medicines for "educated clever men" two IMHO. And even 3 (here it tastes). 1. Stop destroying science. Even the most cheeky cosmopolitan smart guy would be better off staying here if he gets the same opportunities as over the hill. 2. EDUCATE these clever people, harmoniously, and not "pump one mathematical gyrus". To understand that while he is polishing his mind, someone is hunchbacked for this, someone dies in battle. Well, and 3. Don't let go. First, return what you spent on you, and then n ... th to San Francisco if you have enough for a ticket.
                1. 0
                  21 December 2016 22: 38
                  Quote: unwillingly
                  In view of the ideology of consumerism.

                  Nothing like this. In the absence of res publica, common cause. The concepts of "Motherland" and "Your Excellency" are too far apart. And consumerism, it’s domestic demand, doesn’t interfere here.
                  Quote: unwillingly
                  Stop ruining science.

                  Do not understand? Do you, for example, propose staying away from science? But what about the leaders, what will they do? You are an extremist, my friend.
                  Quote: unwillingly
                  To understand that while he is polishing his mind - for this someone is hunching, someone is dying in battle.

                  Sorry, but wise men are wise men, it’s quite difficult for them to lie. People die in battle for two reasons 1. Someone wants to cut / cut some money. 2. Someone wants to advertise in the news for free. Clever people have nothing to do with it.
                  At the expense of "hunchback" - it is also difficult.
                  Quote: unwillingly
                  First return what you spent on

                  But this is generally trash.
                  Remember, please. Nobody owes anything to their homeland, at least in the material sense. All the money spent on my education is the money of my parents, directly or in the form of taxes. Similarly, my parents ’pension is part of my money that I pay to a pension fund alone. Part, I emphasize, - I pay more. Not to mention the second pension, which I pay in full - my parents will not live on 10 thousand.
                  The state gives nothing to anyone. It collects money from citizens and instead organizes the production of certain services (security, education, medicine, social insurance, justice, arbitration, regulation, countercyclical economic policy). In the case of the Russian state, it collects a lot of money and provides very bad, criminally bad services.

                  The whole concept of the modern state is based on the effect of scale in the production of public goods. The Russian state produces public goods known as.
                  1. 0
                    21 December 2016 23: 18
                    Quote: Octopus
                    stand back

                    AutoCorrect. It is easy to guess what was originally written.
        2. avt
          +4
          15 December 2016 09: 59
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          , but in the case of our American friends, their air defense against the Scuds was not very good.
          what Well, it seems like the Jews, the Patriots "were tempted to knock down something, but again there like the Korean" pipes "were healthy, not very much ..." dismembered "after the start laughing . But the article-I-I-I-! wassat This is some kind of ....... VALUNTARISM! laughing What can I say? !
          Well, the Nimitz standoff against Kuznetsov is from the same opera. The problem of our aircraft carrier is not that someone did not learn something, or was wrong or did something wrong or wrong. All this is only a consequence, and the problem is that we simply do not know how to exploit carrier-based aircraft as the Americans can. They have experience in systemic use of aircraft carriers is not even measured in decades - it will soon be 100 years, and we? How many wars with the use of aircraft carriers have passed, and we?
          Yes, if only the fact that there was an understanding that the project 1143.5 itself at the time of not only construction, but at the design stage did not suit the fleet. Since, like his predecessors, of which only 1143, Gorshkov and for the Indians, a full-fledged aircraft carrier was made light. A full-fledged counterpart to the same "Nimitz" was supposed to be project 1143.7, dismantled with the money of the US by the Black Sea diggers even under Kravchuk. request In short - we are waiting for Oleg and ... "Zamvolt" is the best, although they made pests and there is no armor, but there are cofferdams! bully
          1. +3
            15 December 2016 11: 16
            Quote: avt
            Yes, if only that there was an understanding that the project 1143.5 itself at the time was not like construction, but the fleet was not happy with the design stage.

            He did not like the fleet until the design stage. Gorshkov wanted ave. 1153. And not another gradual improvement of TAKR. But I had to step on the throat of my own song.
            However, at first they planned to design a full-fledged AB with catapults.
            The fifth aircraft carrier was to be built according to the new project 11435 with ejection aircraft (types MiG-29K, Su-25K, Su-27K) and VTOL Yak-41. The development of the MiG-23K aircraft also stopped, and the construction of the Nitka ground complex, deployed to support the creation of ships of the project 1153, continued in the interests of creating a new aircraft carrier and aircraft for it.
            When the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy S.G. Gorshkov considered in November 1977 the main directions for the gradual improvement of TAKR ave. 11433, 11434 and 11435 for the fifth ship, the decision was made: to determine the composition of its armaments, instruct the NKPB to develop a technical proposal, and prepare the institutes of the Navy and Air Force and agree with the NPKB the TTZ project for it, which is to be submitted for approval in November 1977. In this task, provide for the basing and combat use of both VTOL aircraft and catapult take-off aircraft with the deployment of one catapult, aerofinisher and emergency barrier on the ship, apply for ships of Project 1153, prospective weapon systems, to increase the amount of constructive protection to increase the combat survivability of the ship (compared to TAKR Project 1143-11434) with the maximum possible reduction in ship displacement.
            As part of the technical proposal (the development of which was carried out under the direct supervision of the Deputy Chief Designer of Project 1153 O.P. Efimov and was completed in April 1978), the bureau considered five variants of the ship with a different composition of weapons and aviation technical devices, with two types of power plant (boiler and turbine and nuclear) and a displacement within 59-000 tons. Of these options, NPKB recommended for further design the fifth version with a minimum displacement with a power plant of the type of project 65 and two catapults, one of which, with a reduction in the main dimensions, it became possible to place only due to the removal of the SCRC "Granit". The bureau proposed to consider the MiG-000K fighter and the Su-1143K attack aircraft as the main types of catapult takeoff aircraft for the aircraft carrier pr. 11435 (the dimensions of the Su-29K fighter required a 25% reduction in their number).
            © A.B. Morin
          2. +2
            15 December 2016 19: 18
            Quote: avt
            But the article-I-I-I-! wassat This is some kind of ....... VALUNTARISM! laughing What can you say? !

            drinks laughing Huh. But I’m very interested in how Oleg will refute the figures from his own articles :)
        3. +2
          15 December 2016 11: 09
          About protection. Any object that protects the air defense can be easily destroyed in at least one of the ways - overloading the channels of the air defense system.
          For example, for the Patriot with its 8 channels, 16 missiles are required for its guaranteed overload. At the same time, we know from experience that they and rockets with difficulty intercepted (while they flew along a ballistic trajectory).
          At the same time, we do not forget that they have 32 missiles, i.e. to be sure you need 32 missiles. Because even if they are knocked down, the combat-ready complex will be no earlier than in half an hour.
      3. +4
        15 December 2016 09: 57
        The journal "Foreign Military Review" is alive and well and is celebrating its anniversary today. 95 years old!
      4. +2
        15 December 2016 11: 09
        Quote: ancient
        Further ..stats objects are always easier to defend with air defense and electronic warfare and P (increase the outfit of forces and means ... a couple of trifles) ... well, etc. etc.

        And it’s easier to hit them, too, because the range of ammunition for working on stationary objects is much wider. The same ammunition with satellite and inertial guidance against moving targets is practically useless, but working on a stationary one is a pleasure. The concrete runway cannot crawl to the side. smile
        I'm not talking about the fact that a stationary object can be worked out not only with cruise missiles, but also ballistic. And here already it is necessary to build not missile defense, but missile defense. But anti-ship ballistic missiles can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
        Plus, you can also recall the difference in the flight range of the KR and anti-ship missiles (the "tomahawks" and "calibers" are especially indicative).
    2. +13
      15 December 2016 06: 05
      It seems to me that the question is not whether we need an aircraft carrier fleet or not, but what is not needed in such a form as now. It's one thing a modern atomic, even a cruiser, and another ... an aircraft-carrying steamer! "Kuznetsov" is 40 years behind life ... there is no guarantee that he will return to the base on his own, you understand the boilers ... but the new project is still a project ..
      1. +3
        15 December 2016 06: 13
        absolutely so ......
      2. +6
        15 December 2016 06: 16
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        but in that, as it is now, it’s not needed

        Just like a training ground
        1. +9
          15 December 2016 07: 43
          An article from Andrei in the morning is the key to a good mood for the whole day, I have already managed to verify this. Thanks to the author for his efforts.
          More than once, the problems of our aircraft carrier fleet have already been discussed at the VO. The ships of the 1143 project (with subsequent indices) are undoubtedly the beauty and pride of our fleet, unfortunately they are its pain and tragedy (although their fate is more likely to be completely identical to the post-Soviet history of the fleet as a whole). And Kuzya is no exception. We all know what needs to be done to correct the situation: a new power plant (if it is impossible to install a nuclear power plant, at least it is necessary to install modern boilers with automated control, which we still have, having finished with cannibalism of boilers from the destroyers of the 956 project), remove the glasses from Granitov, thereby expanding the hangar, replace the Dagger with Redut-Polement with the installation of the appropriate radar component and CIUS, for crew needs: conduct normal wiring on 220В and remodel the heating system. But the main thing, as it seems to me personally, is not even that. See how easy it is to take off from the deck of Kuznetsov Migi and how hard Sushi is rising. It is clear that a different class of fighters behaves differently and performs different tasks, but it may be worth revising the composition of the air group of our only aircraft carrier for the type of aircraft that is capable of most efficiently performing tasks, taking into account all the specific features of the 1143.5 project. In order to make sure that a heavy fighter has no place on Kuznetsovo, I advise you to pay attention to the fact that the photographs presented by Andrey clearly show how inexcusably much space these vehicles occupy on the deck of a domestic aircraft carrier cruiser. Hence the crucial question: the launch of how many machines of this class is able to provide our aircraft carrier at a time? And how much in the same period of time can I send a MiG to flight? I believe that more than Sushka. Yes, of course, we are everywhere proud of the fact that we have the only ship in the world capable of taking on board heavy fighters. But with a hand on the heart, let us admit that this is not the merit of the ship as such, but the merit of the engineers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, who were able to masterfully fulfill the task assigned to them. But apparently the time for these machines has passed. The articles on the Mig-29K and Mig-29KUB in their latest versions emphasize that if they did not come close to their older brothers in terms of their performance characteristics, they even outperformed them in combat capabilities (due to more modern arionics). But here again the question already arises: how many cars of different manufacturers are capable of sending Kuznetsov on a flight at the same time. This is a fundamentally important point, since no one canceled the Hegelian law of the transition of quantitative indicators to qualitative ones. Leave Su for a full-fledged aircraft carrier, which may someday appear with us (although it seems that then the PAKs will already be in full swing). And of course, it is worthless for a ship of such a class as a poor relative to be moored to the pontoon, or even stand at the wall of the shipyard without being able to connect to the coastal communications.
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 10: 51
            Send as much as about any other aircraft carrier - about 15-20 aircraft (any) within 45 minutes. Moreover, this amount is not associated only with the start, but also with the landing, because if the start can still be somehow accelerated, then there is no landing.
            Those. it is possible to release all aircraft (for American aircraft carriers) on board within one and a half hours, but at the same time they will not all be returned.
            That's why there was an article here where all these parameters were compared.
            1. +1
              15 December 2016 11: 00
              Quote: alstr
              Send as much as about any other aircraft carrier - about 15-20 aircraft (any) within 45 minutes

              This is an erroneous opinion of Cabernik, who in his calculations greatly distorted reality, because he misinterpreted the term "readiness to fly"
              1. +3
                15 December 2016 12: 41
                What is wrong? What about 20 planes can be in the air at the same time if they want to land back?
                So these are simple elementary calculations. According to Kuznetsov’s data, the plane should be landed (i.e., a full landing cycle) for 3-4 minutes (I don’t think that with Amer it is very different). We count 20 * 3 minutes - a minimum of 1 hour for landing 20 aircraft is needed. And now let's remember the flight time without refueling - according to all the data, it also turns out an hour and a half for fighters. So it turns out the number of aircraft that an aircraft carrier can lift (with a return landing) is determined not by the take-off cycle, but by the landing cycle, because you can take off from several positions (up to 4), and it lands only at 1. Moreover, as I understand it, the speed of direct take-off (that is, without taking into account the preparation of the aircraft for flight) is approximately equal to the landing cycle time.
                1. +4
                  15 December 2016 13: 44
                  Quote: alstr
                  So these are simple elementary calculations. According to Kuznetsov’s data, the plane should land (i.e. a full landing cycle) 3-4 minutes

                  No :) You are now describing the complete landing cycle, it is somewhere there are so many. But the fact is that a lot is included in this very cycle, while the plane can be planted right after the previous one has left the landing track. Therefore, you can safely reduce the required time to 1 - 1,5 minutes
                  Quote: alstr
                  And now let's remember the flight time without refueling - according to all the data, it also turns out an hour - one and a half for fighters

                  In the range of 2,3-2,5
                  And besides, no one bothers to pick up a couple of tankers, and refuel the planes coming in to land if there is any problem.
                  Quote: alstr
                  So it turns out the number of aircraft that an aircraft carrier can lift (with a return landing) is determined not by the take-off cycle, but by the landing cycle

                  exclusively in a spherical conical vacuum Mr. Kabernik
          2. +4
            15 December 2016 11: 26
            Quote: Dante
            remove glasses from Granites, thereby expanding the hangar

            It doesn’t work out - between the bow wall of the hangar and the mines of the Kyrgyz Republic there are successively placed: command post of the air group, BIC and TsKP.

            Quote: Dante
            In order to make sure that a heavy fighter has no place on Kuznetsovo, I advise you to pay attention to the fact that the photographs presented by Andrey clearly show how inexcusably much space these vehicles occupy on the deck of a domestic aircraft carrier cruiser.

