Military Review

Krylovtsy develop the concept of a light multipurpose aircraft carrier

85
As the news portal Flotpromreferring to the source, the Krylov State Research Center (KGNTs), on its own initiative, develops the concept of a light multipurpose aircraft carrier (LMA).

The approximate displacement of the ship will be 30-40 thousand tons, air wing - 40-50 machines. The aircraft will be presented by deck fighters Su-33 or deck version Su-35, MiG-29K, as well as aircraft of the radar patrol and Ka-27 helicopters.


Vikramaditya


The construction of ships of this class is possible at the facilities of Sevmash or the Kerch shipbuilding plant Zaliv.

Deadlines for the completion of the work are still unknown, now there is a conceptual study of the project.

- explained the source.

Aircraft carriers are divided into several main classes: heavy strike aircraft carriers (with a displacement of more than 70 thousand tons), light aircraft carriers (13-35 thousand tons), and cruiser-helicopter carriers. Light aircraft carriers in the classic sense - the so-called "ships of control of the sea." They are not as universal as heavy ones, and, as a rule, serve for anti-submarine and anti-aircraft defense of ships and convoys. They are based light attack aircraft, fighters and helicopters. Most light carriers carrying planes with vertical takeoff and landing do not need either a catapult or arresting gear. The proposed KGNTs option is probably a further development of the Soviet project 1143.4, on the basis of which the Indian aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya".
Photos used:
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-658.html
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. Zibelew
    Zibelew 23 August 2017 07: 52
    +26
    First, frigates learn to build destroyers in 2-3 years and not in 15.
    1. Alex 2016
      Alex 2016 23 August 2017 08: 03
      +8
      I agree. And then they build objects larger than a boat in such a "fast" way, as if one person in his spare time from work does this. Let them learn from the yellow-bellies.
      1. Plombir
        Plombir 23 August 2017 14: 38
        +4
        The yellow-bellied EBN and other family coles did not have. Everyone imagines himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the side.
        1. mult-65
          mult-65 23 August 2017 21: 54
          0
          The times of EBN are not dashing, but saints! :)
          1. albert
            albert 23 August 2017 22: 36
            +3
            Quote: mult-65
            The times of EBN are not dashing, but saints! :

            Who would doubt that
        2. DiKoff
          DiKoff 24 August 2017 14: 56
          0
          After EBN, there were enough of those who destroyed the country and industry, and, as a result, the engineering and working class
    2. oldseaman1957
      oldseaman1957 23 August 2017 08: 23
      +15
      Quote: Zibelew
      ... for 2-3 years and not for 15 ....
      - “Krylovtsy” - designers, what claims to NIM? On the contrary, they must be encouraged!
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 23 August 2017 08: 57
        +3
        - “Krylovtsy” - designers, what claims to NIM? On the contrary, they must be encouraged!
        The speed of construction of modern ships is explained by the fact that they are built from modules. A huge dock is needed only for the final assembly of the ship. Modules are built at various enterprises at the same time. The quality of the project with this principle of construction should be completely different. Project flaws will be revealed only at the stage of final assembly, when it will be impossible to redo something.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 23 August 2017 14: 08
        +2
        Interestingly, if the Krylovites are projectors, then who is the Nevsky Bureau?
    3. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 23 August 2017 09: 03
      +4
      Hi Tagiryan! hi In fact, we are not talking about building:
      Krylov State Scientific Center (KSCC) in proactively develops The concept of light multipurpose aircraft carrier (LMA).

