Military Review

USC: after modernization, Admiral Kuznetsov will serve at least 20 years

85
The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) is preparing to accept Admiral for the modernization and repair of a heavy aircraft carrier cruiser (TAVKR) Fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov, ”reports Interfax-AVN a message from the deputy head of the corporation for military shipbuilding Igor Ponomarev.



We do not yet have a contract for the repair of TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov", but we approximately represent the scope of work and are preparing,
said Ponomarev.

The ship will be improved on key parameters. After the upgrade, the cruiser can serve at least 20 more years,
added on.

Earlier, the media reported that the fleet command had determined the contours and scale of the upcoming modernization of the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov.

Recall that in February, the Northern Fleet's aircraft carrier group returned to Severomorsk from the Mediterranean Sea. The group included, in particular, the Admiral Kuznetsov and the nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great. Deck aviation aircraft carrier cruiser was involved in the counter-terrorist operation in Syria.
Photos used:
http://3mv.ru
85 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. RASKAT
    RASKAT 28 June 2017 13: 52
    +3
    I hope that over these 20 years a couple of new ones will finally be built.
    1. Machete
      Machete 28 June 2017 13: 53
      +1
      There are chances.
      1. Seaman77
        Seaman77 28 June 2017 17: 48
        +8
        After the upgrade, the cruiser can last at least 20 years,

        This means that the next 20 years there will be no new aircraft carrier.
        1. rJIiOK
          rJIiOK 28 June 2017 19: 18
          +1
          You have a bad logic, one does not follow from the other
    2. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 28 June 2017 13: 59
      +17
      Quote: RASKAT
      I hope that over these 20 years a couple of new ones will finally be built.

      And what the hell are they for us? No, of course, it is impossible to deny the tactical advantage of TAKr. BUT. America needs them, which all over the world climbs where the dog .... does not stick. But such monsters are useless for border guards ... We need hovercraft, we need ekranoplanes (who are interested in the “Caspian Monster”). And these TAKRs - well, yes, to indicate the presence, looks solid .... And in tactical terms - zero ....
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 28 June 2017 14: 03
        +9
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        we need ekranoplans

        what And to hell with us ???
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 28 June 2017 14: 13
          +11
          Quote: Serg65
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          we need ekranoplans

          what And to hell with us ???

          550 kilometers per hour, a landing battalion - very damn .....
          1. Vladimir16
            Vladimir16 28 June 2017 14: 20
            +1
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            And what the hell are they for us?

            We have a dam in the city, on which I repair the road every year. It is every year. One gets the impression that this road is needed just for this purpose. hi
            No matter how strange it may sound, but for repairmen a good ship is one that is broken. And the larger it is, the better.
            So that I agree with you:
            such monsters are useless to us for border protection ...

            And if you dig a little deeper, it can be harmful.
            1. Zoldat_A
              Zoldat_A 28 June 2017 14: 30
              +9
              Quote: Vladimir16
              And if you dig a little deeper, it can be harmful.

              And if the Minister of Defense planted Furniture Huckster, it turns out that we can’t live without these monsters. On it on how much you can steal !!!! This is not for you to stumble .....
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 28 June 2017 14: 32
            +5
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            550 kilometers per hour, a landing battalion - very damn .....

            I recently read here that you were across the river, so imagine they drive you some miracle with the 8 turboprop engines based on the BTR and say, "Comrades, this Monster can land a battalion of troops at a speed of 500 km per hour at a distance of 30 km per share seconds to deliver what do you say?
            1. Zoldat_A
              Zoldat_A 28 June 2017 21: 38
              +7
              Quote: Serg65
              I recently read here that you were across the river, so imagine they drive you some miracle with the 8 turboprop engines based on the BTR and say, "Comrades, this Monster can land a battalion of troops at a speed of 500 km per hour at a distance of 30 km per share seconds to deliver what do you say?

              Well, let’s say, such a miracle is useless by definition by the river - it’s not dust to drive figs. But in the Caspian Sea, on the Baltic Sea, on the Black Sea - a battalion of airborne assault forces or marines in 15-20 minutes to 100 kilometers to transfer - so to say, this is very good. At least, the air way of transfer here clearly loses ....
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 14: 20
        +5
        This is a Caspian monster in tactical terms - zero. The fleet, by the way, is needed not only to protect its own borders. In the Mediterranean, we are not guarding our borders. And by the way, the aircraft carrier in the protection of its borders plays a role far greater than the ekranoplan could have dreamed
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 28 June 2017 14: 25
          +5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This is a Caspian monster in tactical terms - zero.

          hi Welcome Andrew! Do not destroy people's dreams, because the "Caspian Monster" sounds very beautiful! And especially..
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          550 kilometers per hour, airborne battalion

          Eh. as much blood in my veins boils !!!
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 16: 37
            +2
            Quote: Serg65
            550 kilometers per hour, airborne battalion

            Eh. as much blood in my veins boils !!!

            Well, yes, of course it :))))) Especially from the realization that one falconry with a loom is enough for the entire battalion to die the brave without the slightest hope of survival
        2. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 28 June 2017 14: 37
          +6
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In the Mediterranean, we are not guarding our borders.

          I hope Andrey from Chelyab, you know what you are talking about. I’m not a border guard, far from their specifics and for more than twenty years I have only done it myself and taught the boys how to overcome various kinds of obstacles - legal and natural. But, I think, in case of breaking the border from platoon to battalion in 15, delivering it in minutes is expensive ..... If there were a regiment of infantry in the Bug on 3.55 22 in June, the story would not have turned otherwise, and the episode would have been significant .....
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 28 June 2017 14: 43
            +6
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            If in the 3.55 22 of June on the Bug there was a regiment of infantry - history would not have turned otherwise,

            Oh my friend, there’s no regiment, there were divisions !!!
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 16: 17
            +2
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            But, I think, in the event of a breakthrough of the border from a platoon to a battalion in 15 minutes, delivering is expensive .....

            Dear Zoldat A, an ekranoplan for basing requires its own dock. In this case, he will be able to fly seriously seriously only over the water surface. So for border guards it is completely useless.
            1. Zoldat_A
              Zoldat_A 29 June 2017 01: 53
              +5
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              , ekranoplan for basing requires its own dock.

              How long to build? Throw money, check that it is not stolen - and everything will be ... Moreover, “Lun”, for example, is moored exactly to the same place where “Meteors” and “Rocket” are moored on our Volga. So in terms of infrastructure, everything is easy ... But the airborne battalion at a speed of 550 kilometers per hour is cool. Even with IL-76, his family can argue ...
              1. Nebuchadnezzar
                Nebuchadnezzar 29 June 2017 05: 44
                0
                it would be better if they thought, but in truth does he need him for basing?
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 June 2017 08: 58
                0
                Quote: Zoldat_A
                How long to build? Throw money, control it so that it is not stolen - and everything will be ...