            Hehehehe ... so it was clear at the design stage:
            The bureau suggested the MiG-11435K fighter and the Su-29K attack aircraft (the dimensions of the Su-25K fighter. Required to reduce their number by 27%) as the main types of ejection take-off aircraft for TAKR Project 35.
            © A.B. Morin
            The problem is that at that time the MiG-29 was "fighter gaining dominance in the air over the middle-range drive"- the range of his fleet did not satisfy at all. And the resource of engines - too.
            Now, on the one hand, the MiG-29KR has approached the Su-33 in terms of performance characteristics, and on the other, the Su-33 cannot fully realize its performance characteristics due to problems with boilers (and the speed of the TAVKR).
            Plus, the Su-33 is no longer a serial machine, there is nothing to replace the lost sides, and to repair and capitalize the remaining ones is becoming more and more difficult.
            1. +1
              15 December 2016 11: 32
              What is there to waste time on trifles - give basing on "Kuza" 100500+ Yak-130KUB laughing
              1. +4
                15 December 2016 12: 12
                You yourself Kuzya, I ask respect. And you will be treated with respect.
              2. +1
                15 December 2016 18: 00
                Quote: Operator
                What is there to waste time on trifles - give basing on "Kuza" 100500+ Yak-130KUB

                Only flock of drone UAV! Only hardcore! laughing
                1. 0
                  15 December 2016 18: 40
                  Hardcore is a pack without Cousie laughing
            2. 0
              15 December 2016 12: 18
              It doesn’t work out - between the bow wall of the hangar and the mines of the Kyrgyz Republic there are successively placed: command post of the air group, BIC and TsKP.

              Ehhh missed the moment. It is unfortunate that such a step would not allow the realization of idle volumes, since, paradoxically, this would not sound in relation to such a large ship, but there are no extra cubic meters in the fleet. True, it seems to me that, if desired, the option described by me is still possible, although it will affect far more compartments, and therefore, cheap modernization will not work. In truth, the financial equivalent of such a rework may be so large that it hardly seems appropriate at all.
              1. +1
                15 December 2016 13: 20
                Quote: Dante
                True, it seems to me that, if desired, the option described by me is still possible, although it will affect far more compartments, and therefore, cheap modernization will not work.

                And at 11435, cheap modernization, in principle, will not work. It is necessary to put it on overhaul in any way.
                Nevertheless, the transfer of the three "think tanks" of the ship to another place is, yes, not an ordinary task. There is one redesign of routes and re-routing of cables to the new locations of KPAv, BIC and CKP which is worth ... belay
          3. +1
            15 December 2016 19: 17
            Quote: Dante
            An article from Andrei in the morning is the key to a good mood for the whole day, I have already managed to verify this. Thanks to the author for his efforts.

            And thank you for your kind words! drinks
            Quote: Dante
            Hence the crucial question: the launch of how many machines of this class is able to provide our aircraft carrier at a time?

            All this is very difficult. In theory, "Kuznetsov" has the ability to lift 18 aircraft into the air. Almost ....
            But in general, it was not in vain that the new aviation regiment was made precisely from the MiG-29KR. 24 did cars for Kuznetsov, only now we lose wherever we get ...
    3. 0
      15 December 2016 20: 43
      Totally agree with you!
    4. 0
      17 December 2016 07: 32
      Quote: Couchy but smart general
      But with "Kuznetsov" our top and high command only hurried and made people laugh ... alas, but this is a fact, as it were, what and who did not say ...

      You so peremptorily declare as if you know absolutely all the circumstances of this campaign. Starting from the preparation and formulation of the task and ending with all the circumstances of the task. But you don’t even have a clue about the goals set for the kuzey. How then can you declare a hurry?
  2. +7
    15 December 2016 06: 17
    It’s nice to read a competent article with detailed analysis and a minimum of emotions
    1. +8
      15 December 2016 12: 03
      Quote: tchoni
      It’s nice to read a competent article with detailed analysis and a minimum of emotions

      But few of these articles have been published on VO since 2014, most of the articles are now being written on the topics # PUTINVSEHPEREGRAL, # UKRAINAINS and "Trump will put things in order."
  3. +1
    15 December 2016 06: 54
    A good article ... Take care of the old Admiral and train near your shores until new modern aircraft carriers appear! God bless you with honor to get home!
    1. 0
      17 December 2016 07: 36
      Kuzya has already trained on his shores. And this did not stop him from sinking two planes. Do you want the new "modern" aircraft carrier to be a clone of the old one? He needs to fill up the cones so that the new one is already built with these cones in mind.
  4. +11
    15 December 2016 06: 58
    And while we will be a strong land power, but we will not have a powerful fleet, puppet governments - the brainchild of the Orange Revolutions - will viciously yap along our borders
    Why's that? Take a look at these puppet governments - the brainchild of the orange revolutions and for the admonition of which of them need a fleet? On the contrary, the VKS and well-trained and well-equipped ground forces are needed ... Why the heck is the fleet for these tasks? With the current development of technology, the need for a fleet is generally dubious, aviation can perfectly fight anywhere TTX allows, and without the intervention of the infantry, the result cannot be achieved (Syria) .. In Soviet times, the main task of the Navy was to cover the carriers of nuclear weapons for a guaranteed retaliatory strike .. Technologies have changed, and here you are, missiles easily reach anywhere in the world, while this solution is by no means expensive ... And on the verge of hypersound ... Check and checkmate of the Navy .. For immediately losses in case of conflict will become unacceptable if expensive pelvis are drowned within an hour then what to carry as democracy? The aircraft carriers were good, the PCs were several times cheaper than battleships, and the air defense was frankly poor. Today and now the price tag for AUG (with an air wing and others) goes off scale, the resources required are colossal, both human and material. And why do we need it? Precisely for us Russia? It is clear that the US needs to pay back the dollar, but what about us? prevent the United States from frolicking at sea by ocean? So this is done in other ways, the sense is that we will have (say) 4-5 AUG that in this case we will boldly go to conflict with the United States and comrades using weapons against their groups .. And what will it end? That's right, the northern fox ... And why? how is this hypothetical scenario different from what it is now? Nothing! What then (in the presence of 4-5 AUG) that now everyone will die ... And if there is no difference for what to invest in a solution that does not change anything ... to develop a videoconferencing system, a satellite constellation, invest in hypersound, have powerful SV and that's enough .. Someone vyaknul on the other side of the globe and received a response in 40 minutes with a hundred missiles directly in his palace / villa / residence (this is quite feasible today, and tomorrow it will become a routine) and everyone who wants to quickly end up. iron islands and the devil knows how many people to the other end of the world (risking both the first and the second) .. you say this is a dream, but the author also talks about decades and future generations ... So this path is much more promising and less expensive than the old one gunboat diplomacy"..
    1. +5
      15 December 2016 07: 45
      Quote: max702
      Why did it happen?

      Do you see at least one mongrel yapping at the US at its borders? That's it.
      Quote: max702
      and to admonish which of them needs a fleet?

      Those who sponsor them
      Quote: max702
      Quite the contrary, VKS and well-trained and equipped ground forces are needed ...

      Well, you will fight consequences for another 100500 years, not cause
      Quote: max702
      In Soviet times, the main task of the Navy was to cover nuclear weapons carriers for a guaranteed retaliatory strike

      The second - the defense of coastal areas through the elimination of the USAG and the outfits for this created fabulous
      Quote: max702
      Technologies have changed, and here you are, please, the missiles easily reach anywhere in the world, and this solution is by no means expensive

      Do not reach
      Quote: max702
      And on the threshold of hypersound ... Navy checkmate

      You would know how many times the Navy was buried :))) And planes and torpedoes and submarines ... and things are still there
      1. +1
        15 December 2016 07: 55
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do you see at least one mongrel yapping at the US at its borders? That's it.
        So borders there. Mexico, yes Canada. Or take the sea borders too? Then Cuba, the Philippines, Venezuela.
        1. 0
          15 December 2016 22: 54
          Quote: Alex_59
          Or take the sea borders too? Then Cuba, the Philippines, Venezuela.

          Sorry, I'm a little interested in geography. Can you tell me where is the US border with the Philippines and Venezuela?
          By the way, I know
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          one mongrel yapping at the US at its borders

          Technically, 4 km. But I do not want to upset anyone.
      2. +2
        15 December 2016 08: 39
        Well, the main reason for the whole mess is the United States plus the rest of the capitalist world, and as the root cause and so on, therefore, we must fight them. and therefore that there is a fleet that there will be one nuclear arctic fox, and this is exactly the situation now, but we can destroy the United States and others, but what's the point? And how will the presence of a powerful fleet change something in this scenario? Like if we have 4-5 Augs and other ships, our opponents will fight with Toko "conventional" weapons? Yeah right now .. as soon as defeat looms, everything will go into action .. So we returned to today's situation .. So why do we need a super fleet? we can’t use it anyway! Today and now our fleet is several times inferior to the US Navy and its comrades, but no one drowns it for the end of everything .. And how will the presence of 4-5 AUG change this? That then they didn’t drown that with 4-5 AUGs they won’t be .. Why then do we need these costs? Maybe with this money we will give out to each infantry Vanya normal equipment and weapons. walkie-talkies and other things .. He's fighting EVERY day for the devil knows how many decades! And it is he who solves the immediate tasks, and not the fleet sailing across the seas and oceans .. the truth is that Vanya gets everything and everyone according to the residual principle and he pays for it with his blood .. With current technologies, everything I wrote about is quite achievable, and the peaceful sky above our heads are proof of this .. Yes, they bite us here and there BUT they do not climb into an open fight! The Turks shot down our SU-24, so what? That now they cannot shoot down our planes? They can! And not the S-400, not the SU-35, this is not a hindrance. the costs for solving this problem will simply increase .. But the trouble is that the response will be different (possibly) .. the same with the fleet, they drowned a couple of our boats in the open and all the buttons will be pressed because this is war .. And the point is in these pieces of iron ? We are good at making rockets and mastering space, so we are working in this direction .. We are increasing the satellite constellation, placing platforms with rockets in orbit and the whole world at gunpoint .. fantastic? So far, yes, but in exactly the same way, 4-5 AUG in a workable form is still a great fantasy. Do not be sprayed, the whole world works for the USA, paying for their wishes, we need to focus on a promising direction, and not repeat someone's path (still not catch up). Now the trouble is not in the presence of AUG, but in the banal troop transports, look at the Syrian Express, these are tears, and heroism (a consequence of someone's idiocy), or do you think that these transports (if there were any), the United States and others will drown? Yeah wait .. The ship is protected first of all by the FLAG of the state, and not by the presence of aircraft guns ..
        1. +4
          15 December 2016 13: 48
          Quote: max702
          Like if we have 4-5 Augs and other ships, our opponents will fight with Toko "conventional" weapons? Yeah right now .. as soon as defeat looms, everything will go into action .. So we returned to today's situation .. So why do we need a super fleet?

          All of this is fine, but Argentina completely attacked the completely nuclear-foggy Albion, and the last Chegtov missed aircraft carriers.
          1. 0
            23 December 2016 17: 35
            If you had studied this conflict a little, you would have known that the British submarine went to these islands with the PERMIT for the use of nuclear weapons .. And only by chance that allowed this submarine to drown the strategically important transport did not require the use of nuclear weapons at this theater of the database ... But there were plans .. For the superpower was at an impasse ..
      3. +4
        15 December 2016 11: 05
        Andrei’s set-off proposal from Chelyabinsk is to send the Russian AUG to the shores of North Georgia in order to fight the Orange Revolution in Georgia (VKS smoke nervously in the corner) laughing
        1. +1
          15 December 2016 13: 46
          Quote: Operator
          Andrei's set-off proposal from Chelyabinsk - to send the Russian AUG to the shores of North Georgia

          What for? The fleet is needed to combat the root cause, not the consequence. Georgia is a consequence :)
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 14: 33
            Something you are completely confused with a causal relationship (see your max702 from 7: 45) laughing
            1. 0
              15 December 2016 14: 41
              Quote: Operator
              Something you are completely confused with a causal relationship (see your max702 from 7: 45)

              Oh, I get it. By North Georgia, you mean the United States, not Georgia. Then - right
              1. +1
                15 December 2016 22: 58
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                By North Georgia, you mean the United States, not Georgia. Then - right

                Sorry, little question. And if they drown to hell? Well there, Donald's former friend, a knife in the back, is that all? Again ban tomatoes for six months?
              2. +1
                17 December 2016 07: 58
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Oh, I get it. By North Georgia, you mean the United States, not Georgia. Then - right

                Those. do you think that aircraft carriers will be able to fight the "root cause" in the person of the United States? I am begging you. Here the United States has a dozen and a few pennies of aircraft carriers. Are they able to fight an adversary comparable to the United States in technical terms? With Russia for example? I don't really see aircraft carriers approaching the shores of the Russian Federation. In the Far East or in the Baltic, for example. Well, in the north they cannot live it is understandable. Those. as they do not fight much with Russia. Okay, Russia, now China is buzzing in the South China Sea. The airfield was built, the "peaceful" American drone captured. Will aircraft carriers help the Americans put China "in place"? What do you think? I don't think that even if the Americans bring all their aircraft carriers to China, it will help them. Just as I don’t think that if we have a dozen aircraft carriers, we will start scaring the Americans with them. That's bullshit.
                1. 0
                  23 December 2016 17: 36
                  Quote: Jack-B
                  Just as I don’t think that if we have a dozen aircraft carriers, then we will start to scare them with the Americans. That's bullshit.

                  Here I am about the same thing ... Bullshit ...
    2. +1
      15 December 2016 14: 48
      It is because of this logic that mattresses do whatever they want on Earth - after all, no one (Russia, China) will burn the entire surface of the planet into radioactive ash for the sake of some Iran, and after all, if we had at least a couple of AUGs that would have no problems can be driven into the Persian Gulf thereby burying the plans for another "desert storm". With such a policy, we would have allies, which do not exist now (only the army and the navy).
      ...
      This approach is not only real, but also beneficial. You can’t blame everything on the mighty shoulders of rocket launchers, their destiny is OUR defense, leave geopolitics to others.
  5. +9
    15 December 2016 07: 00
    Pustoday we will have only a couple of aircraft carriers, let we cannot yet defy American dominance at sea. But keeping the carriers in the Navy, we will give our descendants the knowledge and experience in order to do this.[i] [/ i]
    The cost of this event is such that descendants with a bare booty will walk and dream about imported underwear.
    The country has 147 million people, of which half are children and pensioners. Million 25 and even more receives a salary from the budget. And you propose to the rest (including unemployed housewives, homeless people, unemployed, tax evaders, etc., that is, people who do not pay to the budgets) to build AUG from their taxes? Is that enough money?
    And if you remember that the state should participate in other events! The simple answer: no money, for such a toy!
    And the article is good, I would say the word is sound.
    1. +2
      15 December 2016 07: 47
      Quote: Kostya Andreev
      The cost of this event is such that descendants with a bare booty will walk and dream about imported underwear.

