Military Review

The combat stability of the updated "Admiral Kuznetsov" on the ocean theater. Do all problems solve 3C14 UKSK? Part of 1

101



It so happened that due to the difficult economic background and the lack of proper technical condition of shipbuilding capacities in St. Petersburg, our state cannot afford the mass production of new heavy rocket aircraft carrying cruisers of the 23000E Storm project until 2019 — 2020. It was then that the 350-meter “A” OAO OAO Baltiysky Zavod should receive the necessary technical equipment to implement such an ambitious project, and PJSC Shipbuilding Plant “Severnaya Verf” can be adapted for the construction of ships with a displacement of more than 80 thousand tons. Today, it is necessary to focus all efforts on the modernization of the existing TAVKR 1143.5 Ave. Admiral Kuznetsov, as well as the 279-th separate naval fighter air regiment (OKIAP) based on it.

MODERNIZATION OF THE TAVKR “ADMIRAL KUZNETS” IMPACT COMPLEX BY STARTING UNITS 3 – 14 FOR THE CORRESPONDING NOMENCLATURE OF MISSILES OF ARMAMENT WILL ALLOW DOMINATE PROGRAMMER

As the Russian news agency TASS reported citing 22 on April 2017, citing sources in the military-industrial complex and the Ministry of Defense, in September this year our only heavy aircraft carrier missile cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov, will join the same modernization program that is coming to a close in a heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR) "Admiral Nakhimov". Work will begin at one of the stocks of the 35-th ship-repair center of the plant (a branch of the joint stock company CS Zvezdochka) in Roslyakovo (near Murmansk). Their cost is estimated at about 40 billion rubles, and the main option is the re-equipment of the anti-ship / strike complex of the aircraft-carrying cruiser with long-range heavy anti-ship anti-ship missiles P-700 "Granit" under a wide range of cruise missiles of the 3-X14 family of Caliber-NK-XNNXX-NK (including XNN-X-NK) -a-XNNXX-XK-NK (including XNNXX-NK). CRC 3М3E54 and PLUR 1РЭ91), Onyx supersonic anti-missile missiles 1М3 and the developed Zircon hypersonic multi-purpose anti-ship missiles. The modernization process consists in dismantling 55 inclined CM-12A launchers for the P-233 “Granit” anti-personnel missile system and installing 700 transport-launch containers of the 36X3 UKSK modular universal shooting system in their place.

In one of our previous articles, the feasibility of retrofitting multipurpose nuclear submarine cruisers of the 949A Antey Ave. from supersonic Granites to subsonic Gauges and Onyxes supersonic was considered. It turned out that submarines will receive huge advantages in applying massive long-range strikes with strategic missile defenses 3М14К to enemy targets approximately 2000 — 2600 km (the number of Calibers will increase 3 times, up to 72 units). At the same time, anti-ship abilities will decrease. Why? As it is known, 3М45 "Granit", with all its 7,36-ton mass and 8,84-meter length, is a highly specialized long-range anti-ship missile with 1,5 fly-by-flight speed, built-in REB 3B47 "Quartz" and XN-I-AHp built-in REB complex “Quartz” and -NHX-Ih-ars I-a-3-a-a-a-of-a-three-year-old anti-ship rocket The 4 or 12 missiles are tactically correct strike clothing even without adjustment from the carrier or anti-submarine aviation complex. With a mixed “high-altitude-low-altitude” flight profile, the Granite impact echelon can operate autonomously at a distance of 20 — 24 km, which is the highest indicator of the range in the class of existing supersonic RCCs (at the same time, the low-altitude segment can reach more than 450 km).


Framework for 8 transport and launch glasses of TFR / anti-ship missiles of the "Caliber" family and anti-ship "Onyxes" and "Zircons". This element is the basis of the PU 3C14 UKSK


The anti-ship version of the Caliber 3М54Э1 has a radius of only 220 km, where the supersonic 3 flywheel is only 20 km. Onyx, respectively, is capable of operating at a distance of 350 km with a mixed flight profile. From this, it is easy to determine that the upgraded Antey class multipurpose nuclear submarine performing the anti-ship operation is forced to approach the enemy's AUG approximately 100 — 150 km closer than the early modification with the Granites. This carries additional risks: for example, a greater chance of detecting Virginia or Los Angeles-class submarines by hydroacoustic stations accompanying the United States Navy AUG or the RSL set up by P-8A anti-submarine aircraft Poseidon. But if “Anteyam” in the oceanic theater of military operations goes unnoticed to the USS AUG and attacks it 3 times with a large arsenal of “Onyxes” or anti-ship “Granites”, although it is difficult, but it is feasible, then turn the same unexpected move to a heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser “ Admiral Kuznetsov will be almost impossible, because this is a huge surface ship, which is monitored by the American reconnaissance constellation of satellites and airplanes of the Rivet Joint type anywhere in the world.

The required anti-ship effectiveness of Admiral Kuznetsov with the anti-ship missile 3М54Е1 Caliber and 3М55 Onyx will be achieved only in limited maritime theaters of war, when the naval attack groups of the opposing sides approach the 250-X -X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X -X -X-X-XX-X-ONX. As for the huge oceanic theaters, here the surface-based Calibrov and Onyxes will not give serious advantages to either the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov or the nuclear RRC Admiral Nakhimov, because the American decked F / A-350E / F will be able to launch the anti-ship operation against our flagship at a distance of about 18 km, using hundreds of adopted anti-ship missiles LRASM. The range of “Super Hornets” with outboard fuel tanks and AGM-1500 “HARM” anti-radar missiles also reaches 88 km, which is why our “overseas colleagues” have much more opportunities in the exhausting game against “Admiral Kuznetsov” and his accompaniment even after equipping launcher 1000C3 universal shooting complex UKKS. What countermeasures do we have?

INDEPENDENCE OF MULTIPURPOSE ATOMIC SUBMARines IN THE SOLUTION OF THE ANTI-IMMOBILITY PROBLEMS OF THE RUSSIAN MILITARY Fleet EXPLAINED BY LOW FUNCTIONALITY AND NUMBER OF DECK AIRCRAFT AND THE ABSENCE OF RADIUS EXTRA RANGE

First, these are all the same multipurpose nuclear submarines of the 949A Antey Ave., which will be able to accompany the surface component of our AUG far ahead and be the first to strike at American aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers. Two submarines of this class, K-132 "Irkutsk" and K-442 "Chelyabinsk", are undergoing refit from inclined PU CM-225A to transport-launch containers for "Calibrov" and "Onyxes". Their total missile ammunition will be 144 units, of which more than half may fall on the anti-ship versions of the 3М54Э1 and 3М55 missiles. This should be enough to disable at least one US carrier strike group.

Secondly, it is much more quiet than the 949A Antey Ave., multi-purpose atomic submarines of the 971 Ave. Shuk-B. These submarines can approach the western AUG over minimal distances, calculated in tens or a half hundred kilometers. After that, about two dozen anti-ship missiles 3М54Е1 "Caliber-PL", launched from 4 533-mm torpedo tubes from a depth of about 50 meters can be used. Pike-B also has advanced torpedo armament, among which you can find the multipurpose deep-water torpedoes “Physicist” and “Physicist-2” (UGST / UGST-M) with a range of about 50 km. Torpedoes come into service with Russian MAPL and SSBNs from the 2015 year and are equipped with advanced multi-element sonar homing head. They can cover our AUG headed by "Admiral Kuznetsov" and the world's most advanced multi-purpose submarines of 885 Avenue Ash. The range of their torpedo and rocket armament, as well as its ammunition, far surpasses the arsenal of submarines of the "Pike-B" class.