      I highlighted the key point. wink
      1. Zibelew
        Zibelew 23 August 2017 09: 43
        +3
        Hi Paul! hi Designing an aircraft carrier in the state of our economy from the category of fantasies. Not enough ships even to replace the decreasing units. In the future, the last three 956 destroyers, the Shrewd and the old men 1135 will be written off. And at best there will be 5 units (3 11356 and 2 22350) of new frigates. For the rest of the buildings so far everything is foggy due to problems with the engines. And the 22350M is not yet designed. The average age of fleet ships is over 30 years, with 19 among Americans.
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 23 August 2017 09: 47
          +2
          Do you want to say that the initiative of development is mentioned for the sake of a "red word"? And for this KGNTS receives funding from the budget?
          1. Zibelew
            Zibelew 23 August 2017 11: 36
            +5
            Money from the budget will not give. I do not mind if a promising aircraft carrier will be built through the confiscation of yachts, villas, airplanes, king-apartments, mansions from corrupt officials.
            1. bouncyhunter
              bouncyhunter 23 August 2017 11: 52
              +2
              Tagiryan, still only development is underway, it is too early to talk about the construction. Here they’ll develop it - then we’ll see how this project will look and whether it should be embodied in metal.
              1. Zibelew
                Zibelew 23 August 2017 11: 55
                +1
                Let's wait and see. Maybe in the 20s something will change.
                1. bouncyhunter
                  bouncyhunter 23 August 2017 12: 02
                  +1
                  Well, let's not run ahead of the engine.
                  1. marder7
                    marder7 25 August 2017 13: 40
                    0
                    it’s also dangerous wink can crush (steam train)
            2. Olaf Uksimae
              Olaf Uksimae 23 August 2017 18: 23
              +3
              Why don't our representatives from the Forbes list organize the initiative, for example, the “oligarchs to the motherland”: we will build 2 aircraft carriers, 16 “leaders”, 12 RPKSN and 24 maples with our own money, I think it’s enough and not even the last cent will be torn from itself.
        2. mvg
          mvg 23 August 2017 13: 58
          +2
          And what, 956 still goes to sea? You are not talking about Quick. request and 1135 too? Or did you mean Okay, Inquisitive, etc., which are formally in service?
          1135 I made a model at school, they are 40 years old, so many watchtowers do not serve. Well, the long-suffering 956 from KTU only to the parade with the help of tugboats.
          PS: No one in their right mind and with our budget will be spent on the Navy until the ground forces, the Air Force and the Strategic Missile Forces are modernized. Not a senny cap. Exclusion of nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines.
        3. 73bor
          73bor 28 August 2017 09: 26
          0
          You can already forget about 956 and 1135, you are a little behind, our displacement of corvettes is already approaching 3000 tons and frigates are close to 5000 tons and the main problem is not with power plants (this year they are already launching their own), but with new weapons systems and their settings, and design anything is possible. OSK will get new cranes and there will be happiness! laughing
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 23 August 2017 13: 42
        +2
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        In fact, we are not talking about building

        Yes, she can’t go, at least for 2 reasons:
        - it is necessary to prepare new modern facilities;
        - it is necessary to digitize the entire project and make working drawings or cassettes for CNC ...
        At the moment, none of this is available yet. What kind of production, especially sectional assembly, can we talk about !? request
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 23 August 2017 13: 45
          0
          My respect, Alexander! hi It’s too early to share the skin of a dead bear, which is what I meant.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 23 August 2017 14: 21
          +2
          And what kind of design? When the Central Research Institute of Krylov did not deal directly with blueprints, this is the diocese of the Nevts, and even the northerners once tried to drag Mercury into 8 or 12 ct
    4. seti
      seti 23 August 2017 09: 08
      +2
      Or maybe you will help not with chatter, but with your own hands and brains if you know and understand everything?
      The Krylov State Scientific Center is doing the right thing, and I recall it only - the developer.
      What are their production questions in the material? We are not the USSR, and it is clear that the pace of construction has fallen significantly and it takes time to set everything up again and there are high-class specialists in sufficient numbers. And the idea is very correct and necessary. The aircraft carrier of the Storm project is a necessary thing, but it’s very expensive and very large. And they need at least two. But for them, infrastructure will also be needed, and these are billions of evergreens. Their capacity is up to 90 aircraft which we also have almost no like pilots. And this is also billions ... So the idea of ​​building light aircraft carriers - cheaper, more maneuverable, less expensive and with 40-50 planes / helicopters and UAVs is very good. At least I will place them where and this is a decent cost savings.
      So you can and even need to think about it.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 23 August 2017 09: 35
        +3
        Quote: seti
        Or maybe you will help not with chatter, but with your own hands and brains if you know and understand everything?