      Nonsense, the program for the construction of aircraft carriers is available to us now - it does not require any prohibitive means. Preparing for the World Cup is much more expensive.
      Quote: Kostya Andreev
      The country has 147 million people, of which half are children and pensioners. Million 25 and even more gets a salary from the budget

      (heavy sigh) 500 million.
      1. +7
        15 December 2016 08: 09
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nonsense, the program for the construction of aircraft carriers is available to us now - it does not require any prohibitive means.

        Well, how can I say ... I would be more careful in the estimates. So you write correctly about the experience and continuity of generations. But this is true in another industry - in industry. And then immediately plug - there’s no factory. And there is no slipway. Nikolaev Shipyard - by-bye. We begin to rustle with brains - where to build? In addition to the SMP, I do not have any options. Only there is room for expansion, there is where to insert a new slipway of the right size. And only there is a production base and experience with nuclear power plants. But still, even there nobody saw AB in the eye, they were used to working with submarines there. Experienced personnel - no. So you need to build a slipway, infrastructure, train personnel. In my eyes, dollars already flicker. I think this will not result in one billion dollars. Well, you know the cost of the corps and the air group - there will be about $ 15 billion per circle. With a military annual budget of 60-70. Not a little all the same. If this were nonsense, aircraft carriers would rivet all and sundry dozens.
      2. +3
        15 December 2016 08: 18
        What does it have to do with it, 500 million? Is it possible about prohibitive means? And where will they be taken if the state finances everything and everything from us?
        You correctly said about preparation for football, but why did you keep silent about how much state and private capital are there? And the aircraft carrier after construction needs to be maintained and it will not bring income, unlike the stadium.
        I am embarrassed to ask you a state employee?
        1. +1
          15 December 2016 12: 38
          Quote: Kostya Andreev
          What does it have to do with it, 500 million? Is it possible about prohibitive means? And where will they be taken if the state finances everything and everything from us?
          You correctly said about preparation for football, but why did you keep silent about how much state and private capital are there? And the aircraft carrier after construction needs to be maintained and it will not bring income, unlike the stadium.
          I am embarrassed to ask you a state employee?


          Yes, gentlemen, our budget is a tiny fraction of what the country produces. For example, take the 2015 year: the size of GDP is 649,64 billion dull raccoons, the expenditure side of the budget is 15,05 trillion. but already rupees. And the price of energy in it is always laid much lower than the market. Explain to you why this is done? Believe me, we can not afford an aircraft carrier at the expense of children and the elderly; there are more worthy candidates, but there will not be enough political will for this.
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 23: 07
            Quote: Dante
            there are more worthy candidates

            Excuse me, are you alluding to? These?
            http://www.forbes.ru/rating/200-bogateishikh-bizn
            esmenov-rossii-2015/2015
            Or these?
            http://www.interfax.ru/story/226
            And you and I perfectly understand that neither one nor the other will happen. In the first list, if I do not confuse anything, half of the citizens of Russia are by force. So the money is bye.
            And they pay terpils. Nobody else.
        2. +1
          15 December 2016 18: 07
          Quote: Kostya Andreev
          You correctly said about preparation for football, but why did you keep silent about how much state and private capital are there? And the aircraft carrier after construction needs to be maintained and it will not bring income, unlike the stadium.

          The aircraft carrier construction program may well be co-financed by public-private capital. State-owned companies need "protection", and protection may not bring profit, but it reduces costs and losses.
      3. avt
        +1
        15 December 2016 10: 45
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nonsense, the program for the construction of aircraft carriers is available to us now - it does not require any prohibitive means. Preparing for the World Cup is much more expensive.
        Uhhhh!
        Apolitical reasoning, I swear, honestly. Do not understand the political situation.
        bully
      4. +4
        15 December 2016 11: 08
        Quote: Kostya Andreev
        The cost of this event is such that descendants with a bare booty will walk and dream about imported underwear.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Preparing for the World Cup is much more expensive.

        The country is in crisis, with low oil prices, under sanctions, in preparation for the World Cup, during the construction of the Kerch bridge, during the construction of the huge Zvezda shipbuilding complex, with all kickbacks and theft, managed to buy US bonds worth $ 23 billion in 2016 year.
        At the top, there is no understanding of why Russia needs the Navy, the only reason why it does not exist is perhaps when Russian companies become cramped in their native spaces and they have interests in distant overseas countries, then a real Russian aircraft carrier fleet will appear, so ice-class tankers were needed to build a Zvezda.
        Thanks for the article, I wonder what Oleg will fend off.
        1. +1
          15 December 2016 18: 10
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          when Russian companies become crowded in their native expanses and have interests in distant overseas countries, then a real Russian carrier fleet appears

          Already appeared. Industry is not yet ready to provide. And the Mistals flew by.
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 21: 56
            Quote: bot.su
            Already appeared.

            If this is true, then it means that they will soon begin to build a fleet.
            Quote: bot.su
            Industry just not ready yet

            Russian industry is ready, there would be the will of those in power.
            1. 0
              15 December 2016 23: 36
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              If this is true, then it means that they will soon begin to build a fleet.

              So build a little.

              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Russian industry is ready

              Either the Mistrals ordered from the French. Yes, I do not argue, ready. Just harnesses and drives slowly.
    2. +3
      15 December 2016 11: 13
      The cost of this event is such that descendants with a bare booty will walk and dream about imported underwear.


      It's a shame, but you are right. Everyone forgets that the "Power of the Country" is a militaryECONOMIC ... And that's it. We have neither people nor factories in comparison with the USA, China and even India. Competent cautious diplomacy, allies and their armed forces (if possible, so that the "navel is not untied"). That's all that is available to us.
      1. +1
        15 December 2016 11: 41
        A miracle in feathers - the power of Russia is the Strategic Missile Forces plus the military-industrial complex, under the roof of which the VKS, "polite people", Gazprom, Rosneft, etc. operate. etc.

        Although to whom I say this am
        1. +4
          15 December 2016 12: 07
          Gazprom, Rosneft, etc. etc.


          Economic power is not large oil and gas companies, but a strong civilian industry, a high standard of living, GDP, and budget. And all these companies are corrupt and not transparent. These companies at any opportune moment try to pay much less taxes and hide the real volume of oil production. Until the money from the deals comes to the budget, they will go through the bureaucratic ladder and at the end of the way some of them will get lost somewhere . The same and other companies are hiding from paying taxes.
          1. +1
            15 December 2016 12: 59
            In order to calculate the height of the standard of living, one must first ensure life as such with the help of the armed forces, in the case of Russia, nuclear missiles.

            And after that, you can grow GDP, budget and civilian industry. Western sanctions are like a dream in the hand.

            And, suddenly, a dependence clearly emerges - the higher quality of the aerospace forces bombing in Syria, the higher the price of oil / ruble and the fullness of the budget (just right to assign the status of state corporation to the aerospace forces) bully
            1. +1
              15 December 2016 13: 00
              The price of oil does not depend on anything, since Syria is not rich in oil. Moreover, the increase in oil prices was due to the OPEC agreement.
              1. 0
                15 December 2016 13: 03
                It seems so to you.
                1. +2
                  15 December 2016 13: 10
                  What does it seem? Oil reserves in Syria are 300 million tons, while oil reserves in Britain are 400 million tons. Not one world expert, the economic observer, said that oil prices jumped over Syria. Moreover, why oil throughout the operation in Syria did not grow, but only now have grown a little? Only when OPEC signed the agreement did it jump.
                  1. 0
                    15 December 2016 13: 14
                    You can hardly see from Kazakhstan - Russia in Syria has set its sights on developing oil from Qatar and Saudi Arabia (the first of them has already made contact as part of a package deal with Rosneft shares). Reserves of these countries can be found on the Internet.

                    You in Kazakhstan are also hard of hearing - who ensured the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia was reached before the decision of the OPEC countries to limit oil production. Moreover, the one who secured consent did not rely on the authority of his dog Koni laughing
                    1. +1
                      15 December 2016 13: 35
                      And here is Kazakhstan in general? In general, you have gone from the conflict in Syria to the oil jump due to the OPEC agreement. Under the OPEC agreement, Iran does not reduce oil production at all. The Saudi agreement with Russia and Iran is not due to military victories in Syria, but because Saudi Arabia itself is very profitable to increase oil prices.
                  2. +5
                    15 December 2016 14: 08
                    Quote: Social Democrat
                    Only when OPEC signed the agreement did it jump.

                    Kaneshno signed, patamushta in the market supply exceeded demand by 1,5-1,8 million b / s. The overproduction of oil was on the face of the authorities.
                    And here we are rushing about with this oil, like a written shell, because for 25 years the ruling class, in addition to pumping oil and simple two-way withdrawals received for this oil, did not invent anything.
                    I generally dream of running out of oil! and gas Yes
                    Imagine how wide the eyes of those same people are, like, 80 percent of the population. It will be funny to look at their louboutin and devotion to the helmsman wassat
                    "Perhaps you are sure that this is all sheer nonsense.
                    And damn it, if not? What will happen if not?
                    You will say that this will never happen to us!
                    And what the hell, if so? Like this - once, and yes? "
                    1. +3
                      15 December 2016 14: 13
                      And here we are rushing about with this oil, like a written shell, because for 25 years the ruling class, in addition to pumping oil and simple two-way withdrawals received for this oil, did not invent anything.


                      This is one of the main problems of Russia. While the people are watching what kind of victories we have in Syria, our officials are robbing the whole people on an unprecedented scale.
                      1. +3
                        15 December 2016 14: 22
                        Quote: Social Democrat
                        This is one of the main problems of Russia. While the people are watching what kind of victories we have in Syria, our officials are robbing the whole people on an unprecedented scale.

                        Enough for ten thousand lives.
                        And the population (it’s difficult to name this community as people, people mean unity, but confusion and vacillations here) are zombied, I can’t find any other explanation, because to accept the sale, in fact, to the country’s national property, clearly supporting terrorism, which the population is proud of, for the greatest paramogue, this is the height of mental illness.
                      2. +1
                        15 December 2016 14: 37
                        The problem of Russia in one is in characters like the Phantom Asa, but it can be solved by pressing it to the nail.

                        And oil in Russia will never end for a simple reason - we are switching to the production of another's bully
            2. 0
              11 January 2017 12: 21
              Those. other means of filling the budget than the rise in oil prices, in principle, you do not consider?
          2. +1
            15 December 2016 13: 44
            Quote: Social Democrat
            Economic power is not large oil and gas companies, but a strong civilian industry, a high standard of living, GDP, and budget.

            Economic power and military power are inextricably linked. Otherwise, you can immediately forget about foreign markets. For at the present time the power of law is the right of power. Contracts, papers with seals, arbitration ... all this is nothing against the background of "no-fly zones", MTR and a forceful change of power. There was a development contract, money was invested - hop - the power changed and nothing is there.
            Maybe war is a failure of diplomacy, but even the best diplomats act on credit. Sooner or later, someone less intelligent than you will demand your contribution back, and if your army cannot cover your debt obligations, you lose.
            © D. Weber.
            1. 0
              15 December 2016 14: 04
              Well, yes, having shown its military power, Russia has driven itself into sanctions. Now almost no investments will come for the development of the Russian economy. Also, the efficiency of one worker in the West is much higher than that of the Russian one. To increase the efficiency of workers and modernization of factories need Western technology.
              1. +1
                15 December 2016 14: 17
                Quote: Social Democrat
                Well, yes, having shown its military power, Russia has driven itself into sanctions. Now almost no investments will come for the development of the Russian economy. Also, the efficiency of one worker in the West is much higher than that of the Russian one. To increase the efficiency of workers and modernization of factories need Western technology.


                You definitely think that it was Russia that drove and was very upset? Do you really believe that? and everything you wrote here.
                1. 0
                  15 December 2016 14: 28
                  And what do you think the efficiency of the worker in Russia is the same as in Europe? And the war in Ukraine? For some reason, people in Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk did not go to war and they live normally and better than LDNR. After the coup in Ukraine, it was necessary to negotiate with the new authorities and then everyone would live together, as during the events of 2004.
                  1. 0
                    15 December 2016 15: 12
                    Quote: Social Democrat
                    For some reason, people in Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk did not go to war and they live normally and better than LDNR. After the coup in Ukraine, it was necessary to negotiate with the new authorities and then everyone would live together, as during the events of 2004.

                    Ooooh, "onizhedeti" from Kazakhstan pulled themselves up. What a charm ...
                    Talk in a topic about aircraft carriers about bad Russia and normal life in the Maidan of Ukraine ..
                    That's what my dear, you better remember once and for all, any attempt to turn the "Maidan" in Kazakhstan and transfer this country under US control will end with its division between Russia and the PRC. So end your childish pro-Western propaganda and take care of your personal departure to the United States, where from your point of view, "prices are only 20% higher than in Russia."
                    PS And change your nickname, for all the problems of the Social Democrats, they obviously did not deserve such a shame as association with you.
                    1. 0
                      15 December 2016 15: 29
                      Talk in a topic about aircraft carriers about bad Russia and normal life in the Maidan of Ukraine ..

                      I did not say that the standard of living of Ukraine is higher than Russian. I talked about LDNR, but about Russia.
                      So finish your childish pro-Western propaganda and take care of your personal departure to the USA, where, from your point of view, "prices are only 20% higher than in Russia."

                      I just stated a fact.
                      PS And change your nickname, for all the problems of the Social Democrats, they obviously did not deserve such a shame as association with you.

                      What is the number that I did not say correctly.
                  2. +1
                    16 December 2016 09: 51
                    Quote: Social Democrat
                    And what do you think the efficiency of the worker in Russia is the same as in Europe? And the war in Ukraine? For some reason, people in Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk did not go to war and they live normally and better than LDNR. After the coup in Ukraine, it was necessary to negotiate with the new authorities and then everyone would live together, as during the events of 2004.


