Military Review

Russia is developing a light aircraft carrier

86
Russia began to develop a light multi-functional aircraft carrier (LMA) with a displacement of 40 thousand tons, reports Flotprom with reference to a source in the Krylov State Research Center (KGNTs).


Russia is developing a light aircraft carrier


The layout of the new ship has already been developed and will be presented in December 2017. A light aircraft carrier is a kind of addition to the project developed by the heavy aircraft carrier Storm, but its production will cost several times cheaper.

“The new ship will have quite impressive technical characteristics, considering no more overall dimensions. With a displacement in 30-40 thousand tons of LMA will be able to take on board up to 50 units of various equipment. At the moment, it is planned to use Su-33 planes as part of the air group, which are the sea version of the Su-35, as well as the MiG-29K, ”the material says.

According to the developers, the use of the MiG-35 is not yet envisaged, since the manufacturer has not yet begun to develop the ship version of the aircraft.

In addition, “to increase combat effectiveness aviation the groups will use radar patrol aircraft and modern Ka-27 helicopters. ”

New aircraft carrier can be built at the Kerch plant "Zaliv". The company has the necessary experience and technical equipment for the project.
Photos used:
krylov-center.ru/ Press service of KGNTs
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AlexanderVP
    AlexanderVP 13 November 2017 14: 41 New
    +6
    Well, the title of the article :)
    It will be developed by the KSCC, and Russia will develop it when there is a contract order from the RF Ministry of Defense. In the meantime, only a project from a specific bureau is being developed on its own initiative.
    1. Juborg
      Juborg 13 November 2017 16: 39 New
      10
      Apparently it will work on fuel oil as "Kuzya" and put a smoke screen in the same way. laughing
      "Kuzya" has 60 thousand tons of displacement, there are max 40 thousand tons, and the same wing. He will be wound around the waves, that takeoff and landing on it will be possible only in full calm, which happens 10-20 days a year. And we do not have short-range take-off and vertical landing aircraft in the next 50-100 years (we are not the USSR!) In order to at least somehow neutralize this annoying misunderstanding. And not some kind of sedation stabilizers will help here.
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 13 November 2017 17: 25 New
        +6
        The article has a bunch of crazy blunders:
        Su-33 aircraft, which are a marine version of the Su-35
        .
        RCC and air defense rather western than ours. We have to wait for something real. hi
        1. nod739
          nod739 13 November 2017 18: 28 New
          +2
          so I got the impression that this is a rough duck
          1. insular
            insular 13 November 2017 23: 04 New
            +4
            Quote: nod739
            what is it a rough duck

            not a duck, but a penguin ... on the flight deck are f-18 hornets and f-35 penguins laughing
      2. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich 14 November 2017 21: 58 New
        +1
        UDC "Tarava" 28-40 tons.
        Nobody shakes anyone there.
    2. sub307
      sub307 14 November 2017 10: 46 New
      +3
      Yes, why didn’t Russia “develop” ... and so far we have only Kuzyu, the only one and not having “no analogues”.
  2. Monarchist
    Monarchist 13 November 2017 14: 42 New
    +4
    It has long been necessary, otherwise poor Kuzya was already waiting for receivers. The only question is when will it be built?
    1. Jedi
      Jedi 13 November 2017 14: 56 New
      +5
      Slowly, because it did not even reach the stage of the layout.
      1. 79807420129
        79807420129 13 November 2017 15: 00 New
        +5
        Quote: Jedi
        Slowly, because it did not even reach the stage of the layout.

        Max layout is at the top, only from the plans to the implementation we ourselves know what distances. what hi
        1. Jedi
          Jedi 13 November 2017 15: 26 New
          +6
          Hello, Vlad! hi Photo to the article is not a layout, but a 3d model on a computer.
          Quote: 79807420129
          from plans to implementation, you yourself know what distances

          I know, therefore, wrote that
          Quote: Jedi
          Not soon

          Something like this ...
          1. Going
            Going 13 November 2017 19: 54 New
            +9
            Quote: Jedi
            Slowly, because it did not even reach the stage of the layout.


            This is still Wishlist - called ship modeling, but it is useful.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 13 November 2017 18: 02 New
      +7
      Quote: Monarchist
      It has long been necessary, otherwise poor Kuzya was already waiting for receivers. The only question is when will it be built?