                So moshna is not rubber :)))
                Quote: Zoldat_A
                Moreover, "Lun", for example, is moored exactly to the same place where "Meteors" and "Missiles" are moored on our Volga.

                Suppose (although this is actually not the case - Luny will have to miraculously have to be transferred from the place where his dock to the Volga). And I strongly doubt that the moon can pass along the Volga on its own on the fly. there is a rather complicated gateway system and hydroelectric power station ... But that is not the point. Of course, I am also not a border guard, and to my deep shame I can’t remember which state border we have along the Volga? :))))) Surely we need an ekranoplan against Kazakhstan? :))))
                Quote: Zoldat_A
                Even with IL-76, it can argue with relatives ...

                So the 76th for the most part will do better. In some cases, an ekranoplane will be better than Il, but in large Hamburg it is necessary to provide an air cover for an ekranoplane, it is extremely vulnerable to fire from the ground, so you don’t use it very well within the reach of enemy fire weapons, and a large amount of land space is available for paratroopers ekranoplan not available
                1. Zoldat_A
                  Zoldat_A 29 June 2017 16: 23
                  +5
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  So 76 for the most part will do better.

                  IL-76 - dear, there’s no talk ... Although ... 95% of the first jump (read - a wedding with the sky) jumped either from Mi or from Kukuruznik ... Yes, and tactically, throwing large groups of stupid .... More and more pyochom-pyohom, while feet to the knees on the stones do not knock off .... Over the night, new ones grow back ... request The paratrooper is a bird and a half minutes, and the rest of the time - a horse ....
        3. NEXUS
          NEXUS 28 June 2017 14: 50
          +5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This is a Caspian monster in tactical terms - zero

          And Eaglet or Lun say with 16 PU with Zircons? M.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And by the way, the aircraft carrier in the protection of its borders plays a role far greater than the ekranoplan could have dreamed

          But to balance the fleet and tasks is apparently not fate? wassat Why are you so ekranoplanes that interfere? While we are leaders in this matter, the Chinese, for example, are also developing ekranoplans and do not say that they do not need them, while the aircraft carriers are also in order.
          Here at the copper line there was an article about the resumption of construction of hovercraft such as the Bison ... the ekranoplan is much faster and more load-carrying than these Bison.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 28 June 2017 15: 14
            +5
            Quote: NEXUS
            Why are you so ekranoplanes that interfere?

            I wildly apologize for not getting into my business.
            The ekranoplanes are essentially Ustinov’s greetings, with the same greetings as the YAK 38 and YAK-141. Having received the same “Lun”, the guys with spiders on their shoulders began to think of guessing what kind of operational tactical task they would come up with for the “Monster”, and they came up with it ... with the start of hostilities, “Lun” had to jump from Donuzlav to the Bosphorus and pull 6-th "Mosquitoes" somewhere there through Turkey! At the same time, in the Southern Group of Forces, on the border of Bulgaria with Turkey, there was a whole brigade of the Reduk DBK with the P-35B anti-ship missile. Here is such an interesting story about ekranoplans. hi
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 28 June 2017 15: 18
              +3
              Quote: Serg65
              Here is such an interesting story about ekranoplans.

              You do not tell me, I myself am from Nizhny Novgorod.
              I’m saying that technologies do not stand still, and now they completely allow creating a capable shock complex, which no one has yet. By the way, as far as I heard, the problem of maneuverability of an ekranoplan seemed to be solved at high speeds. At the same time, there is such a topic as ekranoleta.
              This field is not plowed. We’ll sleep, then we’ll have to catch up. A bunch of examples.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 16: 30
            +3
            Quote: NEXUS
            And Eaglet or Lun say with 16 PU with Zircons? M.

            What for? What are you going to do? We have submarines, the thing is not fast, but stable due to its invisibility. We have aviation, a thing fast, but unstable due to the known fragility. And you offer an ekranoplane, which is slower than aircraft, but also unstable to the effects of the enemy. What for? There are no such tasks that a submarine or an airplane cannot solve, but it can be an impact ekranoplan. And the ekranoplan is unable to replace either the submarine or the aircraft. Well, why spend money on nago, all the more so since it is an EXTREMELY expensive and very capricious redundancy?
            Quote: NEXUS
            I eat you so ekranoplans interfere?

            Spray power. It is necessary to create something that will benefit, and not on the basis of the "Schaub Bulo" principle. Ekanoplan does not fit the criterion of "cost / effectiveness"
            Quote: NEXUS
            While we are leaders in this matter, the Chinese, for example, are also developing ekranoplans and do not say that they do not need them, while the aircraft carriers are also in order.

            The Chinese are developing a lot of things, and this is not a reason to monkey up. The memorable Dongfeng example
            Quote: NEXUS
            the ekranoplan is much faster and more load-carrying than these Bison.

            Bison due to the fact that it easily lands ashore, 70% of the world's oceans are accessible. And an ekranoplan with minimal excitement is not like on an unequipped coast - it will not be able to land on a pier
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 28 June 2017 17: 36
              +3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              What for? What are you going to do?

              For example, to have a strike complex capable of drowning aircraft carriers ... and there is no need to tell here that they are slow and have a large EPR ... ekranoplan due to the fact that it moves at low altitude, is a very inconvenient target for radars.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Do you offer an ekranoplane, which is slower than aircraft, but also unstable to the enemy?

              Why is he not stable, dear? Do you have results on its use? Then tell the people do not be shy.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And the ekranoplan is unable to replace either the submarine or the aircraft.

              And he does not need this ... He has his own tasks and opportunities. At the same time, the carrying capacity can be very significant, which means that the arsenal can be placed on it much more serious than on the same Bison.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Well, why spend money on nago, all the more so since it is an EXTREMELY expensive and very capricious redundancy?

              Oh how ... can you name the price? In this case, take into account new technologies, materials, arsenal, radar, etc. ... and take a look.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Spray power.

              What kind of dissipation of speech, dear?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It is necessary to create something that will benefit, and not on the principle of "Schaub Bulo"

              Following your reinforced concrete logic, the Bison is also a very vulnerable target, and much less fast and hard to control. But "Schaub was," of course it is necessary to start production.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The Chinese are developing a lot of things, and this is not a reason to monkey up.