                    Good luck in believing in the muck that you write here.
              2. 0
                15 December 2016 14: 43
                It is clear that for you in Kazakhstan all technologies are western - like "Sarmat" and "Rubezh" (it helps us a lot in shock work with Exxon Mobil - you heard about the Order of Friendship of Peoples, of course) laughing
                1. 0
                  15 December 2016 15: 06
                  In Kazakhstan, the situation is no better than in Russia.
                  1. +1
                    15 December 2016 15: 23
                    You generally will have no position after ANAS.
              3. +1
                15 December 2016 15: 14
                Listen, and when big investments came to Russia, never! And about the effectiveness of their worker, it’s in vain, it may have been so before, but now go and see who works in the same Germany, the contingent is different from that of the old twenty years ago!
                1. 0
                  15 December 2016 15: 31
                  Then why then Russia is at 58th place in terms of living standards, and Germany at 8th place or again bribed ratings?
                  1. 0
                    15 December 2016 15: 37
                    But you don’t look at the ratings, you look at the rules that now exist in Germany, I personally wouldn’t agree to live with them!
                  2. 0
                    15 December 2016 15: 39
                    You have outdated data on living standards - Russia in the 2016 year went ahead in the matter of reducing infant mortality to 5,9 in 10000 born compared to 6,6 in the USA and the EU.

                    God grant that the US Congress does not cancel its decision today (having overcome President Obama’s veto) to break the deal with Iran and impose sanctions against the latter - and we will be rich in arms supplies and industrial products to this solvent country.

                    So your arithmetic no longer feeds laughing
                    1. +2
                      15 December 2016 15: 50
                      It’s difficult to have a discussion with cheer patriots. Do you think that Iran is buying so many weapons to make Russia rich?
                      Why should so much attention be paid to external enemies when it is possible to reduce corruption, harshly punish embezzlers, increase the budget many times over due to a decrease in corruption, increase the pensions, salaries of state employees, start renovating the housing stock, and make motorways?
                      1. 0
                        15 December 2016 15: 54
                        One (expansion of foreign markets) to another (narrowing of the scale of corruption) does not interfere.
                      2. 0
                        15 December 2016 16: 32
                        Quote: Social Democrat
                        Why should so much attention be paid to external enemies when it is possible to reduce corruption, harshly punish embezzlers, increase the budget many times over due to a decrease in corruption, increase the pensions, salaries of state employees, start renovating the housing stock, and make motorways?

                        Well, duck forward! you have
                        Quote: Social Democrat
                        In Kazakhstan, the situation is no better than in Russia.

                        Yes, and external enemies do not seem to be very much.
              4. 0
                11 January 2017 12: 25
                Technology is constantly updated. It's like riding a bicycle: stopped = fell. And people generate technology. And we have few people. And the economically active population is getting smaller.
          3. 0
            15 December 2016 21: 58
            Quote: Social Democrat
            . The same and other companies are hiding from paying taxes.

            If you know the facts, then sue them.
        2. +2
          15 December 2016 23: 25
          Quote: Operator
          the power of Russia is the Strategic Missile Forces

          It seems that not everyone has stolen, although who will say for sure.
          Quote: Operator
          plus MIC

          Bankrupt
          Quote: Operator
          under the roof of which VKS operate

          Here they stole more or less everything.
          Quote: Operator
          "Polite people"

          I agree, won so won. They returned Crimea - we will return Alaska. And Port Arthur, by the way, is a city of Russian glory.
          Quote: Operator
          Gazprom

          Cost a little less than Uber. In addition to the general topic of sanctions, there are separate problems with the EU. Does not get out of the courts.
          Quote: Operator
          Rosneft

          A little more Uber. Or significantly less, judging by the price of the last "privatization". Even not so much plundered as being turned into complete inadequacy by management.
          Oh yes.
          Quote: Dante
          GDP - 649,64 billion dull raccoons

          That is, Great Russia is inferior to only 6 of the 50 US states?
          http://www.vestifinance.ru/articles/71794
          Between Pennsylvania and Ohio? Cool. Nice to be between Pennsylvania and Ohio.
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 23: 56
            Yes, yes, we know that the "regional" power Russia for some reason has the world's largest nuclear missile arsenal, a stock of weapons-grade plutonium and a complex for its production.

            You either remove the cross or put on your underpants.
            1. +1
              16 December 2016 00: 10
              Quote: Operator
              Yes, yes, we know that the "regional" power Russia for some reason has the world's largest nuclear missile arsenal, a stock of weapons-grade plutonium and a complex for its production.

              You are certainly right.
              By the way, the ratio of GDP (at face value) of the USA + EU and Russia is almost the same as the ratio of the DPRK to the Republic of Korea. How are Koreans with a nuclear missile arsenal, not in the know?
              By the way, if you are a patriot, I advise you not to pedal this moment with nuclear bombs. On the example of the DPRK, it is just very clearly visible that the world government hates all great multi-walkers precisely because they are all for their tricks. Just because.
              And our Chinese and DPRK common Chinese friends, by the way, also have nerves.
              1. 0
                16 December 2016 00: 24
                "Don't tell me what to do, and I won't tell you where to go" (C)

                Our Trump flushed your world government down the toilet and this was not affected in any way by "the ratio of GDP (at par) of the US + EU and Russia" laughing
            2. 0
              2 January 2017 00: 03
              Too many hackneyed phrases. About nuclear weapons - in my opinion, the current Russian Federation was just lucky enough to inherit it from the Superpower. As well as a place in the UN Security Council and much more. If we had such a state (organization) in the 40s of the XX century, nuclear weapons would not have existed now. WWII would have lost ... And propaganda explained to people the next tricky, multi-way plan.
            3. 0
              11 January 2017 12: 29
              The Great Power of Russia, with the nuclear missile arsenal, cannot organize the production of pots.
      2. +2
        15 December 2016 13: 49
        Quote: dauria
        We have no people, no factories compared to the USA, China and even India

        And where did it go, let me ask? :))) Yesterday there was still :)))
  6. +4
    15 December 2016 07: 08
    Bravo, Andrey Nikolayevich! good fellow
    It is a digital analysis that shows that aircraft carriers are no worse than land airfields, and even more preferably if you need to do something in a relatively short time without a couple of friendly airfields on hand. Kaptsov immediately retorts that a fleet of tactics with a fleet of tankers will solve this problem wassat It’s just that it was already pouring from empty to empty on the site that if you can crank up a single operation using this method, then projecting such an approach to the armada will be unacceptable request
    The article objectively compares the capabilities of the carrier group and the ground group and proves that they are identical. So all Kaptsov’s insinuations about the defectiveness of aircraft carriers are far-fetched to prove their innocence, and this is already a clinic what
    Yes, Oleg writes beautifully, sweepingly, with a bunch of adjectives, everything is adjusted and the order is fellow BUT! Doesn’t resemble anything ????

    You always need to consider the problem objectively from all sides, then there will be no distortions. The author today proved it to me personally Yes And I have already said this more than once to Kaptsov, but alas - "this character always carries meaningless nonsense" wassat , which makes me suspect Kaptsov of "narcissism" Yes request
    Everything, no time, we have to run to work sad
    The author is a gorgeous "five" fellow good drinks
    hi
    1. +1
      15 December 2016 19: 13
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The author is a gorgeous "five"

      Spasibki! drinks
      Quote: Rurikovich
      It is a digital analysis that shows that aircraft carriers are no worse than land aerodromes

      Moreover, please note that the figure is strictly from Oleg’s articles :))) Do you understand why I wrote to you that it will be VERY difficult for Oleg to refute these figures? :)))) laughing
      1. 0
        15 December 2016 20: 01
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You understand why I wrote to you that Oleg will be VERY hard to refute these figures? :)))) laughing

        I realized that when I read it in the morning Yes good
        This is a murderous argument when you are caught on contradictions and beat with your own weapons. request
        You did it wonderful, especially in the first part of the article.
        But it was the second part about "Kuznetsov" that caused the main controversy. I absolutely agree with your conclusions - we need an aircraft carrier. Even the ossified Soviet Politburo with their ideologies agreed that there was a sense of floating airfields, but they realized it too late ... Oh, if the country would have held out for five or six years, we would have had a trinity of such airfields. And the variety of their use would be wider now winked
        But dreaming is not harmful, it is harmful not to dream.
  7. +5
    15 December 2016 07: 14
    Why is everyone so stuck in an aircraft carrier? The country has neither frigates nor destroyers, mosquito forces will soon rust through. But everyone is worried about the aircraft carrier.
    In addition to takeoff and landing, the fighting of the Navy carrier-based and coastal aircraft is no more different.
    Both aircraft losses seem to have occurred through no fault of pilots or aircraft.

    Well, another article. And who prevented America from pulling all 11 AUGs to Iraq? It seems that no one bothered, but it is impossible to do. But the ground grouping they could still double or triple.
    1. +1
      15 December 2016 07: 49
      Quote: demiurg
      But the ground grouping they could still double or triple.

      Firstly, if they could - why not increase it? Maybe the reasons are the same as in the absence of all 11 AB? The principle of reasonable sufficiency.
      Secondly - I wonder how the ground grouping can be tripled. To plant three regiments on one airfield? Oh well. Parking may be enough, but for techies, oboloshnikov and dispatchers, the number of suicides and binges will increase dramatically.
    2. +2
      15 December 2016 07: 49
      Quote: demiurg
      Why is everyone so stuck in an aircraft carrier? The country has neither frigates nor destroyers, mosquito forces will soon rust through. But everyone is worried about the aircraft carrier

      Because the country is still aware of the need for frigates / destroyers, they are trying to build them, but aircraft carriers are not very
      Quote: demiurg
      Well, another article. And who prevented America from pulling all 11 AUGs to Iraq?

      What for? They and land aviation are far from attracted all
      Quote: demiurg
      But the ground group, they could still double or triple

      Nuuuu, spending a couple of years on the construction of airfields - certainly
      1. 0
        15 December 2016 11: 15
        Field airfields from PSP (perforated steel planking, perforated steel plate) - no, not heard laughing

        Google - one slab measuring 3040x421x3 mm weighs 32 kg.
        1. +2
          15 December 2016 13: 51
          Quote: Operator
          PSP Field Airfields

          Well, where are they? :)))) With a thickness of 3 mm? :)))
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 14: 45
            When the concrete in Khmeimim fails, PSP will appear right away.
            1. +1
              15 December 2016 19: 10
              Quote: Operator
              When the concrete in Khmeimim fails, PSP will appear right away.

              Those. when the international airfield dies. And then, laying out the glands TOP of his runway, will you proudly announce super-transportable mobile airfields? Easy to install on top of any international? laughing
              1. 0
                15 December 2016 19: 26
                Googling perforated steel planking is not fate?

      2. +4
        15 December 2016 11: 16
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        [/ Quote]

        [quote = Alex_59]

        But with all this, 3-4kg 1000 bombs will not destroy the airfield. They can be disabled for some time, but the planes will survive.
        But if an aircraft carrier drowns, then 60-80 aircraft + kerosene + weapons + two reactors and nuclear weapons go to the bottom with it.
        It can immediately be objected that 1-2 Tu-22 regiment with comparable losses will bring the landscape at the land airport to its original appearance, but!!!! however, a certain amount of nuclear weapons + 2 reactors will not be destroyed. And some of the planes will survive. And to restore the airfield to the possibility of landing landing, this is a matter of another week. A damaged aircraft carrier gets up for repair for at least six months.

        I, as a seasoned couch expert in everything, from microelectronics to heavy rocket launchers, consider that the current aircraft carriers are the evolutionary development of Argus, moreover, a dead end without development. But Argus had a move of 30-35% of the take-off and landing speed of the aircraft of that time, and could lift all available aircraft into the air in 15-20 minutes. Current aircraft carriers do not know how. They were inflated to the size of a supertanker and an absolutely fantastic price, they ceased to be a consumable of war, turning into a fetish and an object of moral pressure on the minds.
        And yet, I believe that taking off with a steam or electromagnetic catapult is also a dead end for a big war, and landing with four rows of cables in the age of UVT is the worst anachronism.
  8. +9
    15 December 2016 07: 32
    Excellent analysis, thanks Andrei, I read it with sincere interest.

    As for "the aircraft carrier is needed now, and not later, when there is money." This is all correct, of course. It's good to be rich and healthy at the same time. But there is always not enough money, effort and time, you always need to prioritize. That is, to give up something and put it off "for later." Roughly we have the following types of armed forces: Strategic Missile Forces, Land Forces, Navy, Air Force and Airborne Forces. Again, roughly - let's arrange them in descending order of priority.
    1. Strategic Missile Forces - everything is clear here, it is a sin to save on them.
    2. NE - such a huge land country actually only survives due to NE.
    3. The Air Force is a universal form, very maneuverable, and the success of both the SV and the Navy depends on them.
    4. The Airborne Forces - a combination of air force and air force in our open spaces is sometimes the only way to quickly gain gain.
    5. Navy ....
    Unfortunately, this is so. If someone does not agree, let him suggest, at the expense of whom can the Navy be raised higher? Whom to push down? I can not...
    And the Navy also has its own priorities - in the first place is the strategic nuclear forces. On the second - means of violating the enemy’s sea trade (PLA). And only then somewhere AB will be there.
    On the other hand, to wait until all the needs of the Strategic Missile Forces, Air Force, Air Force and Airborne Forces are fully satisfied and the business reaches the AB, you can endlessly. Rather, it never will be. Therefore, steps towards the possible construction of new ABs need to be done today, but slowly. In my opinion, this is exactly what we are doing - the design is underway, but nobody is in a hurry to lay it.
    1. +1
      15 December 2016 08: 34
      Quote: Alex_59
      1. Strategic Rocket Forces
      2. NE
      3. Air Force
      4. Airborne
      5. The Navy ..