      In truth, we need such light carriers, but not in the amount of one piece in 20 years. As for the wing from the SU-33s and MIG-29K ... by the time you manage to launch this aircraft carrier (construction with such funding and contractors), it will take 15 years at best. the oversized version of the SU-57 and the Mikoyan light generation 5 fighter.
      Regarding the price and most importantly the timing ... everything is still quite funny and ridiculous. We give birth to multi-purpose workers for 10 years (nuclear submarines), we have been building corvettes for 7 years ... what can I say? There are no substitutes for the Eagles, and as far as I understand, even the bookmark of the Leader of the lead is not expected until the year 20.
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 13 November 2017 14: 43 New
    +5
    Our answer to the mistress of the seas !!! .... joke, I also want to dream up a design bureau, and what kind of denyuzhku get.
  4. Herculesic
    Herculesic 13 November 2017 14: 43 New
    +2
    Thoughts a lot, and even more mat! !! am Why didn’t you think about a light aircraft carrier right after the return of Crimea? am Will they really build it, or is it at least the hundredth project that will be safely buried? ?? Then only checkmate! !!! angry
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 13 November 2017 14: 48 New
      +9
      And I have a question. Let’s say there is an office that develops such projects. So she developed an aircraft carrier. And then what should she do? Dismiss people, dismiss staff? This is a job. They constantly have to design something. And the fact that not all projects will be in metal is also normal.
      1. Herculesic
        Herculesic 13 November 2017 14: 50 New
        +2
        Or maybe it's time to start not just to develop the project, but also to implement it? ???
        1. Non liberoid Russian
          Non liberoid Russian 13 November 2017 14: 58 New
          +3
          Well, pay for the construction and maintenance - so realize
      2. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 13 November 2017 15: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Muvka
        And then what should she do?

        Like what? Continue gluing cardboard layouts. Without a state defense order, such initiative measures pour precisely into this.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 13 November 2017 16: 00 New
          0
          In any case, they should not be idle. And the implementation of the project is no longer their responsibility, and they don’t have such opportunities.
    2. SOF
      SOF 13 November 2017 14: 49 New
      +5
      ... there is no smoke without fire. A week ago, the news flashed about the readiness of the Kerch Plant "Bay" to build aircraft-carrying ships, now this. Someone is stirring something somewhere. More specifics, it seems to me, in the near future, we will not wait.

      Here's an example: ..... "The head of the Republic of Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov, said that in the future Kerch
      shipyard "Bay" can build aircraft carriers. Such a thought he
      voiced at a meeting with foreign journalists from Greece, Italy and
      Slovakia.
      "Shipbuilding Kerch Yard" Zaliv "has the most
      a large dry dock in the Russian Federation, 375 meters long. it
      allows you to build everything, down to aircraft carriers. Perhaps such decisions
      will be accepted here, "- says the words of Sergei Aksenov RIA Novosti." ....
      1. kpd
        kpd 13 November 2017 16: 12 New
        +3
        There is a dock, but now with qualified personnel in the Gulf, the trouble is now. During the time that has passed since the collapse of the Union, all who could have fled from the factory. And now there is a vicious circle: without orders there is no normal salary - without a normal salary there are no shipbuilders - without shipbuilders there are no orders ...
        Weld the case - they will weld, but to deal with completion and saturate the box with equipment - now it’s bad with the staff.
    3. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 13 November 2017 14: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: Herkulesich
      Why didn’t you think about a light aircraft carrier right after the return of Crimea?

      Probably because Crimea itself is an aircraft carrier. Unsinkable.
      And what is the connection between the return of the peninsula and the project of a light multi-functional aircraft carrier? To walk through the Bosphorus?
  5. svp67
    svp67 13 November 2017 14: 51 New
    +7
    Is such an aircraft carrier needed? Can direct efforts to create UDC?
    1. Funnels
      Funnels 13 November 2017 15: 02 New
      +6
      So I think: one and a half air wings, (and they are all 50-70 aircraft), but until they develop, build, these Su and MiG will become obsolete morally and physically. Well, this is not our topic, an aircraft carrier.
    2. SOF
      SOF 13 November 2017 15: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      Is such an aircraft carrier needed? Can direct efforts to create UDC?