Meanwhile, the individual anti-ship capabilities of “Admiral Kuznetsov” and its escort (not taking into account the above multi-purpose SSGNs and MAPL), due to the 220-350-kilometer range of the anti-ship “Caliber” and “Onyx” will remain at an extremely low level in comparison with the capabilities of the state deck shock aviation. Truly a “saving asset” in this case can be considered the project of a hypersonic anti-ship long-range missile 3M22 Zircon (SCRC 3K22). These missiles are also unified with the UKSK 3S14 transport and launch units and will allow the “admiral” series of flagships of our Navy to deliver massive attacks on the enemy’s ship’s warrant 7-8 times faster than LRASM missiles today, and 3-4 times faster than promising French-British long-range anti-ship missile CVS401 Perseus. But here there are a lot of unresolved issues.


The figure illustrates the plots of the trajectory of a promising low-profile CVS401 Perseus anti-ship missile. Two small-sized high-precision corrected combat elements were released from the internal weapons bays, which significantly complicate the process of intercepting the enemy’s ship’s air defense system


Thus, even the approximate dates for the arrival of the Zirkon PKR into service with the Russian Navy are unknown; there is only a reservation that this will happen no earlier than 2020 of the year, while to establish parity with American ships in the implementation of anti-ship defense, “Zircons” are necessary for our surface component to 20 of the year. The ultimate reachable range of hypersonic 3М22 is also unknown. Some sources tend to be approximately 300-500 km, while others speak of 800-1000 km. It is precisely in this run-up that the real effectiveness of the “Zircons” in the vast ocean theater of military operations can be hidden. If this is just 500 km, then the current problem remains with the superiority of the anti-ship strike radius of the American carrier-based aviation with LRASM and Harpoon missiles (1300 — 1700 km against 500 of our Zircons). If the range of "Zircons" exceeds the mark in 1000 km, then the conversation will be completely different. But, apparently, it will happen no earlier than 2025, when almost all new state Ajis ships will receive more sensitive and multichannel radar AN / SPY-6 AMDR. We need simpler and faster technical solutions that would be able to preserve the combat stability of our only (up to 20) aircraft carrier strike group when confronting the enemy on vast oceanic theaters.

The only adequate measure here is the speedy comprehensive modernization of the 279-th separate shipboard fighter regiment, with emphasis on a radical improvement in the strike component. The main deck multipurpose aviation complexes here should be heavy fighters Su-33 (T-10K), the suspension points and the avionics of which must be immediately adapted to the use of aviation variants of anti-ship missiles "Yakhont-M" and 3М51 "Alpha". The anti-ship configuration of the Su-33 armament was initially developed, providing for the placement of the X-41 supersonic Moskit anti-ship missile X-3 (80М279) on the central suspension (between the nacelles), but, in practice, it was not a unit of the XNUMX OCIAP, it was not a unit, but it was not used by the XNUMX OCIAP, it was not used by the Mosquito. It is obvious that now this configuration can become quite popular in our carrier-based aircraft.

The excellent quality of the Su-33 multi-role fighter is the large volume of the fuel system in the 12100 l, which brings the combat range with two Alphas or one Yakhont-M on board to approximately 1200 km. Naturally, 220 or 450 km is added to this radius. As a result, we obtain the effective radius of a massive anti-ship strike of the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier-based PFM to 1420 — 1650 km, which fully corresponds to the F / A-18E / F-LRASM deck ligament indicators and exceeds them in terms of the missile defense capability “Idzhis” "-Cruisers and destroyers due to 3 times higher flying speed and maneuverability of 3М51 and 3М55 missiles in comparison with AGM-158C LRASM. It is known that in a normal (more or less peaceful) setting aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR, there is just 10 Su-33. Under the conditions of escalation, the deck-mounted wing of the sea "Flanker" can be expanded to 14 machines, allowing you to strike 28 immediately with anti-ship missiles. Moreover, “Drying” even with RCC on board is approximately 200-250 km / h faster than Super Hornets, and therefore the former can reach firing lines to enemy AUG much faster than 2-3 will arrive at this place more times the number of F / A-18E / F.

But, unfortunately, to date, there has been no significant progress in the upgrade program for avionics and multitasking deck fighter Su-33. The enormous modernization potential of the Thirty-third simply stands still, from which both the prestige of our aircraft-carrying cruiser and the fighting qualities of the miniature segment of carrier-based aircraft suffer. The only thing that has been undertaken over the past few years is the decision on a very modest, by modern tactical and technical criteria, modernization of the onboard REO. In particular, the radio-electronic architecture of all Su-33 should gradually integrate the specialized computing sighting and navigation subsystem SVP-24-33 “Gefest” developed by Gefest and T JSC. For the first time embodied in the sighting complex prototype Sukhoi Su-24M, multi-platform high-performance computerized subsystem SVP-24 "Hephaestus" enabled mode "free maneuver" to hit stationary ground targets simple Freefall bombs with a circular error probable (CEP), characteristic of high-precision missiles as X-29L / T or adjustable bombs KAB-500Kr / -OD. At the same time, the Su-24M could avoid entering into the radius of action of self-propelled short-range anti-aircraft missile systems using anti-aircraft systems with an infrared homing head.

Similar qualities are different and updated Su-33M. At the same time, the total functionality and potential in air-to-ship / ground and air-to-air tasks of airplanes will not change at all. First, in the radar architecture of the Su-33 fighters, the old Cassegrain H001K Sword radar with a target detection range with 3m2 EPR radar of the order of 115-120 km is still preserved. The RLPK-27K computational facilities, namely, the BTNVC 100 (performance around 180 thous operations / s) allow the station to find targets in 24 review mode, track only 10 aerial targets on the aisle and capture 1 of them. By modern standards, this is an extremely low figure. Worse, there are still no: the possibility of using guided air combat missiles with active radar homing heads of medium-range P-77 (RVV-AE), as well as the ability to work on surface / ground in autonomous mode (using its own radar).

To implement the use of P-77 missiles in air combat and the air-to-surface mode, it is necessary to equip the new H001WEP / M radar with an adapting multi-functional system SUV-P-E, which is based on a more advanced and high-performance on-board computer such as BTsVM-486-2М. The core of this calculator is the Intel Atom E640T processor with a clock frequency of 1 GHz, which is 5,5 thousand times more productive than the previous C100 (a similar product is equipped with MiG-29UPG for the Indian Air Force and Su-27SCM). Now Su-33 is nothing like this and not close. Now imagine that during the execution of a combat operation they will have to meet with the American Super Hornets and the Growlers, who have on board the most sophisticated EW equipment, radar with AN / APG-79 AFAR and ultra-long-range air combat missiles AIM-120D ( 180 km), to reflect on the outcome of a similar skirmish in combat conditions is somehow not very desirable.