        I just want to ask, will you pay Zibelew's salary? Well, at least the payment for the work on the description of what and how do you pay him?
        If not, then your post is exactly the same chatter ... hi
    5. NEXUS
      NEXUS 23 August 2017 14: 14
      +2
      Quote: Zibelew
      First, frigates learn to build destroyers in 2-3 years and not in 15.

      While they will design, bring and coordinate, I think the Leaders will start laying by then. But light aircraft carriers are an interesting idea to saturate our fleets relatively quickly with air cover.
      1. A1845
        A1845 23 August 2017 14: 25
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        But light aircraft carriers is an interesting idea to saturate our fleets relatively quickly with air cover
        You could have guessed - at what capacities and in what terms it would be possible to produce at least one Liaoning per fleet?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 23 August 2017 14: 44
          +2
          Quote: A1845
          You could have guessed - at what capacities and in what terms it would be possible to produce at least one Liaoning per fleet?

          Quite ... for example on the Star. New shipyards of the aircraft carrier class, so to speak, are already under construction. Plus, a shipyard in the Crimea with a dry dock at 364 m ... I already said about the deadlines, while the Leader’s project will be approved, coordinated, etc., as well as the laying of these destroyers, it will be possible to talk about the actual construction dates for light aircraft carriers.
          I think this is the only right way to provide our KUGs with air cover in a relatively short time.
          1. kepmor
            kepmor 23 August 2017 15: 35
            +1
            first you need to build ships for full-fledged KUGs and KPUGs ...
            you obviously went too far about power ...
            The star is full of orders for the very ears of 10 years ... new slipways are only in the project ... and there aren’t enough skilled workers (the head of the USC recognizes this ... the young people have gone, only the qualifications are still at zero ... therefore the space terms ) ...
            and the 13th Shipyard in Sevastopol, it’s precisely ship-repair ... the ships to build are not its specifics ... they were built in Kerch and Fedosia ... but they just started to rise after the devastation ... there are machines of another 60-70 ... all need to be updated ...
            and the ships were needed yesterday ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 August 2017 17: 50
              0
              Quote: kepmor
              first you need to build ships for full-fledged KUGs and KPUGs ...

              Well, let's see :)))
              Even if we are concerned about the construction of a light aircraft carrier (I’m not a supporter, but I’ve suddenly taken care of it), then it will go into operation well if in 2030 (production preparation + design + construction itself + acceptance tests and delivery to the fleet). This is still optimistic. I would even say - very optimistic
              What will we have in 2030 in the fleets of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet (there is nothing to do in other places of the AB)
              For a pair of missile cruisers for each fleet (total of 2 nuclear and 2 atlantes), there can be several BODs, 5-7 modern frigates, several corvettes, pieces of 10-12 multipurpose submarines (Ash-trees + remnants of Shchuk-B), pieces of 5- 10 diesel-electric submarines or even submarines with VNEU.
              Well, the presence of an aircraft carrier will increase their capabilities one and a half times at once. But the aircraft carrier was built alone, and the fleet - two.
              Conclusion - the aircraft carriers had to start yesterday
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 24 August 2017 00: 07
                0
                I would give another "conclusion", it is not necessary to "dream" about the aircraft carrier, but to discuss ways to reduce its cost. For example, think about the unification of units between all ships. First, unify the nodes responsible for the movement of the vessel.
          2. A1845
            A1845 24 August 2017 15: 10
            0
            It seems that the North Shipyard is preparing a construction site of 250 meters
  2. dsm100
    dsm100 23 August 2017 08: 05
    +1
    All this is a theory and nothing more.
  3. San Sanych
    San Sanych 23 August 2017 08: 06
    +3
    for modern Russia the most optimal option
    1. skeptic
      skeptic 23 August 2017 08: 24
      +3
      Quote: San Sanych
      for modern Russia the most optimal option