      ... here it is needed ... And the UDC is needed and the aircraft carrier is needed. And not one.
      It’s not equal to an hour tomorrow, for the next wise guy, an apple will shoot for a little while and drag him into the thought how to deactivate the nucleus. It’s a fairy tale, of course, but the Chinese won the cosmo-bucket-engine, as if they had invented. What will we do then, without the possibility of mutual armageddon? How will we take New Berlin overseas? wink
  6. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 13 November 2017 14: 54 New
    +6
    30-40 thousand tons of displacement per air group of 50 units? Including heavy Dryers and AWACS aircraft (and hence catapults too)?
    At Clemenceau and Charles de Gaulle in the same displacement range, only 40 cars were able to cram.
  7. Forcecom
    Forcecom 13 November 2017 14: 57 New
    10
    New aircraft carrier can be built at the Kerch plant "Zaliv". The company has the necessary experience and technical equipment for the project.


    And how is the international treaty banning passage through the straits of aircraft carriers? (yes, yes, I remember that 1143 projects were built in Nikolaev only according to the classification, they passed as TAKR (Heavy Aircraft Carrier) with all the relying cruiser respected by the cruiser in the form of anti-ship missiles, air defense and anti-aircraft defense, and airplanes? And here we classify the project as an aircraft carrier.
    1. Funnels
      Funnels 13 November 2017 15: 10 New
      13
      Well call again the aircraft cruiser
      1. SOF
        SOF 13 November 2017 15: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: Funnels
        Well call again the aircraft cruiser

        ... here, here ... Moreover, judging by the picture, he can easily be called such.
    2. opus
      opus 13 November 2017 15: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: Forcecom
      with all the relying self-respecting cruiser in the form of anti-ship missiles, air defense and air defense,


      will call
      Multipurpose aircraft carrier heavy cruiser = MATKR
      or MVAK

    3. Kurare
      Kurare 13 November 2017 15: 12 New
      +4
      As far as I remember, an aircraft carrier can get out of the World Cup through the straits, but get in is problematic.
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 13 November 2017 16: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: Kurare
        As far as I remember, an aircraft carrier can get out of the World Cup through the straits, but get in is problematic.

        It can’t. Because of this, our Kuzya and the whole series are exactly the way it is.
        1. Kurare
          Kurare 13 November 2017 16: 46 New
          +3
          Quote: Muvka
          It can’t. Because of this, our Kuzya and the whole series are exactly the way it is.

          Then, what are the problems of maintaining tradition and calling continue to call aircraft carriers further (T) Aircraft Regiment, if that helps?
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 13 November 2017 17: 29 New
            +3
            “This” helps, because in the Convention TAVKR is equated with battleships. And passes. But clean aircraft carriers - you can’t. hi
            1. Kurare
              Kurare 13 November 2017 17: 31 New
              +2
              If it helps, the problem is solved! hi
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 November 2017 18: 10 New
      +4
      Quote: Forcecom
      And how is the international treaty banning passage through the straits of aircraft carriers?

      Can I quote from this article of the Treaty? And then I can’t find an article prohibiting the passage of the AB Black Sea powers in the Montreux Convention. what
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 13 November 2017 22: 05 New
        +2
        And she is not there! So the Black Sea powers can safely carry aircraft carriers, the only restriction on the passage is not to use aviation.
  8. Simon
    Simon 13 November 2017 15: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Muvka
    And I have a question. Let’s say there is an office that develops such projects. So she developed an aircraft carrier. And then what should she do? Dismiss people, dismiss staff? This is a job. They constantly have to design something. And the fact that not all projects will be in metal is also normal.

    I agree! How many Soviet developments were raised in the middle of the two thousandths, which surpassed the American and NATO developments.
  9. Fedya2017
    Fedya2017 13 November 2017 15: 16 New
    +2
    All these are just pictures and layouts ... The available shipbuilding capacities are loaded with orders for many years to come. If you build, then a full-fledged strike aircraft carrier with nuclear reactors, with a catapult ... And not an ersatz substitute. as in this layout. Little is there an existing miracle-hybrid "Kuzi"? Or again there is no understanding. that the aircraft carrier should be just a floating airfield as part of the AUG? Again, everything is somehow cheaper, less, shorter ... But by the way. all this is a dream and nothing serious ... So that at least the designers didn’t leave the office.
    1. atesterev
      atesterev 14 November 2017 08: 02 New
      +2
      And who are you going to hit with this aircraft carrier? The Yankees come to the shores of, say, Iraq with a pair of AUGs and hit him, and even, as practice has shown, they can do this much better from land bases.
      So it turns out that if we are not going to smash some Zanzibar in half, then we don’t need an aircraft carrier once, but we need a pretty simpler aircraft carrier to support the stability of the ship group in some Indian Ocean.
  10. Sergei75
    Sergei75 13 November 2017 15: 18 New
    +1
    Interestingly, will the planes take off from it with full combat load and tucked to the eyeballs?
    1. Fedya2017
      Fedya2017 13 November 2017 16: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Sergei75
      Interestingly, will the planes take off from it with full combat load and tucked to the eyeballs?