      Everything is ideally true. This is, given the existing structure of the troops. The only thing I would single out is air defense, and on the contrary, the Airborne Forces would be removed to the Ground Forces (of which, by no means the most important part, they are essentially). Then the system priorities for modern Russia will be:
      1) Strategic Rocket Forces.
      2) ST.
      3) air defense.
      4) the air force.
      5) Navy.
      As for the respected Andrei, he is simply in love with the ocean fleet and wants Russia to be with him even during his lifetime. This is a noble desire, a pity that does not always coincide with reality.
  9. +4
    15 December 2016 09: 07
    All in all, it turns out that the Americans threw 985 land based aircraft and 303 of deck-based aircraft, that is, 1288 combat aircraft, with the proportion of deck-based aircraft being very noticeable 23,5%.


    If a carrier-based aircraft flies from the ground, then it is no longer carrier-based.

    In other words, even the existing forces had to be based at international airports, and if you still had to deploy deck aircraft there too?


    That is, the impoverished Small Britain in the Falklands managed to build a temporary airfield, but the United States could not? Further, did we not have enough space on Khmeinim? And what to do with the fact that even the US Air Force is addicted and they repeat "Desert Storm" now they would not have the fact that the question of basing in civilian airports arose at all.

    But even if they were enough - there is another problem. The fact is that all the power of the Ministry of Taxes and Levies, relying on the global technical superiority of the United States, did not really cope with the most primitive Scuds of Saddam Hussein. And if Iraq would have modern operational-tactical missiles (OTP)? And if Iraq had even the weakest, but still combat-ready aircraft? In this case, could the Americans and their allies provide air cover for all airfields capable of protecting the latter from the above threats?


    If you had a grandmother, you yourself know what ... And what, an aircraft carrier, which is nothing more than a kerosene barrel and a crowded arrangement of equipment do not need to be protected?

    and well-protected aerodrome


    It is difficult to imagine a more absurd statement than to call a protected airfield where, without any enemy influence, entire squadrons of aircraft are burned out over and over again just because there is no way to protect them from constant emergency situations. What will happen to an aircraft carrier if a banal "exoset" gets into it during refueling, or something really serious flies in like a supersonic anti-ship missile, after which the state of the ship, its roll, damage to the flight deck, containers with kerosene (which were dug into the ground further from parking lots and rejoice) are basically unpredictable. "Belknap" over there burned to hell just colliding with an aircraft carrier trough, so it was immediately flooded with kerosene. What armored artillery cellars are there below the waterline ...

    We will now calculate the number of sorties per plane for the entire war - despite the conventionality of this indicator, it demonstrates well the technical capabilities of each type of aircraft.


    And no one said that this is not so, most of the time it takes to service the machine, and not the take-off procedure in which also a dofiga of standard operations does not depend on the type of basing.

    And when we are surprised to find that the US carrier-based aviation, which had only about a quarter of the total number of American tactical aircraft, turned out to provide 41,3% of all heavy fighter sorties and 30,9% of all attack aircraft, we can estimate the role carrier-based aviation of the US Navy in Operation Desert Storm, isn't it?


    Well, they have a fig of trash like "Intruder" and "Harrier", which would fly in the same way from the ground.

    At the same time, it is not even ridiculous to consider these squalities, especially the "harrier" as the equal of the A-10.

    And so everything is true, there is a lie, there is a blatant lie, and there are statistics. For all kinds of scrap metal, decks are undoubtedly statistically leading.

    Firstly, a deck aircraft is in no way inferior to a land plane of equal class with it. More precisely, of course, it can be inferior, for example, if outdated deck models are compared with the newest ones - the “land explorer”


    The degree of idiocy of this statement can be estimated from a simple fact, the MiG-35 has an empty weight of 11 tons, and the MiG-29K as much as 12.7 tons. This is a landing hook and reinforcements of the construction, meaningless for normal aircraft, so that it does not crumble from landings.
    1. +1
      15 December 2016 09: 18
      Good luck))) in your research.
    2. +4
      15 December 2016 10: 22
      Well, just a cry from the soul ... laughing
      Quote: EvilLion
      If a carrier-based aircraft flies off the ground, then it is no longer carrier-based

      Therefore, in the number of decked only 303 aircraft that flew from the deck were taken into account :) And even a decryption was given
      Based on the US aircraft carriers:
      F-14 "Tomcat" - 99 units
      F / A-18 - 85 units
      A-6E Intruder - 95 units
      A-7 Corsair II - 24 units

      Can we read?
      Quote: EvilLion
      That is, impoverished Small Britain in the Falklands managed to build a temporary airfield, but the United States could not?

      Do you even understand the difference between an almost helipad for VTOL aircraft (which the UK built) and the creation of a full-fledged airfield for full-fledged horizontal take-off and landing aviation? No? So maybe try to learn the materiel?
      Quote: EvilLion
      And what to do with the fact that the US Air Force even got hooked

      What is she hooked on? You want to say that the US Air Force is now lower than the number of planes that they deployed in the Desert Storm ?! You know, before you post this, you should at least look at the current size of the US Air Force. Well, at least one eye
      Quote: EvilLion
      If you had a grandmother, you yourself know that ...

      Those. You propose to build the concept of using the RF Armed Forces on the basis of the fact that our opponents will not have anything cooler than the "Scud". Are you out of your mind?
      Quote: EvilLion
      And what, an aircraft carrier that is nothing but a kerosene barrel and a crowded arrangement of equipment do not need to be protected?

      (heavy sigh) google at your leisure how much the aircraft carrier weighs and how much jet fuel it carries. Perhaps it will be a shame for a barrel of kerosene.
      And he has protection - escort ships, in combination - carriers of cruise missiles
      Quote: EvilLion
      What will happen to an aircraft carrier if a banal "exoset" gets into it during refueling?

      It's nothing.
      Quote: EvilLion
      or something really serious flies in like supersonic anti-ship missiles

      It's nothing.
      Quote: EvilLion
      And no one said it wasn’t

      Well, at least one common thought
      Quote: EvilLion
      Well, they have a fig of trash like "Intruder" and "Harrier", which would fly in the same way from the ground.

      since the harrier flew from the ground, he is counted in land aircraft. And the intruder - well, that’s never rubbish in those years.
      Quote: EvilLion
      The degree of idiocy of this statement can be estimated from a simple fact, the MiG-35 has an empty weight of 11 tons, and the MiG-29K as much as 12.7 tons.

      The degree of idiocy of this statement can be estimated from the simple fact that even the KUB is a machine that is already in service, and the MiG-35 is just being created. And let's better compare the MiG-29K with the T-50 - this is where the ground aviation will change :)))
      1. +1
        15 December 2016 10: 57
        Do you even understand the difference between an almost helipad for VTOL aircraft (which the UK built) and the creation of a full-fledged airfield for full-fledged horizontal take-off and landing aviation?


        But is it harder to build a kilometer’s GDP on 3 than build a trough on 100 000 tons and then maintain it for years so that once in 20 years you don’t perform a task that an engineering regiment can do? In Afghanistan, for example, pipelines were laid, how many kilometers?

        The degree of idiocy of this statement can be estimated from the simple fact that even the KUB is a machine that is already in service, and the MiG-35 is just being created. And let's better compare the MiG-29K with the T-50 - this is where the ground aviation will change :)))


        Who cares? We are talking about modifications of the MiG-29. Or can you show that 1.7 tons of useless weight on the boat are due to some equipment that is not on the MiG-35, or if you want on the MiG-29СМТ? I'm afraid that everything will be the same, radar, OLS, computers, only the deck is heavier and more complicated. Do you even think with your head what the folding wings mean in terms of strength?

        The deck version of the T-50 will also be heavier than the land version by a couple of tons, if not more. No need to write nonsense and avoid comparing the land and deck versions of one machine.

        It's nothing.


        That is, the collision with the ship was enough to pierce the fuel tanks, and the supersonic anti-ship missile, piercing through everything except a good battleship, and you can't envy the battleship, of course, will not cause any harm. So can we remember the same "Forrestal", nicknamed the lighter?

        And he has protection - escort ships, in combination - carriers of cruise missiles


        And the protection at the land airfield of the air defense system, installed in any quantity. And for the stupid, I clarify, the same "Moscow" is a few hundred sailors and a bunch of equipment that has nothing to do with repelling an air attack. In a real mix with planes (only planes, let’s say the tanks will not reach), only a pair of deck-mounted S-300 and self-defense anti-aircraft guns will be useful, the rest of the staff will only pray that the participants will be lucky. At the same time, air defense systems are simply air defense systems, in terms of the ratio of air defense capabilities and spent funds, they are much more effective. Simply because for them it is the only task, and for the ship only one of many. This does not take into account the fact that the very idea of ​​surface ships now does not look very convincing, and the opinion that there are only 2 classes of ships left: submarines and targets already exist.

        BTW, the number of S-400 launchers alone is already 280 pieces. This is more than our entire fleet has. So come on, fly, and I'll see what it will be easier to break through, through a couple of S-400 divisions with 16 launchers, plus cover from Buk and armor, or a couple of missile cruisers, at a price many times more than these divisions, but providing only 4 PU.
        1. +3
          15 December 2016 12: 17
          Quote: EvilLion
          and I'll see what it will be easier to break through, through a couple of S-400 battalions with 16 launchers plus cover from Buks and "shells", or a couple of missile cruisers, at a price many times more than these divisions, but providing only 4 launchers.

          In fact, the S-400 is not covered by any Buki or Pantsir, and even in theory they are not based next to their positions. It is not necessary to count the number of PU, but the number of MSNR. One RRC of the "Moscow" type has one MSNR, which is equal to one division of the land complex.
          Quote: EvilLion
          Or can you show that 1.7 tons of useless weight on the boat are due to some equipment that is not on the MiG-35, or if you want on the MiG-29СМТ?

          Firstly, the given data on the mass were taken from nowhere, and in fact it is not clear what kind of mass is meant. OEW or MEW? For the MiG-35, the weight is obviously MEW (11000 kg), but for the MiG-29K too? Or is it OEW? It is necessary to watch the RLE, but they are not in the public domain. And journalists constantly confuse these two indicators, for them it is like "one fig without ammunition and fuel", but in fact - different parameters.
          Secondly, even if both masses are MEW, then what is of practical importance? Do these aircraft have different aerodynamic qualities? Different operational overloads? Not. What is the difference then? The fact that the MiG-29K can take on the same combat radius a couple of 500-kg bombs less. For example, the MiG-35 will take 6 pieces, and the MiG-29K will only 4. Or the same load in the 6 FAB-500, but the combat radius of the MiG-29K will be less (roughly) 20%. And then the simple question that the designers put before the military at the time of defending the outline design of the aircraft - do you think the 20% loss in the combat radius of the aircraft is an acceptable payment for the ability to strike from the sea with the help of an aircraft carrier? If the MiG-29K is adopted, it is obvious that the military is satisfied with such a payment. In conditions when the customer (military) is satisfied, the dispute that carrier-based aircraft are bad makes no sense.
          1. +1
            15 December 2016 13: 58
            Quote: Alex_59
            In fact, no Buki and Armor cover the S-400, and even in theory are not based next to their positions.

            Beeches - no.
            But the Carapace positions C-400 and C-300 cover - see the same Crimea.

            They were made just for the country's air defense (and not military) - hence the wheeled chassis, and the problems of firing on the move.
            1. +1
              15 December 2016 14: 22
              Quote: Alexey RA
              But the Carapace positions C-400 and C-300 cover - see the same Crimea.

              And besides the Crimea? In Crimea, this is more of a combat schedule than a regular OSh. And the terrain allows - went to a cliff on the Fiolent and that's it, your PU dominates the terrain. I will see how they will cover Severodvinsk in the Arkhangelsk taiga. Or in the suburbs. Without engineering preparation of the area. Yes, and with engineering it will also be fun - pour a mound under each launcher so that the radar looks over the Christmas trees. And also spare positions are needed for dispersal.
              1. +1
                15 December 2016 15: 15
                It’s easiest to cover the territory as flat as a table; no one creeps up behind the mountain.
                How radars raise meters on 30 above the pines, look for yourself, you’ve come up with everything for a long time.
                1. +1
                  15 December 2016 15: 25
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  How radars raise meters on 30 above the pines, look for yourself, you’ve come up with everything for a long time.

                  That is, the carapace will be mounted on the 40B6 tower and raised to a height? On the blue electrical tape, I hope is fixed? I do not recognize the other - only blue.
                2. +1
                  15 December 2016 17: 48
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  How radars raise meters on 30 above the pines, look for yourself, you’ve come up with everything for a long time.

                  And where is the lift for the radar in the design of the "shell" combat module? And for guns / missiles?
                  And instead of anti-aircraft fire, you get a lumberjack. smile
                  To work from the forest you need some kind of praying mantis (pictured left):
            2. 0
              15 December 2016 15: 13
              Oh, you climb into such jungle as object air defense, combined-arms air defense (for example, troops on the march), he will not understand. True, if we set the task to cover the airfield, and we don’t need to run near tanks, then it’s logical to allocate for object air defense, and army.
          2. 0
            15 December 2016 15: 10
            Well look at any open source.
            And what are you trying to prove to me? That a deck-based aircraft does not have a number of design features for landing on a deck such as:
            1) Landing hook.
            2) Folding wings, which is simple in terms of durability.
            3) Reinforced chassis and glider.

            If the MiG-29K is accepted for service (2 are lost, 22 are still left) and, in general, "Kuzya" has not been commissioned, then someone has substantiated that it is needed. But he could only justify this, including to maintain his own position. As for the justification, I can roll out a very caustic article on how to justify everything in general.
            1. +3
              15 December 2016 15: 33
              Quote: EvilLion
              Well look at any open source.

              Any - which one? Komsomol truth? I don’t need anyone. I need RLE.
              Quote: EvilLion
              And what are you trying to prove to me? That a deck-based aircraft does not have a number of design features for landing on a deck like that

              It has. But they, these features, are of little significance in practice. And as in any engineering design (and I'm an engineer) they are linked to the merits. Giving new design features it is impossible not to lose something else. The question is in balance. Acquired new properties compensate for some of the deterioration. In Yak-38, the acquired properties worsened the design so much that the question arose of the advisability of such an arms system as a whole. And in the MiG-29K, these deteriorations are insignificant.
              1. 0
                15 December 2016 17: 56
                Quote: Alex_59
                Giving new design features it is impossible not to lose something else. The question is in balance. Acquired new properties compensate for some of the deterioration.

                good Simple truths Yes
            2. 0
              15 December 2016 22: 39
              Quote: EvilLion
              . As for the rationale, I can dash off a very caustic article

              I’ll read it with pleasure.
        2. +2
          15 December 2016 13: 51
          Quote: EvilLion
          But is it harder to build 3 km of GDP than to build a trough of 100 tons and then maintain it for years so that once every 000 years you don’t fulfill a task that an engineering regiment can do?