              Dear, it’s just the Chinese who are monkeying that we are the pioneers in the topic of ekranoplanes, if you don’t know this ... and while we are still leaders in this matter.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Bison due to the fact that it easily lands ashore, 70% of the world's oceans are accessible

              And Eaglet apparently did not come out easily ... lol
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And an ekranoplan with minimal excitement is not like on an unequipped coast - it will not be able to land on a pier

              You are apparently not at all in the subject of discussion ...Seaworthiness - 5-6 points
              The undoubted advantages of ekranoplanes include an excellent combination of speed and carrying capacity. They can move at an airplane speed (up to 600 km / h), while their carrying capacity is comparable to a small ship.
              1) The ekranoplanes are very tenacious; in the event of an accident, they can simply land on water even with relatively high excitement.
              2) Such devices are capable of flying not only over the water surface, any flat surface is suitable for them: desert, tundra, ice.
              3) Ekranoplanes are very economical: during a flight on the screen they spend 30% less fuel than traditional airplanes.
              4) These devices do not need an airfield, a fairly small water area or a flat land area.
              4) Another advantage of the ekranoplan is its low visibility for radars as a result of flying at an altitude of several meters.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 18: 37
                +3
                Quote: NEXUS
                For example, to have a strike complex capable of drowning aircraft carriers ...

                And why is it needed in the presence of nuclear submarines and aircraft? What are its advantages justifying its development, construction, creation of a separate infrastructure for it, etc.?
                Quote: NEXUS
                .and do not tell here that they are slow and their EPR is large ... ekranoplan due to the fact that it moves at low altitude is a very inconvenient target for radars.

                WIG is an GREAT target for radars, in this respect it is in no way inferior to a surface ship or low-flying aircraft. If you heard a jingle, but don’t know where it is, study the materiel. WIG has never been positioned as an inconspicuous target. It was positioned as a difficult target, because in those distant years, when floppy disks were large and monitors small, SAM and air-to-air missiles could hardly work at heights of 10-15 meters. And it turned out that for these missiles the ekranoplan flies too low, and for the RCC - too fast.
                And now it is quite vulnerable to modern "air" missiles and missiles - they learned how to deal with low-flying
                Quote: NEXUS
                Why is he not stable, dear? Do you have results on its use? Then tell the people do not be shy.

                Why talk? The people already know very well that a low-flying object, struck even by light SD, when falling onto a water surface at a speed of over 500 km / h, turns into a mass grave of the crew. This is just a revelation for you.
                Quote: NEXUS
                And he does not need this ... He has his own tasks and opportunities.

                Well, list them And explain why an airplane or a ship can’t cope with these tasks, or in which the ekranoplan has a fundamental advantage
                Quote: NEXUS
                Oh how ... can you name the price? In this case, take into account new technologies, materials, arsenal, radar, etc. ... and take a look.

                Take the design of the ekranoplan and compare it with a conventional transport aircraft of similar carrying capacity. Recount the number of engines, remember what additional efforts you need to make to ensure the strength and corrosion resistance of the casing for water landing, additional / protection of air intakes from water and other and other - and no longer ask strange questions
                Quote: NEXUS
                What kind of dissipation of speech, dear?

                For the money spent on R&D on ekranoplans and the basing structure they need. Which, generally speaking, can build ships or planes
                Quote: NEXUS
                Following your reinforced concrete logic, the Bison is also a very vulnerable target, and much less fast and hard to control. But "Schaub was," of course it is necessary to start production.

                The bison will not die at full speed if it is fired from a heavy machine gun. Unlike ekranoplan
                Quote: NEXUS
                Dear, it’s just the Chinese who are monkeying that we are the pioneers in the topic of ekranoplanes, if you don’t know this ... and while we are still leaders in this matter.

                So let them go nuts further. Thank God, we are already somewhat different from monkeys, and we would like to believe - for the better.
                But your argument has obviously come to a standstill. You just set the Chinese as an example - they say they are developing ekranoplanes, we also need. But in fact, it turns out that they are monkey-headed in the USSR? Well, what is the point then of your argument?
                Quote: NEXUS
                And Eaglet apparently did not come out easily ...

                NATURALLY! Have you ever seen a video of Orlyonok's release? And his "ski"? How will you go out on this cuttlefish in 3-4 points? And on a rocky beach - weak? :)))) "Eaglet" could go ashore. If this beach is a table-smooth beach. But here's the problem - paratroopers sometimes need to land in much more difficult conditions
                Quote: NEXUS
                You are apparently not at all in the subject of discussion ... Seaworthiness - 5-6 points

                This means that the ekranoplane will not go to the bottom at 5-6 points while in the water, and not that he is able to perform his tasks in such weather
                Quote: NEXUS
                The undoubted advantages of ekranoplanes include an excellent combination of speed and carrying capacity. They can move at an airplane speed (up to 600 km / h), while their carrying capacity is comparable to a small ship.

                Brad Sive Cable. The ekranoplan has a disgusting combination of its own weight / payload and this is well known. For example, the IL-76 has 88,5 tons of dead weight and 210 tons of maximum take-off weight - payload (fuel and cargo), it carries 1,37 kg per kilogram of dry weight. The "Lun" this figure is only 0,56 kg. Comparing ships is generally ridiculous.
                Quote: NEXUS
                The ekranoplanes are very tenacious; in the event of an accident, they can simply land on water even with relatively high excitement.

                Even greater nonsense - after receiving combat damage on an ultra-small ekranoplan, it just crashes into water.
                Quote: NEXUS
                Such devices are capable of flying not only over the water surface, any flat surface is suitable for them: desert, tundra, ice.

                Like an ordinary airplane. Only a plane to all these deserts / ice and mountains is generally violet
                Quote: NEXUS
                Ekranoplanes are very economical: during a flight on the screen they spend 30% less fuel than traditional airplanes.

                Frank lies, since ekranoplanes are significantly inferior in range to aircraft. And you don’t have to be 7 spans in your forehead to guess why.
                Quote: NEXUS
                These devices do not need an airfield, a fairly small water area or a flat land area.

                That is why for the "moon" were forced to keep a separate dock for basing. They don’t need an airfield, yeah ...
                Quote: NEXUS
                Another advantage of the ekranoplan is its low visibility for radars as a result of a flight at an altitude of several meters.

                I already wrote about this above.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 28 June 2017 19: 08
                  +3
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And why is it needed in the presence of nuclear submarines and aircraft?

                  Oh how. lol And now we recall how much during the Union forces were unloaded to destroy one AUG ... laughing Remind you or look for yourself?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  creating a separate infrastructure for it, etc.?