      But only after saturation by carriers of "Caliber" in the coastal perimeter.
      And so ... Actually, aircraft carriers are needed when the state lacks its territory and wants to grab something else.
  4. kepmor
    kepmor 23 August 2017 08: 08
    +6
    another blah blah blah and cut the budget dough ... why do we need an unfinished work of 30000 tons ... what good will it be ... if only it would be "blunder" ...
    first, build security ships ... ... damn it ....
    1. K-612-O
      K-612-O 23 August 2017 08: 18
      +3
      Are you the chief of staff of the Navy? In my opinion, this is what we need to protect the coastal zone and border seas.
      1. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich 23 August 2017 09: 39
        +5
        Quote: K-612-O
        Are you the chief of staff of the Navy? In my opinion, this is what we need to protect the coastal zone and border seas.


        there are airfields for these tasks
      2. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 23 August 2017 09: 42
        +4
        The displacement of an aircraft carrier is not only an indicator of how much aircraft, fuel, ammunition, electronics can be crammed into it to ensure flights, but also an indirect indicator of the length of the flight deck. Aircraft carrier designed for aircraft with vertical take-off and landing? And where are they? For the MIG-29K and SU-33 and 35 (as they write here)? And will they be able to take off with sufficient load from this ship? Or with one rocket and fuel supply, forcing the pilot to think about landing immediately after take-off?
      3. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 23 August 2017 10: 04
        +3
        K-612-O Today, 08:18 ↑
        Are you the chief of staff of the Navy? In my opinion, this is what we need to protect the coastal zone and border seas.

        Judging by the wording of your comment, are you the chief of staff of the Navy? And if not, why do you think that “your look” is more valuable and important than the look of kepmor?
      4. kepmor
        kepmor 23 August 2017 10: 55
        +4
        K-612, it’s immediately obvious ... you are SPECIAL in naval affairs ...
        only for the protection of the coastal zone there are forces of the aerospace forces ... the AUG has completely different tasks ...
        instead of such a "stub", it’s better to build 5-6 corvettes or 3-4 frigates ... it will be more useless in the near sea zone ... and to ensure the deployment of a submarine and submarine will be generally priceless ...
        he did not rise to the headquarters of the Navy, but he commanded the ship and formations on the Northern Fleet for 8 years ...
    2. Sergey-svs
      Sergey-svs 23 August 2017 08: 19
      +3
      .. why do we need a deficiency of 30000 tons ... what good will it be ... if only "bulo" ...

      And why is it not clear that you don’t like the light multipurpose aircraft carrier (LMA) ?! request Our heavy aircraft carrier cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", just built on the project 1143.5! Is this a bad ship?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 August 2017 09: 56
        +8
        Unfortunately yes. Kuznetsov is a bad ship. Therefore, the stubs of 30 kilotons we do not need all the more
      2. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 23 August 2017 10: 02
        0
        But what is good in your opinion? Well, perhaps, except that he is at least.
        1. Sergey-svs
          Sergey-svs 23 August 2017 10: 31
          +3
          Quote Andrey from Chelyabinsk:
          Unfortunately yes. Kuznetsov is a bad ship.

          Quote UAZ 452:
          But what is good in your opinion?

          No offense, but I can answer the comments myself with unproven statements and counter-questions! Everyone here has their own opinion, and the truth, as they say, where there. yes
          1. UAZ 452
            UAZ 452 23 August 2017 12: 22
            0
            Yes, what insults! But the comment here is such a substantial:
            And why is it not clear that you don’t like the light multipurpose aircraft carrier (LMA) ?! request Our heavy aircraft carrier cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", just built on the project 1143.5! Is this a bad ship?

            deserves just the answers he received. In terms of content, they are completely equivalent.
            PS What I do not like (exclusively at the view of a layman, but still capable of logical thinking) is the Krylovtsy project - I explained in my other comments, which are quite accessible here.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 August 2017 17: 34
            +4
            Quote: Sergey-svs
            No offense, but I can answer the comments myself with unproven statements and counter-questions! Everyone here has their own opinion, and the truth, as they say, where there.