          Korenovsk. A new capital strip was built for 3,5 years and cost 6,5 billion rubles. And this is based on an existing airfield.
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 14: 49
            And the second Kuzya, together with escort ships and a base point, will therefore be built less than 3,5 of the year and cost less than 6,5 billion rubles laughing
            1. 0
              15 December 2016 22: 42
              Quote: Operator
              And the second Kuzya, together with escort ships and a base point, will therefore be built less than 3,5 of the year and cost less than 6,5 billion rubles

              Are you a troll How many Ford rivets there already?
          2. +1
            15 December 2016 15: 19
            The bridge along which tons of trucks go to 40 can also be built a year, but for some reason army men organize a crossing for tanks in hours. The question is the resources and capital structure. Just like a huge camp on Khmeinim, accommodating thousands of people, it was created almost instantly and before the Order of Vladimir Vladimirovich no one knew about its existence.
            1. +2
              15 December 2016 17: 58
              Quote: EvilLion
              A bridge over which 40 tons of trucks go can also be built a year, but for some reason army men organize a crossing for tanks in hours. The question is the resources and capital structure.

              Quickly deployed on any soil (for the same lines of PLO in our country - this is the Kola Peninsula, the throat of the White Sea and the Kuril Islands) a strip for the operation of aircraft with a mass of F-15D / Su-30? Can you withstand the climate of the North and allow you to work with a meteo corresponding to a storm of 6 points? Oh well...
              Quote: EvilLion
              Just like a huge camp on Khmeinim, accommodating thousands of people, it was created almost instantly and before the Order of Vladimir Vladimirovich no one knew about its existence.

              An excellent example ... only this is nothing that "instant camp at Hmeimim"Is this actually the Basil Al-Assad International Airport with a capital strip of 3 kilometers? laughing
              Do you propose massively building such airports in the tundra and Kamchatka?
        3. +2
          15 December 2016 18: 58
          Quote: EvilLion
          Chukchi simply shares a large message on 2.

          Okay
          Quote: EvilLion
          But is it harder to build 3 km of GDP than to build a trough of 100 tons and then maintain it for years so that once every 000 years you don’t fulfill a task that an engineering regiment can do?

          Why is it harder? Easier. Only...
          It will be necessary to build shelters for aircraft, infrastructure to provide fuel and ammunition, housing for technicians and maintenance personnel (and it takes so much to support the work of the aviation regiment - 1 hour of the aircraft in the air is 30-40 man-hours of maintenance). Materials, equipment for repairs, the ammunition itself ... Radar, air defense systems and artillery cover, anti-sabotage defense, etc., etc .... Built? Great. In order to ensure the possibility of action at any point on the coast and coastal waters of at least the Far East waters from the Chinese border to Kamchatka, such bases are needed 3. Only for the Far East. And yes, do not forget the herd of transport aircraft, so that people can be transferred from one base to another
          Quote: EvilLion
          Who cares? We are talking about the modifications of the MiG-29

          Well, let's think together. MiG-29K with a dry weight of 12700 kg was made when? In the 90s of the last century. And the MiG-35 has not been made to this day. Do you think that if the MiG-35 and, say, the MiG-35K were simultaneously designed, then we would have the same difference?
          For example, the MiG-29M, which can still be considered the same age as the MiG-29K, with certain reservations, had a mass of 11 kg, but the MiG-600K had a maximum takeoff weight of 29 kg. So your 100 tons in this case "shrink" to 1,7 tons. And if you look at the performance characteristics of these two aircraft, you will see that they are very close - some fundamental superiority (at least in something) in the MiG- 1M no.
          Quote: EvilLion
          The deck version of the T-50 will also be heavier than the land version by a couple of tons, if not more.

          Maybe so, but the functionality still remains comparable. For interest, you can study the differences in the performance characteristics of the F-35A and F-35C - despite the fact that the empty "tsashka" is almost 2,5 tons heavier.
          Quote: EvilLion
          And the protection at the ground airfield air defense systems, installed in any quantities.

          Of course. At your leisure, count how many airfields you need to cover in the same Far East in order to provide aviation with the aircraft carrier’s maneuvering capabilities only in the near coastal zone. Oh yes, I already told you - three.
          Quote: EvilLion
          And for the stupid I clarify, the same "Moscow" is several hundred sailors and a bunch of equipment that has nothing to do with repelling an air attack

          Clarified. AND?
          Quote: EvilLion
          At the same time, air defense systems are simply air defense systems, from the point of view of the ratio of air defense capabilities and the spent funds, they are much more effective. Just because for them this is the only task, and for the ship only one of many.

          Nevertheless, stupid, you decided for some reason that you do not need to solve the other tasks that the missile cruiser solves.
          Quote: EvilLion
          This does not take into account the fact that the very idea of ​​surface ships now does not look very convincing, and the opinion that there are only 2 classes of ships left: submarines and targets already have a place to be.

          Opinion, of course, takes place. Well, practice shows that full-fledged nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarines are so expensive that, in fact, even the United States (SI Wolfe) rejects them. And that one "Ash" is worth 3-4 "Gorshkovs". And that, by a strange coincidence, submarines are extremely vulnerable to anti-submarine aviation.
          Quote: EvilLion
          BTW, the number of S-400 launchers alone is already 280 pieces. This is more than our entire fleet has. So come on, fly, and I'll see what it will be easier to break through, through a couple of S-400 divisions with 16 launchers, plus cover from Buk and armor, or a couple of missile cruisers, at a price many times more than these divisions, but providing only 4 PU.

          It is ALWAYS easier to break through stationary air defense. Because it is stationary and its coordinates are clear, and there are no killable SAMs, as the whole history of local conflicts attests.
          Well, besides, 2 S-400 divisions are already 6 divisions for 3 airfields in the Far East, i.e. about $ 1 million is at least (S-200PMU300 was sold to Azerbaijan for $ 2 million, and it is unclear whether for 300 complex or for 1, well, let it be for 2, I'm kind today, but the S-2 will be clearly more expensive) More Buk with Pantsir - a sweet couple, perhaps together for one airfield another 400 million dollars, for 200 - 3 in total your protection is worth about 600 billion greenbacks. This is about three and a half frigates "Gorshkov"
          1. 0
            16 December 2016 11: 35
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In order to ensure the possibility of action at any point on the coast and coastal waters of at least the Far East waters from the Chinese border to Kamchatka, such bases are needed 3. Only for the Far East.

            And you are an optimist, comrade ...
            3 bases are 3 regiments. Smeared from Vladivostok to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Having in opponents 3-4 AUGs of 48-60 cars each, capable of gathering in one area. what
            Here you need bushes for 3 bases in at least 4 areas: Kamchatka, the Kuril ridge (center), Sakhalin, Vladivostok.
            1. 0
              16 December 2016 14: 41
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And you are an optimist, comrade ...

              I probably wrote slurredly - 3 airbases FOR EACH regiment :))) For 4 regiments, they need 16 :)))
      2. 0
        15 December 2016 23: 42
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do you even understand the difference between an almost helipad for VTOL aircraft (which the UK built) and the creation of a full-fledged airfield for full-fledged horizontal take-off and landing aviation?

        Is that true? How much does a full-fledged airfield cost for a full-fledged aviation, if we assume, for example, in the Gerald Fords?
        1. 0
          16 December 2016 14: 41
          Quote: Octopus
          Is that true? How much does a full-fledged airfield cost for a full-fledged aviation, if we assume, for example, in the Gerald Fords?

          very difficult question. According to some reports - about 0,3
          1. 0
            17 December 2016 00: 12
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            According to some reports - about 0,3

            Let us suppose.
            We take a series of Nimitse, we look at the number of operations in which they participated without the possibility of support from the ground (that is, where there are no bases). We consider the result.
            And I will tell you where there is no base (too far) and Nimits are needed. In the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. But you drown for local conflicts? Or did they really gather in the Gulf of Mexico?
    3. +3
      15 December 2016 12: 42
      Quote: EvilLion
      The degree of idiocy of this statement

      Oops ... How familiar ... The style of the esteemed Kaptsov. There are no arguments - we turn to insults. In general, Kaptsovism is a contagious thing, transmitted through the reading of his articles. Well, let's not talk about sad things ...
      I would like to thank Andrey for a wonderful article. In general, I really like his articles, smart, correct and kind. It is a pity that he does not often make us happy. To the topic of this article directly, about the need and usefulness of aircraft carriers. I’m certainly a couch, but it seems to me that if you need aviation, and nobody seems to argue with this, then you need places and its bases. On land, this is solved quite simply, combat aircraft can be relocated to the desired area and even work from specially prepared sections of roads, although this presents certain difficulties ... At sea, land-based aviation can do it ... Well, I don’t know ... It seems to me that with a sufficient distance from its ground airfields, the fleet will become defenseless and no armada of tankers will fix the matter. Although I repeat, I am not special in this matter, I simply express my personal opinion. On the same subject, they say, where can we swing our arms at an aircraft carrier, if we can’t build anything except RTOs and boats with tugboats? So it’s like we are building only what the GEM has ... It seems like they are working on this problem, but ... But with the aircraft carrier it may turn out to be easier after testing new nuclear weapons on the icebreaker. Although who knows ...
      1. +1
        15 December 2016 15: 20
        Kaptsov, when he writes nonsense, I answer in the same way. But in this case, Kaptsov is absolutely right. As, by the way, and with ekranoplans.
        1. +5
          15 December 2016 15: 36
          Respected EvilLion, the fact that you think it is possible to be rude to the users of the site does not paint you, but speaks of gaps in your upbringing, it is very sad ... Besides, you are hardly a very large specialist in the field of shipbuilding or ekranoplanovka or in matters of strategic planning for the development of the army and the fleet. In this case, it would be useful to insert into your posts "it seems to me"or something like that. And so your" ultimate truths "give off megalomania, and this is a diagnosis ... hi
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 23: 12
            Quote: sniper
            ... And so your "ultimate truths" give off megalomania, and this is already a diagnosis ..

            And who is the ultimate truth, you?
            Gospel of Matthew.
            7: 1. Judge not lest ye be judged.
            With all due respect.
            1. 0
              15 December 2016 23: 44
              Respected saturn.mmm, I never allow myself to insult other users of the site and do not give out my assumptions for objective reality, which I also wish you
        2. +1
          15 December 2016 16: 03
          Kaptsov, when he writes nonsense, I answer in the same way. But in this case, Kaptsov is absolutely right. As, by the way, and with ekranoplans.

          Kindergarten, don’t you understand that AB is mobility - will you build new airdromes every time? Moreover, the estimate immediately includes not only construction, but also rent for using someone else’s territory where the planes will be based, or do you think that the UAE and other countries provided their land and airfields for the USA for the Desert Storm for free?
          1. 0
            15 December 2016 16: 38
            Quote: DM51
            don’t you understand that AB is mobility

            the fact is that the carrier group is a FULL airfield with an air wing. and then here some people understand an airfield as only a 3-kilometer concrete line. without materiel and personnel, without reserves of fuel and weapons. covered air defense. etc.
  10. +2
    15 December 2016 09: 53
    our aircraft carrier is bad or good - the second thing, the main thing is that it is there and fulfills its tasks. the main question is whether, in principle, an aircraft carrier of Russia is needed under our military doctrine, my personal opinion is not needed! This is a means of delivering aircraft to a remote TVD for organizing air support to the ground forces, we do not have such a task. our task is to bring closer to a potential enemy the means of destruction (special ammunition) for the destruction of infrastructure and military equipment.
    1. +1
      15 December 2016 18: 02
      And giving stability to the connection of ships, providing this connection of air defense, PLO; covering the deployment zone of the SSBN. These are almost the main tasks of an aircraft carrier. Yes
      1. 0
        22 January 2018 17: 09
        an AUG carrier will rather attract attention and give out the location of the SSBN, the target is much more noticeable, we throw special ammunition at the AUG warrant and see what's under water .....
  11. +3
    15 December 2016 10: 09
    Moving on.

    capable of striking from directions inaccessible to land-based aviation


    The author, tell me please, is there an S-300 missile, or is there a difference where the F / A-35 hit by it came from? The main thing is that it is known WHERE it should fly. At the same time, it is not yet a fact that the trough itself, together with the order, will not be found by some A-18 beyond 50 km. Of course, you can begin to cackle that all sorts of A-600, Tu-50M22 with anti-ship missiles, etc., units must still be available. Well, we have them, and if the concept of airfield mobility fails because of them, then this is a problem of a mobile airfield. If the Argentines had something like that, then it is quite possible that they would have remained for their grandfather, and the British "Harrier"-carriers would have crawled off to Africa, pulling out the RCCs planted in them on the tail.

    25 700 t was dropped by strategic bombers - it turns out that 5,12% of planes dumped% of all ammunition on the enemy 29.


    Well, rich people are not in a hurry to refuse them. And yes you can’t put them on the deck.

    Deck aviation today is one of the elements of a balanced armed forces - it does not replace, but complements the Air Force


    I wonder what the disrespectful trough, first named after "also a beautiful city," and then renamed in honor of the respected admiral, supplemented the Air Force planes, which had been doing fine without him for a year?

    In peacetime, an aircraft carrier is an instrument of politics and projection of force.


    Oh-oh-oh, everyone is shaking right.

    Someone will argue that a single AUG does not pose a great threat to a large state, since it is unable to defeat its Air Force and the armed forces defending their native country?


    I don't remember who said there: "One Frenchman is weaker than one Arab cavalryman, 100 Frenchmen are sometimes stronger than 100 Arabs, 1000 Frenchmen are always stronger than 1000 Arabs."

