Military Review

Prospective aircraft carrier project 23000 "Storm". Infographics

15
The 23000 Storm project is a project of a promising Russian multi-purpose heavy aircraft carrier, developed at the Krylovskiy State Research and Development Center (KGNTS).


The ship is designed to perform various tasks in the far ocean zone, it will be able to strike at ground and sea targets of the enemy using its own weapons and aircraft aviation groups, in addition, will be able to provide air defense with airborne defense systems and air group means, provide combat stability and air defense of naval groups, and also provide support for landing.

Originator:
https://riafan.ru/
15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Victor_B
    Victor_B 21 October 2017 08: 28
    +1
    It will begin now ...
    I read with interest the pro & contra of the Avians.
    Those who "for" shy away from answering the question - where is their place in the DEFENSE doctrine of Russia. Whom to crumble?
    Those who are “against” shy away from answering the question - what is the KGB combat stability without air cover. So we want the Bulo and that's it. And here: "Where is the money (money) Zin?" somehow falls. In the nightstand.
    Here my opinion fluctuates with the line of the party (different parts of my brain).
    I just want to get it! I want to! But immediately the question. Instead of what? Everything will not work right away, Kharya will burst!
    So educate me experts. Convince.
    And, accordingly, I will exert influence, so to speak I will do my best to convey your opinion to the Russian authorities and force them to make the right decision.
  2. A36
    A36 21 October 2017 08: 41
    +3
    Another nonsense. Reading is disgusting. Again the same rake. 1). No catapults - again a dope dodger (by the way, without a catapult, an AWACS plane will take off) ... 2). Again, a bunch of offensive weapons - instead of ideology - Aircraft carrier!
    1. SMP
      SMP 21 October 2017 12: 31
      +1
      Another nonsense. Reading is disgusting. Again the same rake. 1). No catapults - again a dope dodger (by the way, without a catapult, an AWACS plane will take off) ... 2). Again, a bunch of offensive weapons - instead of ideology - Aircraft carrier!


      The USSR needed aircraft carriers to support socialist countries around the world from Africa to South and Central America (Nicaragua)
      For Russia, why aircraft carriers, we do not have commercial interests like the USA in semi-colonial countries depending on the dollar. Rave...

      We need aircraft-carrying icebreakers with Yak-141 and anti-submarine helicopters, since the ice cover in the Arctic is shrinking and the Americans are already trying to surface in places where this was not possible before.


      For hunting for such boats and protecting the Northern Sea Route for the future, aircraft-carrying icebreakers are needed. By the way, there is already a catamaran type.


      Since the catamaran scheme is cheaper and if you transfer such a scheme to an aircraft-carrying icebreaker, it will be justified because both hydrocarbon production on the Arctic shelf and their transportation are protected.



      Then, the Yak-141 will be able to intercept the B-1, B-52 and so on above the North Pole up to the coast of Canada, and submarines in the Arctic will be easier to sink, and protect Russia's commercial interests in the Arctic.

      And standard American-type aircraft carriers for Russia are a budget ruin, as was the case in the USSR.
      1. Dedall
        Dedall 21 October 2017 22: 29
        +3
        How is it no interest? Now even in India our ships are being arrested. It was forgotten how our cruisers were visiting him. Again, the pirates ... And even if we take the household side of the influence of the fleet, the fact of periodically visiting such a bandura in any Pampusia will make you think about who should bring fresh water ahead - which Dutchman or ours.
        The political influence of the fleet is generally difficult to assess. And here for an example we can take the story of the earthquakes in Messina. After him, Italians for 20 years associated the word "Russian" solely with the help of Russian sailors. And who said that the words of ordinary citizens of the country have no influence on politics? And now, smoked "Kuznetsov" in the English Channel and the whole world laughed. And if every month our ships went back and forth with the same smoke, then they would be afraid to laugh. And then we would get used to it at all - we have an image like this.
        1. SMP
          SMP 22 October 2017 13: 58
          0
          ..However, by the end of perestroika, they had become "occupiers" ..


          I dare to suggest the ships are not ours, but the oligarchs i.e. private propertycrews yes ours.
          And it’s not a carrier in the Indian Ocean that’s necessary, and just seafarers quickly pick up, and let the owner himself figure it out to whom and what he owes, and then he hires another crew to transfer the vessel to the port of registry.

          And for the sake of..z..l..o..v the oligarchs who have two or three citizenships do not pay taxes to the budget of the Russian Federation, and take them offshore according to gray schemes, these are not our interests, but private shipowners, what would the Russians pay for them in the budget for the maintenance of aircraft carriers.

          And India will release our sailors, without intimidation by aircraft carriers. In the Arctic, oil and gas production belongs exclusively to Russia, as well as Suv.Mor. The path is a purely Russian project since the days of the USSR.
          And so even the USSR has overstrained I have an economy several times stronger than the Russian one.
    2. vlad007
      vlad007 21 October 2017 22: 20
      +3
      Quote: A36
      No catapult - again a dope dodger (by the way, without a catapult, an AWACS plane will take off) ...