AIM-120D long-range airborne guided missile


It is known that in order to compensate for the low capabilities of the Su-33 in long-range air combat missions, as well as the inability to strike at surface targets with high-precision weapons, the fleet ordered 24 multipurpose MiG-29K / KUB multi-purpose fighter aircraft. The avionics of these machines are hardware and software adapted for the use of medium-range P-77 air-to-air missiles and their more modern versions of the RVV-SD (“Item 170-1”), as well as numerous types of high-precision weapons (UR X-35 ", X-31AD, X-38МТЭ / МАЭ, etc.), but the Zhuk-M airborne radar is still built on the basis of a slit antenna array, which has mediocre power qualities and is not the best noise immunity. The range of this station for fighter-type air targets is at the level H001К (120 km), which also limits its ability to detect and capture modern F / A-18E / F with effective scattering surface reduced to 1,5 м2 in advance.

A great advantage can only be considered the possibility of working on superficial targets. Not very encouraging is the fact that the range of the MiG-29K with one outboard fuel tank and air-to-air suspension configuration barely reaches 900 — 950 km, which will not allow you to escort heavy Su-33 in its entire operating radius to 1200— 1300 km, which is why the latter may be completely defenseless in front of deck Super Hornets in ranged combat. In close combat, the Su-33 surpasses the F / A-18E / F, but as a rule, in modern air confrontation, it reaches the melee only in extreme cases. And the fighter 279 of the OKIAP is almost 3 times inferior to the wing of the aircraft, based aboard any aircraft carrier class "Carl Vinson" or "Gerald Ford."

The situation is absolutely not in favor of our carrier strike group. Resolve these difficult questions could be a radical revision of the onboard electronic appearance of the Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB to match the generation of "4 ++". In particular, the Su-33M could be completely unified with the Su-30CM coming into the fleet, equipping the first with radars from the passive phased H011 Bars, which in terms of energy and tactical capabilities are not inferior to the Hornetsky AN / APG-79 and the MiG-29K / KUB is much more appropriate to equip the most modern on-board radar with active phased array "Zhuk-AE", capable of operating at a distance of 200 km. Accordingly, the deck "Drying" will be able to both work on ground targets and surface targets with tactical missiles of the X-59MK / MK2, Yakhontam-M and Alpha family, and also perform operations to establish an air zone of restriction and prohibition of access and maneuver using modern air-to-air missiles RVV-SD.

But, as we see in the observed trend of upgrading the Su-33, only the usual computing subsystems of navigation and bombing SVP-24-33 “Hephaestus”, the promising update package for our only heavy deck fighters can only dream about, as it were, the renewal magnificent project Su-33KUB, for which they had to develop a high-performance processor with a frequency of several tens of gigahertz. In the meantime, the air component of our carrier-based strike force is unable to either fully support the anti-missile potential of the warrant or expand the radius of the anti-ship defense. In addition, as a means of long-range radar detection and control at the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR, the AEW Ka-31 helicopter with the ventral rotating radar E-801 "Oko" is used. Not only does the helicopter have a limited range (340 km) and a working flight speed (around 150 km / h), the E-801 radar has a low energy potential, realizing the detection and tracking range of an anti-ship missile of order 60-70 km and type "fighter" - 120-160 km; bandwidth reaches 20 simultaneously tracked targets, which in modern conditions is extremely insufficient. The characteristics of the helicopter complex РДДН Э-801 "Oko" are inferior to those specified in the tactical and technical specification of the parameters of the Yak-44 aircraft 2,5 times in detection range, 65 times in throughput and 5 times in radius of action. Here is such an unfavorable situation.

To be continued ...
Author:
101 comment
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Flinky
    Flinky 3 May 2017 08: 40
    +10
    As already zadolbali with this "Kuznetsov." When will sofa strategists understand that the presence of aircraft carriers alone does not solve any problems, and their absence is not a sign of weakness? Nekhai mattresses rivet these troughs, no matter how frightening they are, none of them will be able to dodge RPCs or torpedoes.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 3 May 2017 09: 00
      +13
      Well, these troughs are riveted not only by mattresses, but by everyone who understands why it is needed. China has let something second down. Brazil is something he has thought for something new. France, India ... England, for some reason, two were needed. What all around are stupid, only we understand that no one needs these troughs, certainly not a regional land power.
      1. Flinky
        Flinky 3 May 2017 10: 14
        +2
        We do not need these troughs - it’s not in our style to scare the Papuans. We have more others. Which break the ice. As well as underwater. Here is their number and it is necessary to increase, which is being done.
        1. Andy
          Andy 3 May 2017 11: 32
          +8
          fools do not need anything. although the article explicitly says-the air wing allows you to strike at ships at a distance greater than 2-3 times than the risk of receiving PKR in response. also allows you to organize air defense of your connection. and ensure the release of their submarines in the attack.
          1. Flinky
            Flinky 3 May 2017 12: 00
            +2
            an air wing allows you to strike at ships at a distance greater than 2-3 times than the risk of receiving PKR in response

            Make me laugh yet. In the event of war, these troughs will not stupidly leave the ports, while those in the ocean will be sunk immediately after the carriers of the "axes" grazing near our shores.
            1. Andy
              Andy 3 May 2017 12: 12
              +14
              Did the furnace grow? all the elite were driven into the middle-earth — ships like okay (age 40) and a small missile ship. from three fleets, one squadron can’t scrape together.
              1. Flinky
                Flinky 3 May 2017 14: 13
                0
                Forgot about the military doctrine, or did not know? Warrior sofa ...
                1. Andy
                  Andy 3 May 2017 14: 23
                  +9
                  go ahead, tell me how many aircraft carriers you have already drowned. don't crack ice ... with your head. and Putin will not push the red button; the entire government has accounts or real estate abroad. how to shoot here :)
                  1. Flinky
                    Flinky 3 May 2017 14: 25
                    +2
                    Goodbye, child of the Carnival.
                    1. Andy
                      Andy 3 May 2017 14: 29
                      +12
                      essentially there is something to say, holy fool? or okromya party slogans and idiots for rating in the shard is empty?
                      1. Flinky
                        Flinky 3 May 2017 14: 47
                        +1
                        I am non-partisan, child. Goodbye.
                    2. Summit
                      Summit 4 May 2017 08: 13
                      +4
                      Hear the Ill-If Anglo-Saxon locks up-it will roll into ruin all our boats of Almaty and other PR crafts in a few days. With a budget of more than 950 m. Dollars for more than 10 years that they spend on weapons they will do it .. The Pentagon doesn’t sit around and do not have billions of experts and experts from Sberbank there ... Wake up - Lovely
                      1. Flinky
                        Flinky 4 May 2017 09: 13
                        +1
                        Hear, who considers himself healthy - do not make our Iskanders laugh with Caliber. Naglosax is on target, because he is hysterical, he comes out with shit, but he does not dare to do anything, because he wants to live.
                      2. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 4 May 2017 10: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Gipfel
                        and the local experts and experts of accounts with Sberbank for billions do not have them ...

                        Do you sincerely believe that there is no corruption in the USA?
                        Quote: Gipfel
                        Wake up - Lovely

                        This is about you.
                  2. Summit
                    Summit 4 May 2017 08: 09
                    0
                    Yes, and tickets were already bought for the next party in Los Angeles, for example, we’ll slide down there for shopping and then the war ..)))
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 May 2017 17: 47
                  +6
                  Quote: Flinky
                  Forgot about the military doctrine, or did not know?