            The truth is by no means “somewhere out there”, it is much closer. The quality of the ship is determined elementarily - the ability to solve problems for which it was created. Unfortunately, Kuznetsov cannot satisfactorily solve his key task - the task of air cover of heterogeneous forces striking at the USA AUG. In addition, for solving other problems (for example, the functionality of an attack aircraft carrier), it is also of little use, as a helicopter carrier it is excessively large. In addition, Kuznetsov is technically unreliable - a problematic power supply. All this limits the scope of his tasks - in essence, he can be used either as a training aircraft carrier, or as a combat unit against very weak countries that do not have their own aviation.
            In general, the short answer does not mean unproven. And agree, it would be strange to expect that the question "Is this a bad ship?" You would have printed an article with tactical and economic calculations
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 23 August 2017 14: 17
      +2
      Quote: kepmor
      another blah blah blah and cut the budget dough

      Are you tired of writing this nonsense? Do you think ALL new beginnings and projects is a dough cut? Well, at least sometimes you need to turn on your head ...
      Quote: kepmor
      why do we need a 30000-ton imperfection ... what good will it be ... if only it would be "bulo" ...

      Then, in order to quickly, relatively, saturate our fleets with air support, and not wait for 100000 tons of fool while being planed.
      1. kepmor
        kepmor 23 August 2017 15: 09
        +1
        Nexus, of course, you know better ... no doubt ... you better know the needs of the fleet ...
        just let the fleets first be saturated with minesweepers, corvettes, frigates, and preferably destroyers ... in the Northern Fleet with a Pacific Fleet, you can count the combat-ready ships on your fingers ... and even under thirty already ...
        OSK "cat cried" of capacities ... even less money ... and it will be fought for 10 years so ... a very "effective solution" ...
        and I’ll advise you to “turn on the head” ... the outfit of forces for combat stability of the AB is the same, at least for 30 thousandths, even for 100 thousandths ... only the “exhaust” is different ... 40-50 aircraft on deck or 80-90 LA ... the difference is big ...
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 23 August 2017 15: 24
          +3
          Quote: kepmor
          Nexus, of course, you know better ... no doubt ... you better know the needs of the fleet ...

          Sarcasm is counted. Order to you.
          Quote: kepmor
          only let the fleets be saturated with minesweepers, corvettes, frigates, and preferably destroyers ...

          You read my post carefully, dear? I said in black in Russian that all this would be relevant when the Leaders began to lay ... now, at the very least, the fleets are saturated with support vessels, without which aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers can not effectively carry out tasks.
          Quote: kepmor
          on the Northern Fleet with the Pacific Fleet of combat-ready ships on the fingers can be counted ... and even those under thirty already ...

          That's why I wrote more than once that we need to pray today for the frigates of project 22350 and, more importantly, for project 22350M, whose ships are as close as possible to the class of light destroyers. From the age of 18, domestic gas turbines will go into a series and then it will be possible to talk about some intelligible construction of the foundation of our fleets - frigates of project 22350M.
          Quote: kepmor
          OSK "cat cried" capacities ... even less money.

          Seriously? Then I, dear wise guy, will ask you a trivial question: If a cat cried for money in our kingdom-state, where did billions of corruption come up from, and how, in such lack of money it turned out that Russia, by the number of aligarchs, is the third in the world if I am not mistaken?
          Quote: kepmor
          and I’ll advise you to “turn on the head” ... the outfit of forces for combat stability of the AB is the same, at least for 30 thousandths, even for 100 thousandths ... only the “exhaust” is different ... 40-50 aircraft on deck or 80-90 LA ... the difference is big ...