      And as in Syria with Kuznetsov ... They will take off lightly, and to the ground airfield for refueling and reloading. Then on, carry out a combat mission ...
  11. Berkut24
    Berkut24 13 November 2017 15: 20 New
    +1
    Handles are scratched at the design bureau, trying to lure an order from the Moscow Region. It only seems to me that the Moscow Region will break them off. Syria has shown that it is enough and cheaper to have a ground base in the region. One replenishment of fuel and ammunition is worth what, I'm not talking about the intensity of combat work.
    1. Kurare
      Kurare 13 November 2017 17: 36 New
      +4
      Quote: Berkut24
      Syria has shown that it is enough and cheaper to have a ground base in the region.

      And if there is no base in the region and is not expected, but do you really need to show your fists and teeth?

      In addition, if the Russian Navy is going to stay under the umbrella of land-based aircraft and not go to the ocean, then of course, nothing of the kind is needed. But in the ocean zone I wouldn’t refuse an “escort” aircraft carrier ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 13 November 2017 18: 16 New
        +7
        Quote: Kurare
        In addition, if the Russian Navy is going to stay under the umbrella of land-based aircraft and not go to the ocean, then of course, nothing of the kind is needed. But in the ocean zone I wouldn’t refuse an “escort” aircraft carrier ...

        In the ocean ... even covering our bases without our own AB is already problematic. For it is necessary to fight not with the consequences, but with the causes - that is, carriers must be intercepted, not issued by the Kyrgyz Republic. And for this it is necessary to take the line of defense in the North somewhere to the Bear. Which means that coastal aviation will fly to the aid of the duty link, covering our ships at the turn, already to cap analysis.
      2. Berkut24
        Berkut24 13 November 2017 18: 30 New
        +1
        And if there is no base in the region and is not expected, but do you really need to show your fists and teeth?

        A mini-aircraft carrier is not teeth and fists for a remote region. This is a horn, which can be obtained in the absence of numerous cover.
  12. Olegi1
    Olegi1 13 November 2017 15: 23 New
    0
    To build in Kerch? And no one forgot that Turkey does not let aircraft carriers through the straits? Kuzya was dragged along, legged like an anti-submarine ship ...
    1. SOF
      SOF 13 November 2017 15: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Olegi1
      And no one forgot that Turkey ...

      ... they have not forgotten, and a little higher discussion is already underway on this topic.
      And we have not forgotten that the pretty not stupid state of the USSR, in Nikolaev, before its collapse built a full-fledged atomic scientist ... Somehow, were you going to solve the problem with Montreux? Well, wasn’t they going to conquer the Bosphorus? Is not it?
      1. kpd
        kpd 13 November 2017 16: 16 New
        +1
        Yes, just like with the Sevmorput at the time, the nuclear lighter carrier was dragged through the Bosphorus by tugboats, the Turks only hindered the passage of the ship loaded with atomic fuel.
    2. BAI
      BAI 13 November 2017 15: 36 New
      +1
      And no one forgot that Turkey does not let aircraft carriers through the straits?

      Montreux is not for the Black Sea states. When buying a Mistral, the question of the passage of these ships through the straits was probably in last place.
  13. BAI
    BAI 13 November 2017 15: 30 New
    +4
    We laugh at the Ukrainian models, but what is better?
  14. Eurodav
    Eurodav 13 November 2017 15: 37 New
    0
    Quote: Monarchist
    It has long been necessary, otherwise poor Kuzya was already waiting for receivers. The only question is when will it be built?

    Why compare your ass with your finger? Kuznetsov is an aircraft-carrying heavy cruiser, which itself can pile on an adversary, immediately talking about some sort of light aircraft carrier ... So explain to us why this bucket is for us? Instead of a target? We’ve already butted on this topic ... Since you are waiting for these vessels, then don’t say that you have cut back somewhere in the right place, for example, where are our Armats ...
  15. Eurodav
    Eurodav 13 November 2017 15: 39 New
    +1
    Quote: Berkut24
    Handles are scratched at the design bureau, trying to lure an order from the Moscow Region. It only seems to me that the Moscow Region will break them off. Syria has shown that it is enough and cheaper to have a ground base in the region. One replenishment of fuel and ammunition is worth what, I'm not talking about the intensity of combat work.