                  She is not on your side - the doctrine just spells out for the Navy the protection of Russia's interests in the oceans
                3. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 3 May 2017 20: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: Flinky
                  Forgot about the military doctrine, or did not know

                  Military doctrine today is one tomorrow is another.
            2. Mairos
              Mairos 3 May 2017 17: 41
              0
              For a long time such a talker like you have not met. It’s better to be silent than to carry nonsense.
            3. Summit
              Summit 4 May 2017 08: 08
              0
              You are so naive and cute as a boy in 16 years with a bouquet of daisies wink
          2. max702
            max702 3 May 2017 17: 00
            +3
            Quote: Andy
            fools do not need anything. although the article explicitly says-the air wing allows you to strike at ships at a distance greater than 2-3 times than the risk of receiving PKR in response. also allows you to organize air defense of your connection. and ensure the release of their submarines in the attack.

            And now answer which ships in decided to organize all this splendor? What kind of opponent is this? As a candidate, one NATO unit led by the United States ... And how will it all end? Do you seriously think that they shot drowned the heels of the AUG from both sides and dispersed? Is that all? Come on ... After such a showdown a couple of hundred thousand years on the planet, the snow will lie on the earth ..black .. You tell me you don’t need to exaggerate, but why? For all other purposes AUGs are not needed !! There are completely different means and tools that will perfectly solve these problems but are orders of magnitude cheaper .. The point is in AUG if, when applied, the end is everything and everything ... Will we have 5-6 AUG and what? Let's go drown the USA with comrades? And no one else! With the rest, either ground operation or Strategic Missile Forces ...
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 3 May 2017 20: 36
              0
              Quote: max702
              The meaning in AUG if, when applied, the end to everything and everything

              How many times have AUG been used in the last half century? So what?
              And how many times have nuclear submarines been used?
              1. max702
                max702 5 May 2017 19: 14
                0
                Quote: Dart2027
                How many times have AUG been used in the last half century?

                But how much? And most importantly, by whom and against whom? AND..? Correctly! USA and comrades against the Papuans! And what place does this relate to the tasks of the Russian Navy? I repeat for the especially dull, we have one REAL and REAL adversary is the United States and comrades, namely the NATO bloc plus the hangers-on ... But take off that there is an ACG that is not, the result in a conflict in which the Navy will fight at full height is very sad for everyone ... And why the hell are we? Where to apply them so that the Arctic fox does not come? We don’t have colonies, we don’t have sea trade (we deliver goods through pipes), we don’t have the need for new lands (we would like to equip our own), we are not going to bring democracy either .. Is there a question for us about the AUG?
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 5 May 2017 21: 03
                  0
                  Quote: max702
                  And what place does this relate to the tasks of the Russian Navy? I repeat for the especially dull, we have one REAL and REAL adversary is the United States and comrades

                  I repeat for those who are dull - the United States will never fight directly with us, because no one will win in such a war, but they will crap with their hands in different Daesh, etc.
                  Quote: max702
                  So the question is, why are we aug?

                  To fight not on its territory.
          3. Skifotavr
            Skifotavr 4 May 2017 14: 30
            0
            Quote: Andy
            fools don't need anything

            What is truth is truth.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 May 2017 12: 37
          +6
          Quote: Flinky
          We do not need these troughs - it’s not in our style to scare the Papuans. We have more others. Which break the ice. As well as underwater. Here is their number and it is necessary to increase, which is being done.

          The Soviet Navy also had to scare the Papuans - since he demanded AB from the 50s?
          Without an AB, the fleet turns into a general aviation reconnaissance system, capable of operating only near the coast, and only in areas where there are airfields. And any attempt to go beyond the effective coastal aviation radius ends with a Verp.
          Without an AB, the fleet will have to forget about the possibility of intercepting the carriers of the same high-speed aircraft (surface and underwater) before launch - and brush aside the cloud of launched missiles. Without an AB, the fleet may forget about hunting the enemy’s ICAPL with its surface forces anywhere except in the Murmansk region.
          1. Flinky
            Flinky 3 May 2017 14: 19
            +3
            The Soviet Navy also had to scare the Papuans - since he demanded AB from the 50s?

            AB demanded to "catch up and overtake." They could not formulate a clear range of tasks for them right up to 1991.

            Without an AB, the fleet turns into an IWR capable of operating only near the coast, and only in areas where there are airfields

            Can our ships fly? What a news. Or did the air defense systems suddenly disappear on our ships?

            Without an AB, the fleet will have to forget about the possibility of intercepting carriers of the same high-speed aircraft (surface and underwater) before launch

            Of course of course. Multipurpose submarines and electronic warfare systems (ground on surface units) quietly neigh. And how will the AB help in intercepting the underwater carriers of the KRDD?

            Without an AB, the fleet can forget about hunting the enemy’s ICAPL with its surface forces anywhere except in the Murmansk region

            How does AB help in hunting for the enemy’s nuclear submarines, do not enlighten? At the moment, we have few anti-submarine aircraft, and helicopters are only going to reanimate.

            So far, I see only the same ardent desire to "catch up and overtake" that was under Khrushchev.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 3 May 2017 16: 50
              +12
              Quote: Flinky
              AB demanded to "catch up and overtake." They could not formulate a clear range of tasks for them right up to 1991.

              Clear objectives for the AB were formulated as far back as the 50s - the KUG air cover during operations even in the Barents Sea.
              Another thing is that instead of the normal AB, Ustinov and Amelko imposed mutants-TAVKR on the fleet, a clear range of tasks for which it was hard to come up with.
              Quote: Flinky
              Can our ships fly? What a news. Or did the air defense systems suddenly disappear on our ships?

              Our ships require air cover. Moreover, this cover should not be where it is convenient for aviators to work from the shore, but where, according to tactical and operational considerations, our camps should be located (for example, in the throat of the White Sea). And the cover should be able to quickly strengthen with the approach time of reinforcements less than the exit of the detected enemy air group to the range of use of weapons. Otherwise, there will be Verp again.
              On average, "a squadron over ships requires a regiment on the shore."
              And about ship air defense - this is not even funny. Naval air defense is limited by the radio horizon. And on PMV, even the S-40 will not work beyond 400 km.
              Quote: Flinky
              And how will the AB help in intercepting the underwater carriers of the KRDD?

              Providing an umbrella over their PLOW + covering the area of ​​operation of the base patrol officers and naval helicopter PLO.
              Quote: Flinky
              How does AB help in hunting for the enemy’s nuclear submarines, do not enlighten? At the moment, we have few anti-submarine aircraft, and helicopters are only going to reanimate.

              If we consider the development of the fleet from the position "will always be like now"- then you can immediately give money to pregnant pensioners, hipsters.
              Let’s be realistic - if the AB is built, then only after the commissioning of its escort ships and the revival of the BPA. smile
              1. Flinky
                Flinky 3 May 2017 22: 29
                +1
                The first normal answer. Taking off my hat. There is almost nothing to argue :)
              2. KaPToC
                KaPToC 3 May 2017 23: 16
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Our ships require air cover.

                Develop ship defense.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Naval air defense is limited by the radio horizon.

                Develop over-the-horizon radars.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Let’s be realistic - if the AB is built, then only after the commissioning of its escort ships and the revival of the BPA.

                Let’s be realistic, we need an aircraft carrier now, after fifteen years, when we build it, aircraft carriers will be a thing of the past, just as jump airfields once left.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 4 May 2017 10: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  Develop ship defense.

                  Quote: KaPToC
                  Develop over-the-horizon radars.