          Exactly, turn on your head ... You’re telling me about the exhaust, and I’m talking about the construction time ... it’s one thing to lay 2-3 light aircraft carriers, and build and hand them over to the fleets in 7-8 years, and the shipyard is another thing to find a hundred thousandth drina, after building it for 10 years, or even more, and as a result get one military unit. Did you hear the proverb about eggs? Is there a difference for you when three aircraft carriers (lungs) in the AUG, or one that, if damaged, flooded, etc., does not help the group?
          1. kepmor
            kepmor 23 August 2017 16: 00
            +1
            in order:
            - about Leaders in the near future we will only hear in VO ...
            - about the 22350M I agree, but it is not a panacea ... a fleet with only a heterogeneous composition of ships possesses combat stability ... minesweepers, corvettes with frigates are more important than Gorshkov's analogues ... at least to fulfill the main tasks of the NCC - ensuring deployment shock forces of the SF and Pacific Fleet ...
            - about the "billions of corrupt officials" ... this is not for me ... there is a Seagull with Bastrykin and Putin with Medvedev ...
            - 3 "airdromes" with the AUG are cool ... the first question is for you- Have you personally ever managed at least 2-3 ships at sea, even just during exercises? ... I think not ... at least imagine the size of the warrant of such a superAUG with protection? ... the floor of the ocean ... how will you manage when maintaining the database? ... no ACS can handle ... I personally do not envy the camp headquarters of such a monster ...
            the second question is, and in FIG 2-3 aircraft carriers in the AUG? ... do you want them to erase the powder of North America? ...
            in short ... everyone stayed with his ... all the best ...
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 23 August 2017 17: 28
              +2
              Quote: kepmor
              the second question is, and in FIG 2-3 aircraft carriers in the AUG? ... do you want them to erase the powder of North America? ...

              You don’t consider looking at the prospect of replacing the decked SU-33 and MIG-29K with strike UAVs that will be smaller in size than manned dryers and twinks? 40 aircraft, and say 50-40 strike and reconnaissance UAVs, including the AWACS platform ...
  5. UAZ 452
    UAZ 452 23 August 2017 08: 15
    +4
    And what kind of DRLO airplanes are they going to launch from an aircraft-free aircraft carrier?
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 23 August 2017 08: 27
      +2
      Quote: UAZ 452
      And what kind of DRLO airplanes are they going to launch from an aircraft-free aircraft carrier?

      The Yak-44 can fly without a catapult, only here it exists only in the form of a layout, but it flies among the Chinese ... request
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 August 2017 09: 08
        +1
        Can not. Initially, they tried so that he could, but could not, so they left him a purely co-take-off
        1. San Sanych
          San Sanych 23 August 2017 09: 56
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Can not. Initially, they tried so that he could, but could not, so they left him a purely co-take-off

          from the third, distant starting position, the Yak-44 could well take off from Kuznetsov and Varyag without a catapult
          1. UAZ 452
            UAZ 452 23 August 2017 10: 21
            0
            With a full supply of fuel (otherwise, what's the point of generally launching an airplane whose main task is patrolling)? And in general - I looked at the data on the Yak-44 on Wikipedia: data on the required runway - up to 1300 meters are generally not compatible with ship-based (without a catapult, at least).
            To summarize: we don’t have an AWACS aircraft for an aircraft carrier, and nobody knows if it will be possible to create one.
            1. San Sanych
              San Sanych 23 August 2017 10: 55
              +1
              Quote: UAZ 452
              With a full supply of fuel (otherwise, what's the point of generally launching an airplane whose main task is patrolling)? And in general - I looked at the data on the Yak-44 on Wikipedia: data on the required runway - up to 1300 meters are generally not compatible with ship-based (without a catapult, at least).
              To summarize: we don’t have an AWACS aircraft for an aircraft carrier, and nobody knows if it will be possible to create one.

              look at the TTX for the S-130 Hercules 1433m in the same Wikipedia, but nevertheless back in 1963 he managed to take off easily from the Forrestal, without the help of a catapult and a springboard, and he only needed 227 meters. Moreover, the S-130 is much heavier than the I-44
            2. A1845
              A1845 23 August 2017 13: 47
              0
              Quote: UAZ 452
              And in general - I looked at the data on the Yak-44 on Wikipedia: data on the required runway - up to 1300 meters
              designed a freaky version with four lifting engines
              was a great review on VO - hammer in the search - Aviation AWACS
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 August 2017 17: 55
            +1
            Quote: San Sanych
            from the third, distant starting position, the Yak-44 could well take off from Kuznetsov and Varyag without a catapult