                  Dear, any military equipment requires a certain placement, storage and basing. What is the problem then?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  WIG-EXCELLENT target for radar

                  Uti the ways ... wassat That is, in addition to the fact that he is a low-moving target, that is, so inconspicuous, if you apply stealth technologies, interference complexes, etc. he will continue to remain a GREAT target ... laughing And then, excuse me, what ship or plane is not an EXCELLENT goal? laughing
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Have you ever seen a video of Orlyonok's release?

                  Inattention to your opponent’s words is amazing — I said, I’m from Nizhny Novgorod.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  This means that the ekranoplane will not go to the bottom at 5-6 points while in the water, and not that he is able to perform his tasks in such weather

                  Where are the woods from, dear? Don’t share? For example, I know that at 5 points, Eaglet, and Lun were able to carry out a combat mission, and not dumbly hang out like excrement on the waves. Or did you participate in testing these machines? lol






                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Even greater nonsense - after receiving combat damage on an ultra-small ekranoplan, it just crashes into water.

                  Why do you think so? Eaglets have been used successfully and what? And do not forget that this is all the development of the 60-70s ... since that time, do you think nothing has changed?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Only a plane to all these deserts / ice and mountains is generally violet

                  And the target is wonderful ... far to see ..
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Frank lies, since ekranoplanes are significantly inferior in range to aircraft. And you don’t have to be 7 spans in your forehead to guess why.

                  Do you compare ekranoplanes with which planes? With strategists? So fighters are also inferior to strategists in the distance, let's not produce them ... why are they? wassat In the 70s, on those engines and with those technologies, the same Lun ran for 2000 km ... for the Baltic, Black Sea, Mediterranean, even the northern seas, it’s quite good.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I already wrote about this above.

                  Stupidity frankly wrote, dear, and more specifically Nonsense. What do you know about developments on the subject of ekranoplanes and ekranoletov, in addition to digging in the internet?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 June 2017 08: 34
                    +1
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Oh how. And now we recall how much during the Union the forces were eliminated to destroy one AUG ... Do you want to be reminded or look for yourself?

                    Listen, well, don’t have to snarl in a frying pan. I asked you a specific question - what benefits will the ekranoplane have over ships or aircraft. If you are unable to give an answer, then admit it, at least it will be honest.
                    The question is not what planes / ships forces planned to destroy the AUG. The question is whether it is possible to replace part or all of the planes / ships needed to destroy AUGs with ekranoplanes and whether it will be more effective. To destroy the AUG, 2 MRA regiments (Tu-22M3) were required under the cover of an IA (preferably also at least two regiments) and support aircraft. In many ways, this amount was explained by not the best performance characteristics of our X-22, which had a mass of almost two Onyxes, but because of its lack of resistance to electronic warfare, the extremely short range of use. Tu-22M3 carried 2 X-22s each, today a similar aircraft could carry 4 Onyx, so the size of the strike group is reduced to a regiment.
                    The Lun, which basically corresponds to the Tu-22M3 in terms of its technological level, carried only 6 Mosquitoes, i.e. roughly 8 Onyxes. In other words, 1 ekranoplan would deliver as many modern missiles to the salvo point as 2 Tu-22M3.
                    You just don’t have to tell amazing stories that progress does not stand still and that at today's technological base Lun would be much more perfect. Because, do not believe it, if the Tu-22M3 were to be created on today's technological base, it would also be much more advanced, so this will not affect the comparative ratio of the Tu-22M3 ekranoplan
                    But what’s really sad for the ekranoplan is its low speed compared to an airplane. The fact is that the ability to carry a certain number of missiles does not characterize the effectiveness of the tool :))) Efficiency in this case is the ability to deliver a certain number of missiles to the line of their launch.. AUG has a certain radius of detection of the enemy, provided mainly by EW / AWACS aircraft, which have a low-flying aircraft, an ekranoplan - all are the same. Accordingly, for attackers it becomes extremely critical time from the moment the rocket carrier is discovered until it reaches the rocket launch point. The ekranoplan has about three to four times as much (after detecting the Tu-22M3 there is no point in hitting the waves - you can cut the fast and the furious), respectively, there will be longer the time for the possible response of AUG to a threat, which means that the losses of ekranoplanes will also be greater. Accordingly, the outfit of forces for ekranoplanes will have to be increased - they will be spotted approximately at the same time as the aircraft, but they will simply be knocked down more before reaching the salvo point. Thus, the ratio of 1 lun versus 2 Tu-22M3 is incorrect and actually worse for the eco-plan.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Dear, any military equipment requires a certain placement, storage and basing. What is the problem then?

                    The fact that for some types of equipment this is the most “specific placement and storage” is much cheaper than for others. Hint - a separate personal dock - it is VERY expensive :)))
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Get out of the way ... That is, in addition to being a low-moving target, that is, an inconspicuous one, if you use stealth technologies, interference systems, etc., it will continue to be an EXCELLENT target ... And then, excuse me, which ship or plane is NOT EXCELLENT target?

                    Well, the case is extremely neglected ....
                    Naturally, a ship and an airplane will also be great targets. In this regard, the ekranoplan does not have advantages over an airplane or ship (except for the submarine, of course). And if it doesn’t, then what is there to talk about?
                    You will not understand in any way that in order to develop any new weapons system it is necessary that it has advantages over existing systems. In this case, the ekranoplane has no advantages over surface ships / aircraft, which means that radar visibility is not the basis for the development of ekranoplan. Try to comprehend it at your leisure
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Inattention to your opponent’s words is amazing — I said, I’m from Nizhny Novgorod.

                    Yes, even from the Upper Pyshma. But I like how you get away from directly posed questions.
                    If it seems to you that the fact that you are from Nizhny = what you saw the ekranoplane, let me disappoint. These are two different facts.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    For example, I know that with 5 balls, Eaglet, and Lun were able to carry out a combat mission, and not stupidly hang out, like excrement on the waves

                    Refer to the source of your knowledge, what if it turns out to refute me? :)
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Why do you think so? Eaglets have been used successfully and what?

                    Are you raving When was the Eaglet used in combat? When did they receive combat damage?
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    And the target is wonderful ... far to see ..

                    The ultra-small Tu-22M3 will be seen from about the same place as the ekranoplan. And their combat radius is comparable. That's just the Tu-22M3, even on the smallest, will fly twice as fast as an ekranoplan.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Do you compare ekranoplanes with which planes? With strategists? So fighters are also inferior to strategists in the distance, let's not produce them ... why are they?