                  Detection is possible. But here is the over-the-horizon radar for tracking the target and ZSTsU ...
                  And most importantly - all these tasks have long been solved in a different way. The enemy has the opportunity to look beyond the horizon, and having advanced the radar station 100-150 miles from the warrant of the ships, and the ability to hit the NLC for 300-400 km from the warrant. ICH, all this - without technical distortions and asymmetric answers.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 May 2017 17: 55
              +2
              Quote: Flinky
              AB demanded to "catch up and overtake." They could not formulate a clear range of tasks for them right up to 1991.

              Really? :))) Here is the list of tasks for project 1143:
              - cover of shipborne formations against air strikes, their anti-submarine and anti-hacking support;
              - ensuring the military stability of strategic missile submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
              - ensuring the deployment of submarines;
              - cover for naval missile-carrying, anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft in the zone of reach of ship-based fighter aircraft;
              - search and destruction of enemy missile submarines as part of groups of heterogeneous anti-submarine forces;
              - defeat groups of surface ships of the enemy;
              - ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.

              Generally speaking, the list is exhaustive, only the real capabilities of the VTOL aircraft did not provide anything like this.
              For the rest, Alexey RA already answered you.
              Quote: Flinky
              Of course of course. Multipurpose submarines and electronic warfare systems (ground on surface units) quietly neigh.

              Above you, alas. What will a multipurpose submarine do against the same AUG? :)))) Which includes both surface and underwater carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic?
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 3 May 2017 20: 38
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Generally speaking, the list is exhaustive, only the real capabilities of the VTOL aircraft did not provide anything like this.

                Perhaps this is what is meant - the tasks were written on paper, but how to carry them out in practice?
              2. Flinky
                Flinky 3 May 2017 22: 28
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Generally speaking, the list is exhaustive, only the real capabilities of the VTOL aircraft did not provide anything like this.

                It was smooth on paper. Yes, they forgot about the ravines.
              3. KaPToC
                KaPToC 3 May 2017 23: 18
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                What will a multipurpose submarine do against the same AUG?

                Are you going to fight one submarine with the whole world?
                It will be fired by cruise missiles from a distance of several hundred kilometers and calmly go to the base for new ammunition.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 4 May 2017 10: 15
                  +3
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  It will be fired by cruise missiles from a distance of several hundred kilometers and calmly go to the base for new ammunition.

                  Yeah ... with the base patrol aircraft hanging in the air, operating practically in range conditions - because there is no one to drive it. And with the AUG air defense system also operating in landfill conditions. And PLO too - for the Viking was removed from decks only because their goals disappeared: our submarines practically left the oceans after the collapse of the USSR.
                  The end is a little predictable - even if the submarine reaches the launch range, then it will not be possible to return back to it.
                  The ICAFL’s actions without cover in the Atlantic is a “Battle for the Atlantic” in a new way, and not of 1941, but of 1944.
                  1. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 4 May 2017 10: 51
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Yeah ... with the base patrol aircraft hanging in the air, operating practically in the range

                    Which is by no means omnipotent
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And with the AUG air defense system also operating in landfill conditions.

                    The capabilities of modern air defense are greatly exaggerated, in reality it will be like in Westerns - whoever shot the first one won.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And PLO too - for the Viking was removed from decks only because their targets disappeared

                    No one will approach the AUG at the distance of a torpedo attack.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 4 May 2017 16: 07
                      +2
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      Which is by no means omnipotent

                      Which is. And which is a lot. And which is only one of the components of the PLO system.
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      The capabilities of modern air defense are greatly exaggerated, in reality it will be like in Westerns - whoever shot the first one won.

                      The problem is that the AUG air defense begins to shoot somewhere 300 miles from the warrant. First, fighters will work on the missiles launched. Then - SAM SAM. And then - RAM and ZAK.
                      EMNIP, for the defeat of the AUG in the 80s, a "loaf" was required, a pair of 670M and 1-2 mraps.
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      No one will approach the AUG at the distance of a torpedo attack.

                      And what - the Vikings do not fly beyond the torpedo attack range? wink
                      In the old smart magazines about AUG PLO during the Cold War, the following was written:
                      Three zones: near, far and defense of the combat maneuvering area.
                      In the near - helicopters and an escort. Between the near and far - ICAPL. In the farthest (diameter 350 miles) is the Vikings. The defense of the combat maneuvering area of ​​aircraft carriers is Orion.
                      All PLO management is carried out from the KPO PLO as part of the flagship command center on the AB - in cooperation with coastal PLO centers and neighboring AUGs.
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 4 May 2017 18: 30
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Which is. And which is a lot. And which is only one of the components of the PLO system.

                        Which does not see the submarine under the keel of an aircraft carrier.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        First, fighters will work on the missiles launched. Then - SAM SAM. And then - RAM and ZAK.

                        This is all theory, in fact, at first all the fighters will slap, then they will miss the air defense systems, and then a few missiles will destroy ZAKs.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        EMNIP, for the defeat of the AUG in the 80s, a "loaf" was required, a pair of 670M and 1-2 mraps.

                        EMNIP is for a guaranteed defeat, they liked to do everything in the USSR with a large margin of safety, in reality, there is enough volley of one "Antey".
                        The main thing here is to damage the aircraft carrier in order to deprive the enemy of its main advantage - carrier-based aviation, and then the Americans will have nothing to fight.
        3. tomket
          tomket 3 May 2017 15: 25
          +5
          Quote: Flinky
          We do not need these troughs - it’s not in our style to scare the Papuans. We have more others. Which break the ice. As well as underwater. Here is their number and it is necessary to increase, which is being done.

          And in Syria, what are we doing now, if we don’t scare the Papuans?
      2. Walanin
        Walanin 3 May 2017 13: 38
        +5
        Quote: Engineer
        What all around are stupid, only we understand that nobody needs these troughs

        Banana republics don't need anything at all. Plant potatoes yes pump oil west
  3. Serg65
    Serg65 3 May 2017 09: 56
    +5
    the only heavy aircraft carrier missile cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov"

    what Somehow it immediately alerted me! After reading further, I realized that these are ordinary fabrications of a person far from the fleet, all the more so who loves to operate with all kinds of digital characters!
    1. Rokossovsky
      Rokossovsky 3 May 2017 11: 50
      +5
      Quote: Serg65

      what Somehow it immediately alerted me! After reading further I realized that these are ordinary fabrications of a person far from the fleet

      Mr. Damantsev is a big fan of spherical horses in a vacuum.
      the more loving to operate with all sorts of digits!

      Apparently the laurels of our Olezhik, the Red Sun, Zumaltovich Kaptsov, haunt! smile
      But for now it’s a little liquid ...
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 3 May 2017 12: 10
        +4
        Quote: Rokossovsky
        But for now it’s a little liquid ...

        laughing Not well, but Damantsev’s well managed to stir up the srach of the great naval commanders!
        hi Welcome
      2. adept666
        adept666 4 May 2017 09: 34
        +3
        Mr. Damantsev is a big fan of spherical horses in a vacuum.