      Watch carefully !!!
  3. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 21 October 2017 08: 42
    +3
    And even the Yak-44 was painted, well, by comedians, until 2030, against the background of a reduction in defense programs, such a ship was unrealistic to build.
  4. Hurricane70
    Hurricane70 21 October 2017 08: 53
    +3
    Quote: Victor_B
    It will begin now ...
    I read with interest the pro & contra of the Avians.
    Those who "for" shy away from answering the question - where is their place in the DEFENSE doctrine of Russia. Whom to crumble?
    Those who are “against” shy away from answering the question - what is the KGB combat stability without air cover. So we want the Bulo and that's it. And here: "Where is the money (money) Zin?" somehow falls. In the nightstand.
    Here my opinion fluctuates with the line of the party (different parts of my brain).
    I just want to get it! I want to! But immediately the question. Instead of what? Everything will not work right away, Kharya will burst!
    So educate me experts. Convince.
    And, accordingly, I will exert influence, so to speak I will do my best to convey your opinion to the Russian authorities and force them to make the right decision.

    And none of the sane people about the need for an aircraft carrier for the Russian Federation will not convince you! You yourself, in principle, have correctly set out everything ... The topic of pulling into an expensive adventure is moving forward, as it was more than once! So that the economy could not stand it and overtake! It is one thing to build cheap (as the Misty Albionians admitted) missiles, another thing is this colossus, which costs orders of magnitude higher, and a third of the fleet requires support. And the Misty were the first to whimper that Putin with cheap missiles would drown all their dear garbage! I recently laid out, about how Klintsevich outlined our blueprints for aircraft carriers, the doctrine is the construction of six heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers, which both carry the aircraft and grandmother will take off!
    1. Fedya2017
      Fedya2017 21 October 2017 15: 06
      0
      Quote: Hurricane70
      for the doctrine, the construction of six heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers, which carry both the aircraft and grandmother, is taken!

      Without carrier-based AWACS aircraft, all of these your aircraft-carrying cruisers will not be able to counteract the American or even Chinese AUG. In war - they will be sunk, not even "seeing" the enemy, but in peacetime - an expensive but not very useful toy. as shown by the experience of the pre-Avianosus Kuznetsov. That's all ... And for there to be AWACS aircraft, you need a catapult, and then you have to abandon the launchers of huge anti-ship and other missiles, i.e. to build not a hybrid of a hedgehog and a snake, but a full-fledged aircraft carrier - a floating airfield, and not invent a bicycle already invented.
  5. A36
    A36 21 October 2017 08: 56
    +2
    By the way, they did not boast of an atomic power plant, will the ancient boilers be installed again? Hello traction in tow - de facto?
  6. nmaxxen
    nmaxxen 21 October 2017 09: 22
    0
    Aircraft carriers are needed only by colonial powers to intimidate and punish disobedient colonies, or other obviously weak, unrequited opponents.
    Russia is not such
    Russia has no tasks for the use of aircraft carriers.
    The experience of Kuznetsov’s Syrian campaign was perfectly demonstrated
    And in general - all the large Soviet ships simply rotted without affecting anything.
    They simply gobbled up money, unlike, for example, nuclear submarines.
    It is necessary to abandon large military ships - only transport, supplies, etc.
    Better a large number of 500-2500 tons of ATS (vessels with outriggers - to maintain seaworthiness at a small size and unification in the construction of ships of different types and purposes).
    Emphasis on intelligence, communications, helicopters
  7. andy.v.lee
    andy.v.lee 21 October 2017 10: 35
    +1
    While the Kremlin "children" are making plans on paper, China is moving to the second pair of hulls of a new type of aircraft.
  8. Fedya2017
    Fedya2017 21 October 2017 14: 56
    0
    This is a picture, not a project ... Whatever the child would amuse. Of course we need! “There is no reception against scrap, besides another scrap” ... But if there is not enough income to buy a new “Lada”, then do not dream of a “Bentley” ... As for the “project”, then people wrote correctly that An aircraft carrier needs a catapult, not a ramp. It’s not enough for us the bitter experience of the “pre-Avianosi Kuzi”, which is a pity to cut into needles, and it makes no sense to contain ... The hybrid of a hedgehog and a snake turned out to be of little use in practice.
  9. Bronevick
    Bronevick 21 October 2017 15: 52
    +2
    Who still did not understand the construction of the aircraft carrier abandoned until 2030.
    1. leonid-zherebtcov
      leonid-zherebtcov 14 November 2017 05: 07
      0
      Wise comment !!! good he would be an "orphan" ... he would manage to acquire up to the age of 30, a couple, and preferably a trio of serious landing helicopter carriers.