            I repeat - I could not. Initially, it was supposed that he could, but the Yakovlevites could not fulfill this condition. That's why they sabotaged the development of the Yak-44 before the Ulyanovsk project
            1. San Sanych
              San Sanych 23 August 2017 18: 16
              0
              it may be so), but this is unlikely, most likely not because the Yakovlevites could not fulfill it, but because some at a higher level at that time sold out for “caring” to the bourgeoisie, that bad boy
            2. San Sanych
              San Sanych 23 August 2017 18: 29
              0
              The S-130 took off from an aircraft carrier from a distance of 227 meters without the help of a catapult, and without any springboard, why would this be impossible for the Yak-44? The USSR and more complex tasks were on the shoulder (provided that the head of the country would not be like Gorbachev)
        2. brr1
          brr1 23 August 2017 10: 30
          0

          Is it like that?
          1. A1845
            A1845 23 August 2017 13: 38
            0
            this is really
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            purely kotoremote take-off
            ! good
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 23 August 2017 14: 13
            +2
            probably the opposite - cats are sitting at the remote
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 August 2017 17: 56
            0
            Yeah, that :)))))))
        3. sivuch
          sivuch 23 August 2017 14: 11
          +1
          wonderful pun!
      2. A1845
        A1845 23 August 2017 13: 42
        0
        Quote: PSih2097
        and the Chinese fly ...
        in fake pictures? wink
        read an excellent review from Sergey Linnik aka Bongo Aircraft AWACS https://topwar.ru/113322-aviaciya-drlo-chast-12.h
        tml
    2. skeptic
      skeptic 23 August 2017 08: 32
      0
      Quote: UAZ 452
      And what kind of DRLO airplanes are they going to launch from an aircraft-free aircraft carrier?


      And where are the planes? It’s just “public work” - we have a lot of money and production, so we choose what to build.
      Or a bunch of small aircraft carriers today or some of the most gigantic, but tomorrow. laughing
    3. opus
      opus 23 August 2017 22: 35
      +2
      Quote: UAZ 452
      And what kind of DRLO airplanes are they going to launch from an aircraft-free aircraft carrier?

      Yes, even such

      with this variation rldo
  6. afrikanez
    afrikanez 23 August 2017 09: 00
    0
    Another PR project and nothing more. A lot of ideas, but with the implementation so far, "no how." Maybe you still need to approach this matter more realistically ???
  7. srha
    srha 23 August 2017 09: 06
    +1
    Was the concept of cheap considered? So I can put on my knee - three tankers (333m VLCC), two under the fuel, one under the wing, one control boat, a couple of reload boats. All this in the form of a lego - it hooks up when needed, and it turns out to be a moving aircraft carrier with a runway of 1100 m and a width of 60 m at a price of no more than $ 100 million, well, somehow it’s cheaper than Nimitz once in 130, and the class of aircraft is practically unlimited (even though the TU-160 launch if you deliver).
  8. A1845
    A1845 23 August 2017 10: 50
    +2
    Will we develop Kuzma again?
    same but (with pearl buttons) without soot?
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 August 2017 13: 14
      +2
      Quote: A1845
      Will we develop Kuzma again?
      the same but (with pearl buttons) without soot?

      Yes, the fleet tried to fly such a bucket while the Navy V, V, Chirkov were in command. But he wrapped up their designers yesterday (1143.7 improved). Since then, everything revolves around a new project ... Even models are exhibited and offered for export. But they themselves do not approve and do not order ... Babila, however, Yok!
      1. A1845
        A1845 23 August 2017 13: 34
        +2
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        tried such a tramp fleet fleet
        yes, times have gone hard, if you don’t get stuck, you won’t survive ..
        I, as in the title, saw the words "light aircraft carrier", I thought - this is the topic of vertical bars develop .. but no ..
        some confusion and vacillations in the Danish kingdom ..
  9. nesvobodnye
    nesvobodnye 23 August 2017 11: 31
    0
    Well done. I hope that the achievements will not be wasted. Or useful for the Navy, or for export.
  10. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 23 August 2017 12: 48
    +1
    As practice has shown, this is crap. less than 100 tons is a pre-aircraft carrier.
    1. San Sanych
      San Sanych 23 August 2017 16: 02
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      As practice has shown, this is crap. less than 100 tons is a pre-aircraft carrier.