        There is no horse lover, our dear and respected Professor, and Mr. D amateur will face off pip ... oh i.e. maximum distances from booklets, which to reality are very distant.
  4. Meliodous
    Meliodous 3 May 2017 10: 01
    0
    In general, it turns out that a normal aircraft carrier will not work out of Kuznetsov, and, judging by the proposed modernization, they decided to focus on its strike component. They will use it as a cruiser.
    Another thing is that its main problem is boilers, and it is unlikely that they will be replaced. Therefore, I won’t be surprised that, having received its UkSK and other equipment, Kuzya will live at the factory, occasionally going to sea.
  5. Curious
    Curious 3 May 2017 10: 04
    +2
    Some experts (not to be confused with couch experts), believe that "Admiral Kuznetsov" is not of serious value as a combat unit. Moreover, its operation is dangerous and very expensive for the Russian budget. The ship is offered to be preserved.
    1. Aviaded
      Aviaded 3 May 2017 10: 53
      +3
      Kuzi's value as an aircraft carrier is really small. Its value is that its operation allows you to maintain competence in the field of aircraft carriers and carrier-based aviation. Which may come in handy in the future if a decision is made to build new aircraft carriers. If now Kuzyu is withdrawn from the current structure, then in a few years there will be no experience in the operation of aircraft carriers. Because there will be no sailor aircraft carriers and pilot-decks. To then regain this experience, you will have to fill a lot of cones.
      1. adept666
        adept666 4 May 2017 09: 39
        +2
        Kuzi's value as an aircraft carrier is really small.

        Well, yes of course ... up to 26 MiG-29 in modifications K and KUB or in versions with modernized Su-33 + helicopters (including ka-52K) This is of course absolutely nothing laughing Well, for reference, this is much more than the Air Force in more than half of the countries of the world laughing And of course, only competencies ...
  6. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 3 May 2017 10: 06
    +2
    An attempt to rearm (modernize) a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser is a necessary measure in the modern economic and political reality of our country. The event will allow the Navy to maintain a full-fledged ship of the first rank in the ocean zone. Two alternatives: 1 - write off as morally and physically obsolete; 2 - build a new one according to the new concept of combat use. Today - modernization - a verified, balanced, realistic decision by the leadership of the country and the fleet.
    1. Aviaded
      Aviaded 3 May 2017 11: 09
      +3
      And what is not an option of modernization - to throw out missile weapons at all. The possibility of using aviation will not suffer from this. Spend money on missile systems to spend on other ship systems. Which, judging by the fragmentary data leaking to the press, are far from in perfect condition.
      1. adept666
        adept666 4 May 2017 09: 59
        +2
        And what is not an option of modernization - to throw out missile weapons at all.

        This option was considered. But most likely they decided to leave it so that he could continue to be able to enter the Black Sea without any problems because the Montreux Convention classifies it as a “Linear” ship due to the presence of anti-ship missiles. Although its presence there is not of great military value (for a major war with NATO), but with an operation to force Georgia to peace in 2008, it would not be bad to be able to conduct air strike operations additionally from the sea. In addition, we do not have a sufficient number of ships to warrant for him, and going to the same Syria in splendid isolation without anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles is not good either.
  7. Aviaded
    Aviaded 3 May 2017 10: 34
    +4
    Obviously, you need to drop hurray-patriotism and take for granted that our fleet, in its current state, under no circumstances can compete with the American. In the event of a serious conflict with the Americans, our fleet can only operate near its shores, under the cover of coastal aviation. Any attempts to get out of this cover will inevitably lead to complete destruction.
    Kuzi’s destiny is anti-poip operation. When the enemy does not possess any anti-ship means. Like attacks on ISIS. And in this case, the presence of Granites, Onyxes or Caliber on board is a completely useless option. KR can quite successfully be placed on carriers of much lower displacement and cost. The Caspian flotilla has clearly shown this. At the same time, the missile systems eat up precious space that could be used to greater advantage.
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      3 May 2017 11: 12
      +2
      Well, at the expense of only anti-firing operations, you go too far. The same MiG-29K / KUB can quite be used as machines for inflicting limited pinpoint strikes on more serious NATO objects. But will have to act under the guise of air defense weapons of the same "Peter the Great". For an equal air confrontation with the "Super Hornet" K / KUB should be modernized on the model and likeness of the MiG-35, and Su-33 - by analogy with the Su-30СМ or ​​Su-35 (Hephaestus is not the way out). But the “Calibers” in the 3M14T version of “Admiral Kuznetsov” will be able to play on any Protatov facility, and it will be quite capable of fighting off the US Navy anti-ship weapons, and later on the Pantsiryami-M. The possibilities of air defense will be discussed in the second part of the work ..
      1. Aviaded
        Aviaded 3 May 2017 11: 50
        +3
        If the article dealt with an attack by deck aircraft on some excavator, then yes, the Kuzi air group will undoubtedly cope with such a NATO object. But the article is about "Gerald Ford" and "Karl Vinson"! An equal confrontation will not work, if only because of the incomparability of the number of our and Basurman air groups. Plus, Basurmans have carrier-based AWACS. Which greatly increases the capabilities of aviation connections.
        Yes, 3M14T missiles can strike at any stationary object. But against the moving objects such as AUG, this rocket is completely useless. Yes, and you can run them from some "City of Sviyazhsk", and not from a fool with a displacement of 50 tons.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 3 May 2017 23: 21
          +1
          Quote: Aviaded
          Plus, Basurmans have carrier-based AWACS.

          Well, this is just not a problem, AWAC can fly from the shore.
          1. Aviaded
            Aviaded 5 May 2017 14: 24
            0
            If Kuzya is close to our coast, then yes, it can fly. And if it’s a little further away ...
            We take the well-known (from available sources) characteristics of the A-50. The patrol time at a distance of 1000 km from the base is 4 hours (without refueling). That's all, with what and at what distance from the bases our AWACS aircraft can help Kuza.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 5 May 2017 15: 04
              0
              Quote: Aviaded
              The patrol time at a distance of 1000 km from the base is 4 hours (without refueling). That's all, with what and at what distance from the bases our AWACS aircraft can help Kuza.

              So you need this indicator
              Quote: Aviaded
              4 hours (without refueling)

              To increase, and not build, a separate ship for basing the sea AWACS.
  8. iouris
    iouris 3 May 2017 10: 34
    0
    In the event of a major war, the life span of such a ship will be calculated in minutes, so its expediency and effectiveness should be very seriously substantiated. Of course, not on the forum.
    1. exo
      exo 3 May 2017 13: 22
      0
      Namely, at the present time, during the war with the Russian Federation, the US aircraft carriers have maximum chances to survive. The potential of the Russian Federation is much lower than that of the USSR in this component.
  9. yehat
    yehat 3 May 2017 11: 52
    +2
    the question is not what they can or cannot compete with,
    it must be admitted that the fleet is no longer capable of performing actions independent of land, relying only on its own forces - there are opponents too tough.
  10. exo
    exo 3 May 2017 11: 54
    +1
    Cruise missiles have never been the main weapon of an aircraft carrier or an aircraft carrying cruiser. Therefore, replacing them does not solve many problems. Granites do not change because of a good life. Issue is discontinued, but supporting the fired is more problematic. Kuznetsov may be able to help deploy our SSBNs It is unlikely to be suitable for other actions against the United States and NATO fleets. For local conflicts, it is possible, but not in its current state. When carrier-based aircraft cannot fly from the deck, it is based on ground airfields. Nonsense.
  11. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 May 2017 12: 15
    +4
    The main deck multipurpose aviation systems here should be the Su-33 (T-10K) heavy fighters, the suspension points and avionics of which should be immediately adapted to use the Yakhont-M and 3M51 Alpha anti-ship missiles.