                    Fighters are then needed to destroy enemy aircraft, because strategists do not know how to do this :)))) Thus, the presence of fighters is predetermined by the specific task of gaining air supremacy, which other classes of aircraft cannot solve (as an option, they cannot solve with sufficient efficiency ) And I’m asking for the thirty-third time - what task can the ekranoplan solve, which other types of weapons cannot solve? laughing
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    In the 70s on those engines and with those technologies, the same Lun ran for 2000 km ...

                    yes schazzz. 2000 km is a practical range, i.e. combat radius (maximum) 1000 km. At Tu-22M3, Schaub, you knew a combat radius of 12 tons of combat load at an extremely small 1500-1600 km.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Stupidity frankly wrote, dear, and more specifically Nonsense

                    Nah, not stupidity and not nonsense. And you know why? Because after each such statement I give explanations (often in numbers) justifying my statements. You are incapable of this, therefore your statements about "stupidity" and "delirium" are nothing more than a concussion.
            2. Zoldat_A
              Zoldat_A 29 June 2017 02: 01
              +6
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              What for? What are you going to do? We have submarines, the thing is not fast, but stable due to its invisibility.

              Can a landing battalion be planted on a submarine? I am not a specialist diver. On the contrary. Explain to the foolish .....
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 June 2017 09: 04
                0
                Quote: Zoldat_A
                Can a landing battalion be planted on a submarine?

                You know, in the USSR a landing submarine was developed :)))) But they didn’t build it - there, if my memory serves me right, they planned a landing in Greenland :)))
                In principle, an amphibious assault is possible. But here again there are big restrictions - the depths must be sufficient for the boat to come close to the shore, or it must be disembarked from inflatable means (still a normal tank landing boat should not be pushed into the boat) in general ... A boat is probably not for paratroopers, but for saboteurs.
          3. Zoldat_A
            Zoldat_A 28 June 2017 21: 44
            +7
            Andrew, hi !
            Quote: NEXUS
            But to balance the fleet and tasks is apparently not fate?

            Well, at least someone supported me with my ekranoplans. drinks And then I’m standing alone, screaming in the middle of the desert, and all around are just cursing ....
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 29 June 2017 00: 23
              +4
              Quote: Zoldat_A
              Andrew, !

              Alex. hi
              I am Nizhny Novgorod ... and Alekseev comes from there ...))
              Quote: Zoldat_A
              Well, at least someone supported me with my ekranoplans.

              I am convinced that ekranoplanes have a future in the army. This topic is only just developing ... and criticizing through the lip, at least it's silly.
              Remember the birth of the first infantry fighting vehicles ... they also said, why it, if there are tanks ... but we became the founders of this.
              1. Zoldat_A
                Zoldat_A 29 June 2017 00: 46
                +7
                Quote: NEXUS
                Remember the birth of the first BMP ...

                I remember saying that BRDM is a dead-born branch of armored vehicles ... Well, in fact - there’s really no weapons, armor is nonsense ... And let critics of the BRDM tell the boys in Kandahar ... Where every bump, every stone worked for us. .. Not to mention the "box" .... And BMD personally Vasily Filippovich oversaw. But he understood that the landing was necessary. I was lucky in my life - PERSONALLY Vasily Filippovich trained. I always say with pride - I am MARGELOVETS !!!
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 29 June 2017 01: 22
                  +4
                  Quote: Zoldat_A
                  I remember saying that BRDM is a dead-born branch of armored vehicles ..

                  So I am convinced that the ekranoplanes have a glorious future ... now many do not see prospects and their application ... and tanks? The times when they first appeared, or armored cars? But you never know ... about firearms, too, a lot of things were said in due time. It’s stupid to take positions where we are first.
                  Quote: Zoldat_A
                  I always say with pride - I am MARGELOVETS !!!

                  And it is expensive. soldier
        4. abc_alex
          abc_alex 28 June 2017 15: 05
          +3
          This is a Caspian monster in tactical terms - zero.


          That is, do you think that a high-speed carrier of heavy anti-ship missiles has no tactical prospects?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 28 June 2017 15: 21
            +3
            Quote: abc_alex
            That is, do you think that a high-speed carrier of heavy anti-ship missiles has no tactical prospects?

            KSM did not carry any strike weapons. It was more a laboratory. But Lun carried, Mosquitoes.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 16: 34
            +4
            Quote: abc_alex
            That is, do you think that a high-speed carrier of heavy anti-ship missiles has no tactical prospects?

            A high-speed carrier of heavy anti-ship missiles is a strategic launcher a la Tu-160 or PAK DA, if you like. Here it is - really high speed. And the ekranoplan, which will lose to the plane at a speed of 2-4 times (in range, by the way, too) - well, never a speed
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex 29 June 2017 17: 36
              +1
              A missile carrier of the Tu-160 type will lose the crashes in survivability and effectiveness.
              Firstly, if we talk about the "Mosquito" then this rocket with a diameter of 80 cm and a length of almost 10 meters has a mass of about 4,5 tons. Most likely he will not fit into the weapons compartment of the existing Tu-160. I’m silent about the Granit rocket. “Onyxes” will fit into it, but this is not a heavy RCC. You can create aviation anti-ship missiles, type X-22. But the whole point is to use the naval anti-ship missiles, and not the special one. And I strongly doubt that heavy naval missiles can generally be launched from an airplane, especially at supersonic sound.

              Further, from anti-aircraft means, the ekranolet is hiding behind the horizon, hidden behind it, it can come at cruising speed and altitude to the target almost point-blank.
              A plane like T-160 has a cruising altitude of 10-12 kilometers, at this altitude it will be seen for many kilometers, perhaps even before entering the launch zone, the target is not small. And therefore it can be intercepted. You can make an airplane with low radio stealth, but so far no one has been able to make a strategic supersonic stealth bomber. And taking into account that there is no sense in attacking an AUG with one side, a raid of such aircraft will most likely be noticed much in advance. You can, of course, lower the Tu-160, but then the very concept of a supersonic bomber loses its meaning, since at low altitudes it most likely will not work.

              You can try to attach a heavy anti-ship missile under a heavy fighter. But when suspended from the outside, it will greatly reduce the LTX of the carrier. I recall that the standard configuration of the Tu-22 was one X-22 missile and a couple of bombs. To break through the AUG anti-aircraft defense, at least 100 missiles in a salvo are needed. How many fighters do you throw on such a raid?

              Some promising subsonic stealth bomber will probably be able to deliver several heavy anti-ship missiles to the launch zone, but it is unlikely that it will fly multiple times faster than the ekranoleta. 700-900 km / h This is faster than the Moon with its 500 km / h, but this speed will cost much more. For example, Spirit can take up to 23 tons, which in principle is the same 6 Mosquitoes by weight (not by volume!) But how much does Spirit cost? from 1 to one and a half billion dollars.