    Why stronger? Because it is not just increasing the number, but there is a transition to more complex and effective organizational structures. In the realities of the 18-19 centuries, the 100 infantry man, for example, can already be built in a square and the cavalry will break off about them, the 1000 Chel and the well-fortified camp will form and receive certain tactical capabilities in the offensive, and they can have those. means like cannons to which it will be difficult for the enemy to get. In order for the AUG to work at least theoretically, it must be the AUG, and not one, the enemy will not wait for your aircraft carrier to go out of repair, or replenish. In the same way as in the pre-space era, the presence of a bomber capable of reaching only the middle of the Atlantic or sowing. the poles, in terms of giving Americans a life-giving nuclear gift, did nothing compared to the absence of bombers at all.

    In this regard, such are the "piece" units that exist on their own and are unable to solve any problems due to their small number ("Kuzya" is not the only one like that, there are other examples, and at least the same "dacha saiga" in the Naval Forces of Ukraine, which could to be a good anti-submarine ship in our Navy, but in those who, even before the return of Crimea, had neither a distinct fleet, nor an understanding of why they needed it at all, the Naval Forces of Ukraine only burns diesel fuel) are only consumers of resources.

    And while we will be a strong land power, but will not have a powerful fleet, puppet governments - the brainchild of the Orange Revolution, disguised as the authority and power of NATO - will viciously yap along our borders. Do we need such a future?



    Since no arguments were left for the usefulness of the Avicoryt, the Orange Revolution went into action. And what in the 2014th, our army would not have reached Kiev in a couple of weeks, or we can not capture any Kyrgyzstan in a few days? How will having a trough help against the Limitrophs, who have zero military power and who often have a common border? Well, let's simply increase the army of interest on 30 and make a throw to the Tajik-Afghan border. Success 100% It is unclear what to do next with them.

    let's invest in the videoconferencing


    And let's imagine that red-star cars roar over the burning ruins of German factories. Like in 45. Something tells me that, unlike the 45 year, not even the tarpaulin boot of the infantryman will be needed. What is the point of going somewhere if the enemy can be bombed into the Stone Age? In 45, which is also characteristic without air troughs, they were dispensed with.

    80% of world foreign trade is carried out by sea. And as long as the main foreign trade turnover goes by sea, the one who rules the sea will rule the world.


    Not our trade, and it is mainly in the Indian Ocean, while, here's the hilarity, the competition is not real trough, but the banal "Transsib". So it may be better to develop it, pulling the same Chinese over to itself, after which the very idea that you can try to make a mess in Russia will cause horror and pain in wallets for the whole world, as now Ukraine is tolerated partly because of the GTS, because to North. flow for another couple of years.
    1. +1
      15 December 2016 10: 58
      Quote: EvilLion
      Moving on.

      Well, read what I answered above. Or is the Chukchi not a reader, the Chukchi is a writer? And to this ... I will answer, of course. Tonight.
      1. +3
        15 December 2016 11: 45
        Chukchi simply shares a large message on 2.
        Answer, we have glasnost and democracy, but only without abstract things like "power projection", "color revolutions" and "control of sea trade", which is secondary for Russia, and quite specifically, what is supposed to bomb or cover from these troughs, otherwise on the map, it somehow turns out that Russia has the only area theoretically vulnerable to attack by aircraft carriers - the north of Karelia, from other sides either land for thousands of kilometers, or North. the Arctic Ocean from where comrades can fly, that is, gentlemen, more serious troughs of the Nimitz class, but the troughs themselves cannot operate there, or inland seas like the Okhotsk and Black seas, in which any aircraft carrier, along with all destroyers, is shot like in a shooting gallery.
        1. 0
          15 December 2016 18: 56
          Okay, let's go further, on the 2nd comment
          Quote: EvilLion
          Author, tell me please, is there any S-300 missile, or Su-35, does it make a difference where the F / A-18 it hit struck?

          Awesome. Because if the F / A-18 hits targets beyond the reach of the S-300 or Su-35, then, alas, it is unaffected.
          Quote: EvilLion
          The main thing that is known WHERE it should fly

          Yeah. Only here is the problem - to provide sane protection from all places where the F / A-18 CAN fly may be a little more expensive than the construction of aircraft carriers
          I tell you again. Take the globe of the city of Moscow, you are dumb, ours, and look at the Far East. Then estimate the distances with a ruler and compare them with the combat radius of our aircraft.
          Quote: EvilLion
          Moreover, it is not a fact that the trough itself, together with the order, will not be detected by any A-50 for 600 km.

          Maybe why not ... And then we recall that in Soviet times, an outfit of forces to destroy the AUG - 2 regiments of Tu-22M3 under the guise of 2 regiments of fighter aircraft and support aircraft. Moreover, the usual air base takes the air regiment. How many airbases do we have for the entire Far East? Four. And can airplanes work together with them? I suggest that you find out for yourself, I don’t want to upset you.
          Quote: EvilLion
          Of course, you can begin to cackle that all sorts of A-50, Tu-22M3 with anti-ship missiles, etc. units still need to have. Well, we have them

          Happy for you - you have them. Well, for us Russians, the misfortune is that the same Tu-22M3s are armed with about 63, which, given the obvious impossibility of simultaneously being in service, speaks of the inability of the Russian Federation today to create at least one shock fist to destroy just one AUG . Moreover, until recently, there were no anti-ship missiles for the Tu-22M3. But now it can eat, I don’t know.
          But I am glad that everything is wonderful in your chicken coop, and nobody cackles about gaps in the equipment.
          Quote: EvilLion
          I wonder what the disrespectful trough, first named after "also a beautiful city," and then renamed in honor of the respected admiral, supplemented the Air Force planes, which had been doing fine without him for a year?

          Nothing, for the reasons stated in the article. Have you read the article at all, or so, as long as ... chat in the comments?
          Quote: EvilLion
          Who said there, I don’t remember already

          Napoleon. And not Arabs, but Mamelukes.
          Quote: EvilLion
          In order for AUG to work at least theoretically, it must be AUG, and not one

          No, you definitely didn’t read the article :)))) Or, as a refutation to me, you decided to bring my statements?
          Quote: EvilLion
          Since no arguments were left for the usefulness of the Avicoryt, the Orange Revolution went into action.

          The usefulness of aircraft carriers has been proven by Desert Storm. And if you cannot argue, have the courage to remain silent, and not shout about the absence of arguments. Or you can - so mind the text of the article, and not speculation about how 2 RKR is MUCH more expensive than 100500 air defense divisions.
          Quote: EvilLion
          And that in 2014 our army would not have reached Kiev in a couple of weeks

          Did you get it? No? So she couldn’t.
          Do you know why? Because if such an approach was attempted, the whole European world with the United States at the head would immediately stand up against us, only in earnest. We cannot challenge him, despite all the strength of the army. And why would this European world stand with them and not with us? Yes, because the United States rules the sea, and therefore the world. Have you ever paid attention to whose currency is the world currency? While Misty Albion ruled the seas - it was a pound. Steel USA - the dollar.
          Do you even remember how the relationship between the USSR and India began and what role the Navy of the USSR played in this.
          Quote: EvilLion
          Well, let's just increase the army by 30 percent and make a throw to the Tajik-Afghan border. Success 100% It is unclear just what to do with them later.

          That's it. We do not need these lands, we need pro-Russian regimes to rule on these lands.
          Quote: EvilLion
          What is the point of going somewhere if the enemy can be bombed into the Stone Age?

          Are you laughing? Who and who bombed something and where? :))) How long does it take for the Barmalei to bomb? :) Germany didn’t even notice the WWII bombing, but the consequences were minimal. Iraq? This is to a certain extent true, but the real damage from the MNF aircraft was much lower than the declared, moreover, the Iraqis were distinguished by complete passivity in strategy and tactics.
          Quote: EvilLion
          In the 45th, which is characteristic also without air troughs, they did.

          Because dozens of allied aircraft troughs fought for us.
          Quote: EvilLion
          Not our trade

          It is clear that not ours.
          Quote: EvilLion
          and it goes mainly in the Indian Ocean, while, here's the hilarity, the competition is not real trough, but the banal "Transsib"

          This is not a competition at all. Sea transport is much cheaper, and the turnover on the trans-Siberian railroad is just a minuscule, compared with what is transported by sea / oceans
          Quote: EvilLion
          or inland seas like the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Black Sea, in which any aircraft carrier, along with all destroyers, is shot as if in a shooting gallery.

          But American aircraft carriers for some reason did not think so. And even in the best times of the USSR it was very, very difficult to catch their AUG from our coasts. Well, about how the Pacific Fleet slept through not the AUG, but the AUS in 1982 under your nose - even you should know.
          Quote: EvilLion
          Answer, we have glasnost and democracy, but only without abstract things like "power projection", "color revolutions" and "control of sea trade", which is secondary for Russia

          A simple example. The threat of war with China. What kind of outfit of forces will China have to devote to cover much more than 2 km of the coastline, at least only from Hanoi to Shanghai, if the Russian Federation has a full-fledged AOG capable of striking not only by airplanes but also by numerous missiles?
          1. 0
            23 July 2017 23: 53
            Another adorer pin to owls. Language, as a pomelo - all in a heap. You should lead NATO.
    2. +1
      15 December 2016 11: 39
      Not our trade, and it is mainly in the Indian Ocean, while, here's the hilarity, the competition is not real trough, but the banal "Transsib". So it may be better to develop it, pulling the same Chinese over to itself, after which the very idea that you can try to make a mess in Russia will cause horror and pain in wallets for the whole world, as now Ukraine is tolerated partly because of the GTS, because to North. flow for another couple of years.

      Transportation of containers by rail is two times more expensive than by sea. But to some countries in Europe faster. That lives railway.
      The average container ship carries 5000-6000 containers, the largest under 20k. One train of 40 wagons carries a total of 80 TEU. How many pairs of trucks can a Transsib pass per day? Incomparable figures.
      1. 0
        15 December 2016 12: 17
        And whose containers? Whose tankers? Not ours, Chinese. However, the real war for this journey will begin not with aircraft carriers, but with the occupation of Singapore. It will be necessary, they will pass through Cambodia (and I think it will miss it), Thailand, which I remember already wanted to buy 50 tanks, you know whom, Laos.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. 0
      15 December 2016 23: 50
      Quote: EvilLion
      or we can’t capture any Kyrgyzstan in a few days?

      No you can not. The Russian Federation and Kyrgyzstan do not have a common border. One regiment of the Airborne Forces already resolved the issue in the 94th year.
      Quote: EvilLion
      its real competition is not trough, but the banal "Transsib"

      Railway transport cannot compete with the sea for economic reasons.
  12. +3
    15 December 2016 10: 27
    This fact, if someone doubts, is irrefutably proved by Oleg Kaptsov
    - if Kaptsov proves something, this is already an occasion to doubt the truth of this assumption.
  13. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      15 December 2016 15: 23
      I heard your "song" about the dying fleet 16 years ago, only then they said, another 10 years will pass and we will only remember the Russian fleet! Open your eyes and take a closer look, if giant ships are not being built, this does not mean that the fleet is no longer (except for the United States, almost no one builds them), look at the map we have five fleets and ships for each need - this is not a ram!
      1. +1
        15 December 2016 16: 13
        Quote: 78bor1973
        , if giant ships are not built, this does not mean that the fleet is already gone (

        Not that they are not building at all, the modernization of the Nakhimov is just like a new ship.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  14. +1
    15 December 2016 10: 34
    Quote: sofa but smart general
    Nootka on the spot (at the very aircraft carrier for sure) knew that it was too early .... if the commander of this vessel was intelligent, he knew the identity and did not want to be .... but as always, the staff rats (to pull out their legs like that) with a desire to lick the top of the government said forward to the mines ".... and they brushed off those who disagreed .... or even worse, they stupidly obeyed the order without putting any arguments against ... but whatever ... I think that's how it was ... however, nothing new .. ...

    You don’t know anything about 43 drc (floating) and you’re trying to make conclusions here. The condition of the ship is known. He was ready for this campaign as much as possible now. Yes, his condition is already undergoing major repairs after the campaign, which will be done, but this already applies to 95 percent of ships of the 1st rank. The crew's flatness is small compared to the problem that's needed. But if, as you say, sit on the 35th shipyard or in the raid, then where did she come from. I have the honor
  15. 0
    15 December 2016 10: 46
    Author - the name of the aircraft F-4G Wild Weasel is translated into Russian as wild weasel (type of animal) laughing
    1. 0
      15 December 2016 10: 54
      Quote: Operator
      Author - the name of the aircraft F-4G Wild Weasel is translated into Russian as wild weasel (type of animal)

      This is a question for Oleg - I copied from his articles :)
  16. +2
    15 December 2016 10: 51
    Andrey, thanks for the article, I read it with interest. Now I would like to Kaptsov in the studio. Often, after reading an article by Oleg, I want to shout-Andrei from Chelyabinsk, urgently! Your discussions with him can be very interesting. This is a dispute of equal opponents, well-reasoned, respectful, without screaming- Sam du.rak! With uv. Navy Lieutenant Schmidt's son. hi
  17. +7
    15 December 2016 11: 40
    Great article. With tables, statistics, logic.
    1. 0
      15 December 2016 11: 46
      "If your enemies praise you, then you are doing something wrong," - August Bebel (C)
      1. 0
        15 December 2016 19: 04
        Well, a warrior seems to me not an enemy laughing
  18. +1
    15 December 2016 12: 03
    My personal opinion is that after the appearance of cruise missiles, aircraft carriers turned into floating airfields.