      if a country has a GDP of 20 trillion cu (The USA, China, or the USSR at one time, then yes, for such powers of less than 100 kt, do not bother), however, Italy built Konti di Cavour, Japan a pair of "Izumo" type, Russia would not be in the way 2 or 3 aircraft carriers within 60 -70 ct, although now, when the problems are even with frigate class ships, this may seem like a pipe dream, but if you think about the medium term, such aircraft carriers would not be superfluous for Russia
      1. San Sanych
        San Sanych 23 August 2017 16: 57
        0
        The USSR in terms of GDP is of course inferior to modern China, but nevertheless was considered the second superpower at the time
      2. San Sanych
        San Sanych 23 August 2017 22: 10
        0
        Quote: San Sanych
        Quote: Zaurbek
        As practice has shown, this is crap. less than 100 tons is a pre-aircraft carrier.

        if a country has a GDP of 20 trillion cu (The USA, China, or the USSR at one time, then yes, for such powers of less than 100 kt, do not bother), however, Italy built Konti di Cavour, Japan a pair of "Izumo" type, Russia would not be in the way 2 or 3 aircraft carriers within 60 -70 ct, although now, when the problems are even with frigate class ships, this may seem like a pipe dream, but if you think about the medium term, such aircraft carriers would not be superfluous for Russia

        and the British, the queen, built 70 kiloton, on the approach the prince
  11. magadan72
    magadan72 23 August 2017 15: 35
    +1
    I believe that the Russian Navy will certainly need a light aircraft carrier. Well, our AUGs will not fight with the Americans in the ocean ... But they can decent work on the coast somewhere in the central Mediterranean or the Indian Ocean! . Accompany convoys to cover the area of ​​deployment of nuclear submarines, fishing areas in Russian waters, etc. Yes, and they are cheaper ...
  12. Robert Korsunsky
    Robert Korsunsky 23 August 2017 20: 34
    0
    Quote: Olaf Uximae
    Why don't our representatives from the Forbes list organize the initiative, for example, the “oligarchs to the motherland”: we will build 2 aircraft carriers, 16 “leaders”, 12 RPKSN and 24 maples with our own money, I think it’s enough and not even the last cent will be torn from itself.
    1. Robert Korsunsky
      Robert Korsunsky 23 August 2017 20: 36
      0
      Olaf Uksimae, do you believe that yourself? laughing
  13. Grach-25sm
    Grach-25sm 23 August 2017 23: 24
    0
    This is closer to the point! And then they mess with the “super-duper atomic” Small, with a displacement of 35 - 40 thousand tons, the air group - eight MiG-39/35 and Yak-130, plus attack “drones” and helicopters. Yes, it is also desirable eight “Caliber” below the deck, they are all less than the “Granites” will be. ”A springboard instead of catapults, normal for light aircraft.
    The tactical necessity of such a ship - supporting amphibious forces - of the same "Ivan Gren" and participation in local humanitarian conflicts of low and medium intensity (as in Syria). Based on the Black Sea Fleet, Pacific Fleet, BF. In the north, such an aircraft carrier is not particularly needed. Although - in the SF just its anti-submarine specialization will be more in demand. In fact, a helicopter carrier cruiser with the ability to base fighter jets and elements of strike weapons.
  14. Andrew
    Andrew 24 August 2017 00: 01
    0
    This is cool of course, but here again without BUT! You look at how our modern military-industrial complex builds small corvettes, medium corvettes (20380/20385, 22160), and even more so - frigates! Long enough! During this time, the United States manages to build 1 submarine of the Virginia type in 1 year! Aircraft carriers, we will master, I think, in about 10 years, as MINIMUM! The good news is that a naval program for the development of a small fleet has been established ... The Soviet fleet, too, was far from being built with cruisers ... Destroyers, shopping malls and hunting ships