              If you just sit down and impartially evaluate the ekranolet and the plane as high-speed carriers, heavy RCC, then the aircraft has very few advantages. Only speed. But for the fleet, with its speeds of 60-70 km / h, even 400-500 km / h is already higher than the roof.
      3. Kent0001
        Kent0001 28 June 2017 14: 21
        +1
        If a couple of our aircraft carriers now stick out in the Mediterranean Sea, perhaps there would already be other arrangements in Syria. The question of their content with our capabilities is a slightly different topic (to put it mildly).
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 28 June 2017 14: 40
          +7
          Quote: Kent0001
          If a couple of our aircraft carriers now stick out in the Mediterranean, perhaps there would have been other handouts in Syria.
          But we don’t need another alignment - C-400 is enough. American pilots also have a non-stainless dupa ...
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 28 June 2017 14: 51
          +4
          Quote: Kent0001
          If a couple of our aircraft carriers would now stick out in the Mediterranean, perhaps there would already be other alignments in Syria

          They were different when during the Union there stood the Mediterranean 5 squadron.
      4. Bourbon
        Bourbon 28 June 2017 15: 50
        +4
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        And what the hell are they for us?

        you don’t need, but we need!
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        we need ekranoplans
        wassat fool for what ?? ... stupid iron, expensive to maintain, not having any prospects as a combat unit, and just cut the dough ..... well, unless of course your phrase is taken into account -
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        But such monsters are useless for border protection ... We need hovercraft, we need ekranoplanes
        then yeah-ah ... to guard the borders, we really need ekranoplanes and air-cushion landing ships .... then no spy will cross the border ..... fool
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 14: 18
      +1
      And there were even encouraging press releases.
      S.-PETERSBURG, June 28 - RIA Novosti. The Russian Navy has planned the construction of a new aircraft carrier, deputy commander-in-chief for armaments Viktor Bursuk told reporters on Wednesday.
    4. DOCTOR ZLO
      DOCTOR ZLO 28 June 2017 14: 31
      +1
      Quote: RASKAT
      I hope that over these 20 years a couple of new ones will finally be built.

      “The Navy will build an aircraft carrier. The model of the aircraft carrier has already been presented by the Krylovsk center, and other developments are being worked out, ”said Bursuk at the International Naval Salon in St. Petersburg.

      https://news.mail.ru/politics/30216102/?frommail=
      1
    5. kos2910
      kos2910 29 June 2017 07: 59
      0
      Quote: RASKAT
      I hope that over these 20 years a couple of new ones will finally be built.

      What for? Well, one thing - to restore technology. We do not wage colonial wars.
  2. DEPARTMENT
    DEPARTMENT 28 June 2017 13: 54
    +1
    Yes, I would have launched it in the direction of the USA (at a low speed) and let it go on its own ..! And let them guess what we have there .. And for 10 km flood on the California border! And under the anthem of the USSR, be sure to loudly! It would be nice ..
    We need to build a new men!
    1. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 28 June 2017 14: 15
      +7
      Quote: DEPARTMENT
      And for 10 km flood at the California border!

      With a nuclear non-removable charge in 50 megatons .... lol A cool gift to America will be ....
      1. DOCTOR ZLO
        DOCTOR ZLO 28 June 2017 17: 43
        +1
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        Quote: DEPARTMENT
        And for 10 km flood at the California border!

        With a nuclear non-removable charge in 50 megatons .... lol A cool gift to America will be ....

        Then give Eunu (barter exchange) for the Casino ....
  3. okko077
    okko077 28 June 2017 13: 57
    +1
    Yes, we need such a ship. He is needed to demonstrate presence. From a military point of view, it does not make sense even in local conflicts. Make ships like the Mistral, they will be more efficient, we do not need new aircraft carriers. Moreover, we do not have airplanes for these aircraft carriers to work on the ground, and why do new ones for the 1st ship? ... If you really want to, first make a plane. Subsonic, not an attack aircraft, with a large bomb load and simple, designed for local conflicts ...
  4. askme
    askme 28 June 2017 14: 02
    +1
    MiG-29K - a wonderful multi-functional deck aircraft that works perfectly on the ground. As the campaign in Syria proved. As an air defense aircraft carrier or an escort air defense aircraft carrier in the event of a global conflict and as a strike in anti-Poip events, it is an indispensable ship in the Russian Navy :)
    1. okko077
      okko077 28 June 2017 14: 25
      +1
      The aircraft "gaining superiority over short-range drive" during take-off with a normal bomb load from the springboard of such an aircraft carrying ship beyond 300 km cannot work. Moreover, the pilot often does not have the opportunity to even make a second approach not only to the target, but also to board the plane ... Compose fairy tales more about perfectly working on the ground a car that can only buzz.
      1. askme
        askme 28 June 2017 14: 36
        +1
        Tales about the combat radius of 300 km with a "normal bomb load" on the MiG-29K you compose here. To be more precise, it’s just your chatter, not based on real facts. Rumors, prejudices, etc. are not a reflection of the truth ...
        In addition, each of the Mig-29Ks is also a refueling machine ...
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 17: 05
        +1
        Quote: okko077
        The aircraft "gaining superiority over short-range drive" during take-off with a normal bomb load from the springboard of such an aircraft carrying ship beyond 300 km cannot work.

        Can.
        1. okko077
          okko077 28 June 2017 18: 52
          0
          When taking off from a springboard, the MIG-29K has weight restrictions. The normal take-off weight is 17770 kg. Empty weight 14000 kg. The mass of fuel in internal tanks is 4550 kg. For mathematicians: when taking off with only two rockets and with full fuel tanks, the weight is more than the normal take-off, about 19000 kg.
          It is alleged that the combat radius is 850 km, this is an advertising figure - in fact, less than 700 km .... And now count 2000 kg of bombs and only by reducing the fuel supply for the average pilot. Here's the radius, well, let not 350 km, I turned it down, about 400 km ... And forget about the maximum combat load, this is not for a springboard ...
          Your objections ... Now it is clear why the Jews who created this aircraft offer to refuel it in the air immediately after takeoff. even from another MIG-29 ... It’s not funny ... Each flight is already a heroic deed, but with combat use on the ground it’s already a feat. Why do we need such squats?
          1. askme
            askme 28 June 2017 22: 01
            0
            Nonsense. First, the maximum take-off weight of the MiG-29K is MISCELLANEOUS when taking off from Kuznetsov, it depends on the starting position. The first and second - one number, the third - different. In addition, the maximum take-off weight depends on the speed of the ship (headwind). Secondly, the source of the figure "17000 kg" is wrong and not given. In a word - this bullshit is a given figure.
            1. okko077
              okko077 28 June 2017 23: 07
              0
              Very convincing, but what nonsense? Give the numbers. Or weak? And I don’t actually argue, but affirm that you are a dummy ... MIG-29K cannot work from a springboard with a decent bomb load ... This is a fact, and the argument about particulars does not make sense ...
              1. askme
                askme 28 June 2017 23: 31
                0
                Not rubbish - this is the fact that the first and second starting positions on Kuznetsovo give 110 meters of run, and the third starting position gives 190 meters of run, i.e. almost twice as much. And it is the third starting position that is most often used for strike missions. And only a person absolutely far from reality, a talker and an ignoramus like you, who does not know the elementary basics in carrier-based aviation, either in theory or in practice, can categorically and impudently write down here a categorical and impudent nonsense, about the “17000kg” take-off weight of the MiG- 29K when working from all starting positions of Kuznetsov and at any aircraft carrier speeds + any indicators of wind strength. If you don’t know, better keep quiet. And reduce your ambition.