    During the Second World War, aircraft carriers were precisely the most important means of rapid response and combat surface ships. Battleships as a means of struggle are already hopelessly outdated - and without cover from the air they generally turned into floating targets. The main means of struggle were airplanes from an aircraft carrier - usually the one who detected the enemy in time and took off the planes won.
    After WWII, Americans used aircraft carriers precisely as airfields. Such an airfield can be quickly adjusted to any place and provide the possibility of air support for any operation to "support democracy." This works well with the “banana republics," but when confronted with an enemy that has good anti-ship missiles, air defense systems and submarines become very dangerous. For an aircraft carrier is an excellent target, and repelling a mass attack of anti-ship missiles is not easy. The loss of even one nuclear carrier would be a disaster.
    And we need aircraft carriers in the same quality - an operational airfield. They drove Kuznetsov to the right place, provided him with air defense and anti-aircraft defense, and you can safely bombard the barmaley. It was needed elsewhere (including at the native coast) - moved there. It’s very bad that Kuznetsovo doesn’t have an AWACS plane - that’s what he (together with EW aircraft) really needs.
    And yet what’s really bad - in front of everyone in fact in a military operation they have to deal with “childhood diseases” such as low-quality cables.
    This should be done at home in a normal learning process.
    1. 0
      15 December 2016 15: 23
      It’s amazing, it’s only interesting how the year they successfully bombed the forces repeatedly surpassing the composition of the air wing of this trough.
      1. +1
        15 December 2016 16: 41
        Quote: EvilLion
        wing of this trough.

        Tell me, is it now fashionable to call a warship a "trough"?
  19. +1
    15 December 2016 12: 38
    excellent article THANKS, PATRIOTISM SHOULD BE RAISED !!! THERE IS THE PROBLEMS OF OUR TIME. DURING THE USSR, THIS WAS A MATTER OF HONOR !!!!
  20. 0
    15 December 2016 12: 54
    Kuznetsov alone will not do the weather, and Russia will not pull many such ships ...
    1. 0
      15 December 2016 13: 42
      And we don’t need much, just a couple more - a triple is quite enough!
      1. 0
        15 December 2016 15: 24
        Considering that even the Nimitz has a maximum regiment, this is not even funny.
  21. 0
    15 December 2016 13: 36
    The author was also cheating a little, I know about the teachings of the American aircraft carrier, but the numbers there were completely different, even at the limit for the aircraft carrier no more than 200 sorties per day, eight aircraft per hour, even if you crash into a "cake"! With all this, during these exercises, several planes flew from the deck (refueling - departure) and therefore managed to take off dozens of times (there was no need to prepare), I just keep silent about the weapon suspension!
  22. +2
    15 December 2016 14: 36
    Good afternoon, Andrey, I read the article with great pleasure !! As always pleased with your detailed analysis of the topic. I read Kaptsov's articles regularly and carefully, and I am familiar with his arguments, but for some reason it never occurred to me to consider this argument from such an angle!))
    On the need for the availability of AUG in the US Navy, as well as the effectiveness of their use by the Americans, your arguments are very convincing.
    But as for our Navy, it seems to me that not everything is so simple:
    Firstly, AUG is a very expensive instrument of influence, I'm afraid that our country can't afford it "stupidly", because it's not just about building aircraft carriers, you need to build for them air-wing aircraft, escort ships, port infrastructure, prepare crews for all this, pilots, attendants .. and all this for a minimum of 4 AUG. (otherwise, there is no special sense to start all this boodyag, 1 aircraft carrier is enough for training naval aviation pilots). And besides, all this still needs to be maintained and serviced, I'm afraid that only the Americans with their bottomless military budget can afford such expenses.
    Secondly, it seems to me that the ACG at the moment, we don’t really need it, because look, everything is right - the ACG is a very effective tool for projecting force, with the help of the ACG the Americans provide their military presence and promote their economic interests in important regions of the world balloon, and specifically on and around other continents, mainly around our Eurasia with you, for them the need for floating airfields around our borders is understandable and reasonable, but why do we need them?
    Create a threat to North America? Stupidity. For this, the Strategic Missile Forces are much more effective.
    Promote your economic and political interests on other continents? But we do not yet have global ambitions and interests around the globe, so far we would have to deal with problems ....
    Confront American AUG at its borders? Here there is a certain sense, but in my opinion, there are cheaper methods of dealing with the enemy’s ACG.
    The local tasks remain, where we need to ensure our interests with the presence of our fleet, drive the Papuans in a remote area of ​​the earth (where it is necessary to push through the interests of our state) and fight for our interests in these regions with the United States and its allies (as is actually happening in Syria) , but isn’t it too expensive to get a tool for solving local problems.
  23. 0
    15 December 2016 14: 44
    Operator,

    Quote: Operator
    The problem of Russia in one is in characters like the Phantom Asa, but it can be solved by pressing it to the nail.

    And I thought you were smart, sorry, wrong what laughing
  24. 0
    15 December 2016 15: 10
    Operator,
    Oil production in Russia in recent years has grown from 500 million tons of oil to 550 million tons of oil per year. What is Russia where in significant volumes it produces foreign oil?
    1. +1
      15 December 2016 15: 30
      In fact, we are extracting money, and oil is an intermediate product, the other day, we extracted 10 billion dollars in Qatar, which is equivalent to 160 million barrels of oil at the current rate.
      1. 0
        16 December 2016 00: 01
        Quote: Operator
        just the other day, 10 billion dollars were extracted in Qatar, which is equivalent to 160 million barrels of oil at the current rate.

        Are you sure you are aware of the details?
        1. 0
          16 December 2016 00: 10
          I am in the know, and you are waiting for clarification of Kerry (if you have time before 20 January) laughing
  25. 0
    15 December 2016 18: 57
    But then, when there are enough funds, it will be possible to start building an ocean-going fleet with aircraft carriers and everything else. It seems to be true, but ... Put it simply. that "Gosplan is needed (for planning such long-term projects)"
    And build now?
  26. 0
    15 December 2016 19: 45
    "Teapot illumination"
    AUGs (not 1 carrier aircraft cr) will begin to build when inflation of 4% lasts 3-5 years in a row
    The psychology of the accountant does not give in to your thinking
    All questions in the Central Bank
  27. +1
    15 December 2016 20: 06
    I don't understand why we endlessly grind this topic: Need an aircraft carrier? Don't need an aircraft carrier? First let our "valiant" USC build something remotely resembling an aircraft carrier, and then we will think about where and how to use it. Some kind of Manilovism ...
  28. +2
    15 December 2016 20: 33
    I served on the Kuze from 94 to 2000. I read the article fluently, I do not accept many letters. The ship must be saved so that it does not become until we build a new one, to train and train pilots. This can only be done in combat service, because the ship lives in the sea. Shame or not a shame I do not care. The main ship at sea, the pilots fly.
  29. +2
    15 December 2016 20: 40
    Kaptsov always tells SEMI-TRUTH that it’s worse than a lie! Talking about how many accidents were on American AV aircraft during landings, he does not write how many sorties took place in one accident! In the Iraq War, with more than 14000 sorties, there were no emergency landings, and there were 10 per hour, and at night! A very good and useful article!
  30. +2
    15 December 2016 22: 34
    as always .... a very good article to the author is undoubtedly a plus
  31. 0
    16 December 2016 10: 51
    Despite all the problems with the "hardware", the deck fleet gets the most invaluable - COMBAT EXPERIENCE !!! And the article is correct!
  32. +1
    16 December 2016 11: 33
    Nuche, we tried to actually use carrier-based aircraft in hostilities, albeit occasionally. Not bad already. Considering that Kuznetsov is planned to undergo overhaul / modernization next year, this experience will be taken into account.
    As to whether or not aircraft carriers are needed as a class ... Gorshkov at the time said very clearly:
    "Sea power is the ability of a particular country to use the military-economic capabilities of the ocean in its own interests." IMHO, aircraft carriers (as part of the corresponding formations) for this role will support very well. Therefore, all the more or less significant players try to acquire this argument.
  33. +1
    16 December 2016 12: 56
    I'm afraid that the last analogy is fundamentally wrong. it will be right, the old and experienced Evenk is equal to the Americans, and for Russia, the old nerd teacher, who did not bother to go to the taiga to feel it in his own skin and apply what he had read over the years, would be the right analogy. and only after retirement did he finally decide on this desperate step, but only his body was not the same and his heart sank. I’m afraid that everything is with my grandfather, and if you continue the analogy, you must take the grandson by the ear and thoroughly study it.
  34. 0
    17 December 2016 14: 37
    The article is correct in its conclusions and main meaning.
    But very long.
    This provokes the thought. that the author persuades himself.
    Aircraft carriers are a very peculiar weapon.
    Expensive and frank mix of everything, especially in the Russian version.
    In no case should this be taken. like criticism.
    We just did not have a series yet. all ships according to individual projects ...

    "Kuznetsov" is a kind of peak.
    Now we understand that there is something to improve ...
    And this must be done urgently.

    Regarding the need to have aircraft carriers:
    We have such vast spaces that in the North and, especially, in the Far East, mobile aviation is very necessary for permanent or long-term control of the sea space, or rather fundamentally necessary.
    And as the power of high-precision weapons and its range of use increase, the role of aircraft carriers will continue to grow. Especially for those who count on Victory and intend to get to the final battles in the former foreign territory.
    1. 0
      18 December 2016 09: 05
      EXCELLENT ARTICLE !!! A good click on the nose of pseudo patriots. They will write nonsense about the aircraft carrier that it is not needed and many believe. IT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW THOSE WITH TOPWARA such scribblers who WRITE ABOUT KUZYU AND MUCH OTHER
  35. 0
    21 December 2016 09: 36
    Quote: Octopus
    a curious person sooner or later will come to Cato Jr.


    But a truly educated person will eventually get to the work of Plato ... at least
    1. 0
      21 December 2016 22: 03
      Quote: xtur
      But a truly educated person will eventually get to the work of Plato ... at least

      Sorry, but Plato’s work is any idiot a person with mental disabilities will learn in a digest at junior courses. And patriotism is not quite the topic of Plato. Patriotism, in my humble opinion, is how a person lived his life. With what he fought, in the name of which he died. For example, I certainly can not do it.
      From Russian history, only Decembrists are recalled as regards patriotism. And even that, oh, very rounding.
      1. 0
        21 December 2016 22: 26
        > but any person with mental disabilities will study Plato's works in the digest in junior courses

        it is the idiot who will use the digest of philosophical works. Especially the author, who underlies Western culture.

        any topic of socially significant, by definition, one way or another will go back to the basics
        1. 0
          22 December 2016 01: 16
          Quote: xtur
          it is the idiot who will use the digest of philosophical works. Especially the author, who underlies Western culture.

          Hmm.
          It seems to me that you are flooding. Or do you know why I'm talking about Cato. Then the Greeks are clearly not in the subject. Or not in the know. Then Vika to help. Unless, of course, your understanding of a "normally educated person" roughly corresponds to mine.
          1. 0
            22 December 2016 09: 43
            > Then Vick to help. Unless, of course, your understanding of a "normally educated person" roughly corresponds to mine.

            I don’t get education on wikis and philosophical digests. There are primary sources for this - in their entirety.
            And because you have already explained how you get your knowledge, and they are not compatible with obtaining full knowledge, I will not explain to you the modern theory nation and explain what exactly, based on this, you need to know about ancient Rome and ancient Greece. But in any case, I recall that nation assumes an existing state as a prerequisite, which means that references to Greece are simply inevitable.
            1. 0
              22 December 2016 10: 53
              Quote: xtur
              they are not compatible with obtaining full knowledge, I will not explain to you

              Ah, sorry. My intellectual bragging is debunked by the real cream of the Russian elite.
              You see, the elite. I seem to have clearly described the reasons for my interest in certain figures. Their publications are secondary to me.
              Your hints of your sacred knowledge, excuse me, give the impression of an ordinary rut of the level of just junior courses, if not high school. I'm a little old for this.
              A normal, meaningful discussion, with reconciliation of sources, requires at least an hour to write each post, and more often much more. Not so long ago, I killed half a day on a post that demanded to search for several English-language books. I do not see anything in your remark so far that justifies such labor costs.

              Well, at the expense of my three philosophy teachers - yes, not one of them was Socrates, unfortunately. Yes, and I'm not Plato far.
              1. 0
                23 December 2016 08: 58
                > My cult as an intellectual debunked by the real

                yes, that’s true - it’s just a braid under the intellectual, and rather unsuccessful, and it’s debunked. Or rather, self-destructive

                > the cream of the Russian elite.

                as they say gee-gee-gee lol, facespalm.zhpg and all that jazz. You are so self-destroying that you have not even mastered looking in profile - I am Armenian, and by definition I can’t be the cream of the Russian elite or ilita.
                Moreover, I am not a resident of the Russian Federation, and do not even try to mow under it.

                > Your hints on your sacred knowledge

                self-revealer, all I said was just knowledge of the materiel in social disciplines.

                > for a post that demanded to search for several English-language books. I do not see anything in your replica yet that would justify such labor costs.

                to fill knowledge gaps, you have to spend a lot more than three days. Much closer to one year.

                here in a year and talk
                1. 0
                  23 December 2016 11: 13
                  Quote: xtur
                  here in a year and talk

                  A year without your posts? How cruel!
                  It’s pretty nice to watch how ridiculous a crank I myself was in my 15s. I even feel some nostalgia.
                  Quote: xtur
                  I am Armenian, and by definition I can’t be the cream of the Russian elite or ilite.

                  Fortunately, the place of your birth will not confuse the Russian elite. It is much worse that the enchanting intelligence that you consider necessary to demonstrate is also quite at its level, as far as I can tell.
  36. 0
    21 December 2016 10: 53
    Despite the peppy articles in the domestic media about the re-equipment of our army and navy, the situation is actually depressing.
    The annual non-fulfillment of the state defense order, the postponement of the transfer of equipment to a later date, the reduction of defense budget items, has become commonplace. To date, the Navy has a particularly difficult situation. Units of modern ships are not able to provide the full range of tasks that are assigned to the Navy.
    If those who are responsible for the country's defense are not able to cope with their duties, they must vacate their positions for those who will cope with this task. IMHO.
  37. +2
    21 December 2016 18: 12
    resume post.
    Comrade Kaptsov is mentioned in the article 8 times. and TAVKR Admiral Kuznetsov 6. means Comrade Kaptsov is right. !!!)
  38. 0
    19 January 2017 14: 16
    "This fact, if anyone doubts, is irrefutably proved by Oleg Kaptsov in his numerous articles."
    Oleg Kaptsov talks a lot and proves ....
  39. kig
    0
    13 February 2017 03: 08
    VO seems to have a problem with new topics. More and more repetitions appear. Sorry.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"