    Trucks are being put on the Su-33 heavy fighters at the aviation cemetery. smile
    These machines were built in the late 80s - early 90s. How much resource do they have for the glider - especially considering operating conditions? Moreover, the machine has been removed from production a long time ago, there is no equipment. It will be cheaper to make a new Sukhoi heavy ship fighter (from Su-30 or Su-35) than to modernize these pensioners.
    An excellent quality of the Su-33 multi-functional fighter is the large fuel system capacity of 12100 liters, which brings the combat radius with two Alpha or one Yakhont-M on board to about 1200 km.

    And now we will try to take off with all this. ©
    Will the Su-33 take off from a distant starting position with a full supply of fuel and suspended anti-ship missiles - at real, not design, speeds of Kuznetsov?
  12. Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 3 May 2017 12: 39
    +3
    mdaa .. Cognitive dissonance - a state of mental discomfort of an individual caused by a clash in his mind of conflicting ideas: ideas, beliefs, values ​​or emotional reactions.
  13. Taoist
    Taoist 3 May 2017 13: 20
    +2
    Well, as far as I read, the Kuzi boiler plant is also being upgraded with the replacement of boilers.
    Second: It is worth remembering that the modernization of the RUK primarily comes down to the installation of universal launchers - which, unlike the Granites, are just that good because they are universal, i.e. can be used for the entire range of missile weapons, including promising samples.
    Third: it is not necessary to constantly compare Americans and our TAKRs are different machines with a different task ... The ability to use a wide range of means and forces from the Kyrgyz Republic to aviation increases tactical and operational flexibility. Saving (read the refusal) from the HAND on a ship that was originally sharpened for its availability simply simply reduces its capabilities and reduces the banal light aircraft carrier that is unable to solve most tasks to support even limited operations.
    So there is a sense in this modernization, as well as a sense in the further modernization of the aviation component, which does not require docking as is known.
  14. brosai_kurit
    brosai_kurit 3 May 2017 13: 38
    +2
    The anti-ship version of the "Caliber" 3M54E1 has a range of only 220 km


    Data for Club export modification. The range of the Russian 3M54 Turquoise is classified. I guess about 1000 km.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 3 May 2017 20: 41
      0
      Quote: brosai_kurit
      Data for Club export modification. The range of the Russian 3M54 Turquoise is classified

      I don’t remember how many times this was explained and they still write.
  15. Paul zewike
    Paul zewike 3 May 2017 13: 47
    +2
    If there is (or will be) an ocean fleet, then aircraft carriers are needed. This is an essential component of the ocean fleet.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 3 May 2017 23: 26
      +1
      Quote: Paul Zewike
      This is an essential component of the ocean fleet.

      Justify your uncompromising statement. When we will be at war with the USA and NATO - what will be the role of aircraft carriers? Even if we begin to build them right now, they will suffer the fate of battleships such as the Soviet Union.
  16. Castro Ruiz
    Castro Ruiz 3 May 2017 14: 32
    +1
    Efektivnost i celeobraznost Kuznetsova svyazana na priamuyu s giperzvukovymi raketami Zirkon a to s dalnostyu ne nizhzhe 1000 km (dalnost 500-800 km nichego nereshaet) i palubnoy aviaciey pok. 4 ++ (korabelnye verzii SU-35 i MIG-35). Poka etogo nebudet, efektivnost TAVRK blizka 0.
  17. Graz
    Graz 3 May 2017 14: 46
    +1
    utter stupidity to compare the indicators of Kuznetsov and Gerald Ford in relation to their mutual confrontation
    American AUGs on occasion will certainly not be destroyed by Kuznetsov, this time
    The effectiveness of modern ACG, in my opinion, is in great doubt in their opposition to us or the Chinese.
    Another big question is whether it is worth building the same Storm in 5-10 years, it may already be there, and a new concept for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles and the appearance of absolutely
    new breakthrough technologies and ha-k drones, so that combat aircraft can be based on them
  18. A1845
    A1845 3 May 2017 15: 24
    0
    The core of this calculator is an Intel Atom E640T processor with a clock frequency of 1 GHz, which is 5,5 thousand times more productive than the previous Ts100 (MiG-29UPG is equipped with a similar product for the Indian Air Force and Su-27SKM). Now the Su-33 has nothing of the kind and is not close.

    a snuffled atom on which you cannot even assemble a normal gaming computer is several orders of magnitude more powerful than the best examples of our military equipment! what is there to add?

    the calibration of everything and everywhere is a clear companionship, is it important to smash the tents of barmaley from the flagship of the fleet?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 May 2017 16: 56
      +5
      Quote: A1845
      calibration of everything and everywhere is obvious companionship

      Not certainly in that way.
      "Calibration" is, first of all, the unification of PU KR and anti-ship missiles, the different types of which on our ships break all records: each rocket has its own type of launcher, and sometimes more than one.
      Plus, at the moment and in the near future, the only new missiles and missiles will be exclusively "caliber-compatible" missiles. And missile launchers for Soviet-era missiles will soon be empty - their resource is not eternal.
      1. A1845
        A1845 3 May 2017 17: 22
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        each rocket has its own type of PU
        yes, there were times when they designed their ship for each type of rocket
        Quote: Alexey RA
        PUs for missiles from the times of the USSR will soon be empty - their resource is not eternal
        exactly! moreover, there will be no heavy RCC, a reversal in the direction of export potential and the projection of force on the tents of barmaley, which is effectively shown on TV.
        And if placing heavy anti-ship missiles on the TAVKR made sense (there’s not much where they fit), then place the Gauges where there’s enough imagination, for example, on container ships ... What is the reason for this PR-action “Gauges - Kuznetsov!”?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 May 2017 10: 29
          0
          Quote: A1845
          What is the reason for this PR-campaign "Gauges - Kuznetsov!"

          There is only one reason: at Kuznetsovo, initially there are PU granites that have been inactive for many years. In fact, now TAVKR is simply carrying dead cargo.
          And on the other hand - there is already a ready-made PU system "caliber", designed to replace the "granite" (designed for pr. 1144).
          And on the third hand, repairs cannot be delayed.
          So it’s quite clear the desire to modernize the TAVKR Group of Companies according to the scheme already worked out and in the economy version. Because if you carry out a complete redevelopment of the bow with the PU cut out, the removal of armor protection, the transfer of the premises between them and the hangar and the extension of the hangar, then the TAVKR will exit the repair right by the time it is written off. smile
          1. A1845
            A1845 4 May 2017 12: 24
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            So it’s quite clear the desire to modernize the TAVKR Group of Companies according to the scheme already worked out and in the economy version

            Yes, you can’t argue with that.
    2. looker-on
      looker-on 3 May 2017 17: 32
      0
      In combat calculations, no other power is needed at the moment. In the USA, too, not i7 are on airplanes. i7 is needed only to draw a picture in WoT [quote] [/ quote] and look for other civilizations (exaggerate)
      1. A1845
        A1845 3 May 2017 17: 35
        0
        alas .. to collect the signal from the synthetic aperture radar, you need stream processing at the level of a good gaming video card wink
  19. okroshka79
    okroshka79 3 May 2017 16: 55
    0
    That's what the Cassegrain antenna know. But the Cassegrain radar is something new. Perhaps Cassegrain himself in the next world for the first time heard about the radar. But what a rmin! Again, the article has a lot of buccaffs, but why, little is understood. Because the fleet is built on the basis of tasks in accordance with military doctrine and economic opportunities. They started talking about OS RUS again, or what? But the author somehow forgot about naval aviation in this case.
  20. Mairos
    Mairos 3 May 2017 17: 44
    0
    Flinky,
    stop bothering me. Figures in the studio - the range of anti-ship missiles versus the range of exposure of the AUG wing. Or do you really think that everyone will immediately begin to "throw hydrogen bombs"? And why is there a mention of nat. strategies?
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 3 May 2017 23: 30
      0
      Quote: Mairos
      Or do you really think that everyone will immediately begin to "throw hydrogen bombs"?