                Russia has something to be proud of. And our Kuznetsov, and our planes and our combat pilots are worthy of respect. And not ignorance and not rudeness from people absolutely far from the fleet ...
                1. okko077
                  okko077 29 June 2017 01: 39
                  0
                  And what does Kuznetsov and our pilots have to do with it? And the MIG-29K as a bomber from a springboard completely sucks. The fighter is good, but because of the small radius only for show-offs. And you will be clever about starting positions with ignoramuses !!! Learn to read or change points. I multiplied such 30 years ago on "0" packs ...

                  1. askme
                    askme 29 June 2017 01: 46
                    0
                    How to squeak with exclamation marks, find out the difference between a 110 meter run and a 190 meter run. And how is the headwind taken into account when calculating the take-off weight when flying from Kuznetsov’s deck. On this with you, the talker, the conversation is over.
                    1. okko077
                      okko077 29 June 2017 01: 57
                      0
                      Can you recall why the extreme MIG-29K fell?
                      1. askme
                        askme 29 June 2017 02: 06
                        0
                        Fell due to inexperience in flying a wing. This is the first combat campaign of the deckers in the history of our Navy. And, of course, all conclusions are drawn. Purely working moments. This will not happen again.
                    2. okko077
                      okko077 29 June 2017 02: 08
                      0
                      Did you take a picture from the children's cartoon? Well done ... king ...
                      1. askme
                        askme 29 June 2017 02: 11
                        0
                        I do not watch cartoons, the cat is cool. Who has a sense of humor is not my fault.
                      2. okko077
                        okko077 29 June 2017 02: 23
                        0
                        The starting position was not taken into account or the wind speed with the speed of the cruiser was not added up, and the kerosene is over?
                      3. okko077
                        okko077 29 June 2017 02: 34
                        0
                        Nevermind. Pleased to meet you. Do not write anything else ...
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 June 2017 09: 20
            +1
            Quote: okko077
            When taking off from a springboard, the MIG-29K has weight restrictions.

            Source of information, please. And then, you know, quite serious sources report that even the Su-33 from the third position takes off at full load, and your MiG-29K cannot. It's suspicious laughing
            Your calculations on the MiG-29 are even more suspicious.
            Quote: okko077
            Normal takeoff weight 17770 kg. Empty weight 14000 kg. The mass of fuel in internal tanks is 4550 kg. For mathematicians: when taking off with only two rockets and with full fuel tanks, the weight is more than the normal take-off, about 19000 kg.

            If you use Wikipedia, then yes. And if you go to the manufacturer’s website, RSK MiG, we are surprised to read that the normal take-off weight of the MiG-29K is 18 kg. http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/ru/produktsiya/no
            voe-unifitsirovannoe-semejstvo-istrebitelej / mig-2
            9k-kub
            Do you know what your mistake is? You (in the wake of the "experts" -wiki compilers) mixed up two different MiG-29Ks. The MiG-29K, which had a normal take-off mass of 17 kg, was developed in the USSR, and had an empty weight of 770 kg.
            http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig29k.html
            More than 5 tons of difference, this is the total supply of the crowd + the mass of the pilot + missiles. And as for the new MiG-29K (which was made on the basis of the Soviet MiG-29K for India and then, after the next modification, for Kuznetsov), then its mass is empty, alas, is usually not given in reliable sources
            And - for the future - urgent advice. After reading Wikipedia, you shouldn’t make definitive conclusions laughing
            1. okko077
              okko077 29 June 2017 12: 49
              0
              The young man is pale with his eyes burning - leave your advice to yourself!
              Engage in verbiage elsewhere.
              Appointment of an aircraft carrier cruiser striking at enemy ground targets with the help of aircraft based on it. T e main aircraft on such a ship is a bomber. Carrying only fighter aircraft (SU-33, MIG-29K) to protect yourself from a military point of view is not enough and stupid. The limited capabilities of our aircraft carrying cruiser are associated with the use of a springboard instead of a catapult, which limits the take-off weight of the aircraft. And the possibility of using these fighters as bombers involves taking off at maximum load, which is impossible in this case. And clarification from what position takes off, what wind, what speed of the ship is an attempt to distract from the essence of the matter. In addition, only the MIG-29K complex allows bombing, but this aircraft has a small combat radius when used even as a fighter ... When was the springboard built and for which aircraft? All your calculations can make sense when using the new MIG-29K from a ground-based airfield .... Get creative success and learn to read, and then think ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 June 2017 19: 31
                0
                Quote: okko077
                The young man is pale with his eyes burning - leave your advice to yourself!

                The girl is rosy, with eyes gone out, when I need your advice, I will ask you for it.
                I didn’t advise you anything. I mocked you. Only politely, but since you don’t value a good relationship, get what you deserve
                Quote: okko077
                Engage in verbiage elsewhere.

                Yes, yes, it’s probably very disappointing when you teach all of life down here, and then suddenly! - and it turns out that you are a complete ignoramus in the topic raised. lol You just don’t need to freak out, you need to learn the materiel, then you don’t have to sit in a puddle with all honest people
                Quote: okko077
                Appointment of an aircraft carrier cruiser striking at enemy ground targets with the help of aircraft based on it.

                Bullshit. The purpose of the Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers was to provide fighter cover and air defense for the forces striking at the USA AUG - such as missile submarines and (especially) land-based missile-carrying aircraft of the land base - Tu-22M3. Soviet TAVKR are classic air defense carriers and, partially, PLO
                Learn materiel urgently !! am
                Quote: okko077
                And the possibility of using these fighters as bombers involves taking off with maximum load, which is impossible in this case

                You take such a book - “Su-33 Ship Epic” by Fomin (reviewers - General Designer of the Sukhoi Simon Design Bureau and Colonel General Denek) - you read from cover to cover. You blush and are embarrassed.
                Then you look in the popular literature (well, you can’t send you to the instruction manual if you can’t figure it out in three figures “empty weight / normal take-off” without someone else’s help) for information on which load the attack planes go on a combat mission. You blush and are embarrassed even more.
                Quote: okko077
                And clarification from what position takes off, what wind, what speed of the ship is an attempt to distract from the essence of the matter.

                And then you take a school physics textbook and learn the basics of the subject. Then it comes to you that the moment of separation from the take-off surface of any aircraft is directly related to its speed at the time of separation, and that until the aircraft has gained a certain speed, it will not take off.
                Then you study the formula of uniformly accelerated movement and are quietly stunned by how much it turns out that the speed of the aircraft increases if it accelerates by 200 meters compared to its acceleration of 100 meters.
                Then it dawns on you that what matters is not the speed of the plane relative to the surface from which it takes off, but the speed of the plane relative to the air flow.
                Then something clicks in your head, and you understand that the MiG-29, which with the maximum take-off weight is able to take off the ground at a speed of about 220 km per hour, stands on the deck of an aircraft carrier that rushes forward at a speed of 30 knots (55 km / h, not a question for Kuznetsov, of course) then the ship ALREADY provided 25% of the separation speed for the aircraft and now MiG-u just needs to accelerate relative to the deck to 220 km, but only to 165 km / h.
                And then it dawns on you that if an aircraft carrier goes against the wind, say, 7 m / s (25 km / h), then the MiG has to accelerate to just 140 km / h relative to the aircraft carrier ...
                ... and you become very, very ashamed of the nonsense that you carried today on the issues raised
  5. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 28 June 2017 14: 03
    +3
    There is another 20 years to figure out how to use it so that the world does not choke on laughter.
  6. New user
    New user 28 June 2017 14: 12
    +2
    A cool ship, you need to paint the current.
  7. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 28 June 2017 14: 14
    +1
    Information slipped on mile - “The Navy will build an aircraft carrier. The model of the aircraft carrier has already been presented by the Krylovsk center, and other developments are being worked out, ”said Bursuk at the International Naval Salon in St. Petersburg.
    At the moment, there is only one aircraft carrier in the Russian Navy - the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft carrier, delivered in 1991, which is now preparing to undergo repairs with modernization.
    1. askme
      askme 28 June 2017 14: 23
      +1
      This is the "Storm" Krylovsky. The Krylovsky center has nothing to do with real design, it's all just floodlights. Since the time of the USSR, the Nevskoye Design Bureau has been engaged in the actual design of aircraft carriers. From there, so far - zero.
  8. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 28 June 2017 14: 22
    +2
    Until there are new ones, Kuznetsov is the only simulator, so to speak, for our carrier-based aircraft. So we need it for anyone, but for 20 years I think they’ll concoct a couple of new ones.
  9. Koteg
    Koteg 28 June 2017 14: 28
    0
    darned socks are stronger than new
  10. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 28 June 2017 15: 11
    +1
    Quote: RASKAT
    I hope that over these 20 years a couple of new ones will finally be built.

    Too slow. Given the speed of the complication of the situation in the world, it was necessary to have, not only one, but three aircraft carriers "yesterday". Today we pay for these mistakes with humiliation in Syria. Tomorrow, the SGA will bomb Syria on a made-up pretext, and we can only lament: "Guys are so dishonest!" And all the achievements in Syria will be sharply reset, as well as Putin’s rating. For the sake of this, the abominable generals will go for it. C400 is not enough to prevent such an attack, the maximum cause some damage to the troops of the SGA. And do not forget about their coordination of their attacks with ISIS and other barmaleys!
    1. bk316
      bk316 28 June 2017 17: 21
      +3
      Tomorrow, the SGA will bomb Syria on a made-up pretext

      What nonsense and how would 3 aircraft carriers help here?
      1. askme
        askme 28 June 2017 22: 04
        +1
        Bullshit - say the opposite. Our aircraft carriers, if we had them, could reliably isolate the Syrian coast from the aggression of enemies from the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, their role is the isolation of the theater of operations from the sea.
    2. Vpk72
      Vpk72 28 June 2017 19: 46
      +3
      Quote: Vlad5307
      And all the achievements in Syria will be sharply reset, as well as Putin’s rating.

      what are the achievements in Syria?
      Downed civilian plane over Sinai
      Downed su-24
      Many killed Russian soldiers
      These achievements?
      For what?
      Not allowed to build a mythical gas pipeline through Syria?
  11. rruvim
    rruvim 28 June 2017 16: 33
    +1
    I hope that after the “modernization” we’ll not lose two planes per hike due to failures of the “air finishers”, and the sky will also be smoked with black smoke. Still, they signed the Kyoto Protocol ...
  12. pshek
    pshek 28 June 2017 16: 43
    0
    And well, AFSSK is a bag without a bottom. More money for Kuznetsov is less money for missiles.
  13. bk316
    bk316 28 June 2017 17: 24
    +5
    Why grind it again, there is no military reason to build new (and probably modernize the old) aircraft carriers if a likely adversary of the United States and NATO. And they don’t either.
    AUG when attacking the Russian Federation or the United States is simply a gorgeous premium mass grave
    1. askme
      askme 28 June 2017 22: 07
      +1
      The Navy believes otherwise. The opinion of those who do not understand the matters of the fleet does not matter. The opinion about the exclusive role of aircraft carriers in the construction of the balanced ocean fleet is generally accepted among fleet specialists.
      1. rruvim
        rruvim 29 June 2017 00: 27
        +1
        Still, the Carrier Cruiser. Instead of aircraft carriers, it’s better to build a dozen “dispersal” airdromes. Look at the Globe, our country, and as a solid aircraft carrier.
  14. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 29 June 2017 05: 31
    +3
    Quote: vpk72
    Quote: Vlad5307
    And all the achievements in Syria will be sharply reset, as well as Putin’s rating.

    what are the achievements in Syria?
    Downed civilian plane over Sinai
    Downed su-24
    Many killed Russian soldiers
    These achievements?
    For what?
    Not allowed to build a mythical gas pipeline through Syria?


    At least the liquidation of several thousand militants who died, instead of arranging terrorist attacks in our country.