      Russia and the United States will obviously not be at war with each other, not by aircraft carriers or even by the fleet.
  21. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 May 2017 17: 59
    +2
    Unfortunately, the respected author did not understand the tactics of modern naval combat, hence the calculations "range of destruction = combat radius of the aircraft + range of its missiles", etc. And alas, unfamiliarity with tactics dictates completely erroneous judgments
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 May 2017 10: 36
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Unfortunately, the respected author did not understand the tactics of modern naval combat, hence the calculations "range of destruction = combat radius of the aircraft + range of its missiles", etc.

      Yeah ... the same scheme of hitting the American AUG on the KMU for 600 miles was still that whatnot - with flimsy and walking girls tankers and strict adherence to the flight profiles of all participants. But the theoretical numbers from the plates made it possible to simply fly up, reach the launch range, launch the anti-ship missiles and return. smile
  22. For your motherland, your mother))
    0
    Club of lovers of boats))))
    Sorry, I could not resist the friendly irony ;;)))
    1. 31rus4
      31rus4 3 May 2017 21: 54
      +1
      Dear, that’s just how it is, only this applies to big uncles, the concept of fleet development for today (my foreman) is not correct, why chase the USA? To build monsters? To create a lot and quickly we can ship the frigate class, the corvette Here we need to build them equipping with modern pro / air defense systems, the ability to work along the coast, landing support, reconnaissance, a whole range of tasks. Tell a mosquito fleet, but at least something, not blue dreams of future power.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 3 May 2017 23: 36
        0
        Quote: 31rus4
        Create a lot and quickly we can ship a frigate class, a corvette

        The presence of nuclear weapons requires a dispersal of the fleet, the maximum.
  23. Summit
    Summit 4 May 2017 09: 22
    0
    Flinky,
    Yes, yes, iskander with calibers, each creature in pairs. Each ship has one caliber, from the NATO members alone, the Tomogavks have more than 8-9 thousand, and God forbid we get 200-300 missiles right now, what caliber with iskander are you raving about? what will you catch with their nets? One jump, one jump and Tomogavk hit sachek-buuu ha ha ha ha
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 4 May 2017 10: 54
      +1
      Quote: Gipfel
      NATO members alone Tomogavkov more than 8-9 thousand

      Only five thousand of them were produced, and more than half have already been used.
      1. Summit
        Summit 4 May 2017 12: 00
        0
        There are a lot more of them, they are being produced and will be produced. And there are a lot more of them than we have Caliber and it’s only in the USA that you’ll think that NATO is not only Americans but countries such as Canada, Britain, etc.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 4 May 2017 13: 51
          +1
          Quote: Gipfel
          They are many more, they were produced and will be produced.

          7500 pcs - from open sources.
          Quote: Gipfel
          And there are many more of them than our Caliber, and it’s only in the United States you’ll think that NATO is not only Americans, but countries like Canada, Britain, etc.

          Canada and Britain produce tomahawks? Tomahawks from US allies are the same seven thousand five hundred.
    2. Mairos
      Mairos 4 May 2017 13: 38
      0
      At the moment, the US has a TOTAL 4 thousand Tomahawks. There were 2 combat launches in total. Yes, that's a lot, but it's dangerous.
  24. Summit
    Summit 4 May 2017 09: 22
    +1
    Quote: Flinky
    Hear, who considers himself healthy - do not make our Iskanders laugh with Caliber. Naglosax is on target, because he is hysterical, he comes out with shit, but he does not dare to do anything, because he wants to live.
    Flinky,
    Yes, yes, iskander with calibers, each creature in pairs. Each ship has one caliber, from the NATO members alone, the Tomogavks have more than 8-9 thousand, and God forbid we get 200-300 missiles right now, what caliber with iskander are you raving about? what will you catch with their nets? One jump, one jump and Tomogavk hit sachek-buuu ha ha ha ha
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 4 May 2017 10: 55
      +1
      Arguments like
      Quote: Gipfel
      boooo ha ha ha

      not accepted, go to kindergarten.
      1. Summit
        Summit 4 May 2017 11: 57
        +1
        Well, they’ve broken it, I’ll bake you pies and knit mittens and you will protect me while you beat Tomahawks with your foreheads. Previously, it was necessary to think and not to fatten on oil at $ 120 per barrel. I really wanted some fried potatoes, I’ll go to the store. Now they’ve brought us fresh from Israel. On the fields of state farms themselves, we have been frying barbecue for a long time in country houses. five-story
        1. Mairos
          Mairos 4 May 2017 13: 40
          0
          Eat .. maybe, besides sarcasm, understanding will also be added.
        2. KaPToC
          KaPToC 4 May 2017 13: 54
          +2
          Quote: Gipfel
          while you Tomahawks will beat foreheads

          And I don’t need to beat them off with my forehead. Americans simply cannot focus thousands of their tomahawks in one direction. In addition, common sense tells me that they will not send all their tomahawks against a single target.
  25. Summit
    Summit 4 May 2017 11: 54
    +1
    KaPToC, There is corruption, all the corrupt officials there are overseas. Sberbank accounts are in rubles, and therefore they will not fight with us, then feel the difference? And the Shtatovtsy do not go to rest in crowds to us, they do not take residence permits ... um ... they do not have dual citizenship! -It's strange, really, I wrote and thought about it, why actually?
    1. Mairos
      Mairos 4 May 2017 13: 47
      0
      I also do not need the United States, neither for leisure nor for work. Why's that? And the citizenship of neither them nor any other western country either. So what? Such maxims do not say anything. De facto, the United States has managed to become a financial information center and is trying to maintain the status quo. There is a struggle, someone in it for the USA and the West, someone for themselves, for their country. Everyone is free to make a choice - I, to put it mildly, do not like Westerners and penetrators. I for Russia is my choice. You are for the USA. Your choice. We are potential enemies. Dot.
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 4 May 2017 13: 57
      +1
      Quote: Gipfel
      And the shtatovtsy do not go to rest in droves to us, they do not take residence permits

      I’ll tell you a secret - Russia is not the most favorable country for living, but very much the other way around, the most unfavorable climate.
      Quote: Gipfel
      um ... do not have dual citizenship!

      Here you are mistaken - they have quite a few.
      Quote: Gipfel
      There is corruption, all the local corrupt officials there. Accounts in Sberbank in rubles are

      Only those oligarchs who keep them in Russia can save their wealth.
  26. kote119
    kote119 4 May 2017 12: 07
    0
    you give Damantsev instead of the Ragozins (both)
  27. Long live the queen
    Long live the queen 4 May 2017 14: 11
    0
    FlinkyPak
  28. Cyrus
    Cyrus 1 March 2018 18: 58
    0
    Good evening everyone. I doubt that the Onyx range = 300km, rather much more, within a radius of 800 km. Su 33 is outdated, Su 30 and MiG 35 are our choice).
    As for the benefits of aircraft carriers, aviation is still relevant aircraft carriers.
    R.S. and there will not be any AUGs, there will be operational connections 4/5 AB with escort.