    That's right, but someone really wants us to get involved in this expensive and unnecessary business!
  16. Eurodav
    Eurodav 13 November 2017 15: 49 New
    +1
    Quote: SOF
    Quote: svp67
    Is such an aircraft carrier needed? Can direct efforts to create UDC?

    ... here it is needed ... And the UDC is needed and the aircraft carrier is needed. And not one.
    It’s not equal to an hour tomorrow, for the next wise guy, an apple will shoot for a little while and drag him into the thought how to deactivate the nucleus. It’s a fairy tale, of course, but the Chinese won the cosmo-bucket-engine, as if they had invented. What will we do then, without the possibility of mutual armageddon? How will we take New Berlin overseas? wink

    And the aircraft carrier then in what way reaches the coast of Matrasia? With so many of their fleet! What nonsense is how you carry the mantra ... We boast and are proud of our missiles, so they will surely fly where necessary both from land and from under water, and the aircraft carrier will be covered in a minute ... Like the dreadnoughts in the WWII will hide from the enemy, so how they are too expensive in any sense and lose Matrasia at least one and the end of the financial and aircraft carrier pyramid, tales and prestige, which is already in question!
    1. SOF
      SOF 13 November 2017 18: 04 New
      +1
      .And the aircraft carrier then finds out ...

      ... on screws screws up, on them darling. I have not heard about air jets and air cushions of air spikes.
      Purely hypothetically: there was no nuclear weapons, they started a war against us. The influx of foreign tourists on our territory, we once again mastered and, as always, drove. The question is, where? To the English Channel? And then what? How to get into the adversary’s house? Pontoons? Well, if only through the Bering Strait, since the UDC, without support from above, will not reach the shore ... And the 76th, with winged infantry flying alone? And how far will the fighter reach? Even with hanging tanks. Air refueling? And will the mattresses look like we are refueling?
      Of course there is a second option: to drive them away from Europe and wave the pen - but, but, but! Dare not come anymore !!!
      I am touched by the anti-aircraft carrier strategy, word of honor. People, 21st century in the yard, a potential enemy across the ocean. And he lives very well there, because the whole world has short arms to arrange a war for them on their territory. Why does it never occur to anyone that an aircraft carrier is not only a power projector, but a defense tool in the distance.
  17. milling machine
    milling machine 13 November 2017 16: 03 New
    +1
    This fairy tale since su33 became a marine version of su35? Why not immediately su 57.
    Another article to maintain the spirit of cheers patriots.
  18. Tishka
    Tishka 13 November 2017 16: 04 New
    +1
    You can develop anything you want, anyway, as long as this government is in power, there is no money, and will not, but you are holding on!
  19. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 13 November 2017 16: 21 New
    0
    All this is good, developments, layouts and prospects of which we have a lot ..... but in practice it will still be oh how not soon.
  20. Pacifist
    Pacifist 13 November 2017 16: 51 New
    +1
    nifiga did not understand ... SU-33 we now have a marine version of the SU-35, and not the SU-27 ??? or will they release a new plane at the same number? Something I suspect someone was scolding ... what
  21. 3vs
    3vs 13 November 2017 16: 56 New
    0
    The Chinese will build earlier! bully
    Burned a novelty! lol
  22. San Sanych
    San Sanych 13 November 2017 17: 13 New
    +1
    Why are there two deck superstructures of the so-called island type for an aircraft carrier of such a modest displacement? Moreover, in such an idiotic configuration, as shown in the figure.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 November 2017 18: 21 New
      +5
      Quote: San Sanych
      Why are there two deck superstructures of the so-called island type for an aircraft carrier of such a modest displacement? Moreover, in such an idiotic configuration, as shown in the figure.

      Artist! So! Sees! smile
      The nose superstructure is ideally located - it creates air turbulences both above the landing deck, interfering with the landing, and over the distant starting positions, introducing the much-needed element of Russian roulette into the take-off of fully loaded cars.
      1. San Sanych
        San Sanych 13 November 2017 18: 36 New
        +1
        If you build an aircraft carrier, then the displacement should be at least 60-70 ktn, with catapults and nuclear power, and if within 30-40 ktn, then a "clean" helicopter carrier, such as the Italian Konti di Cavour or the Japanese "destroyer" Izumo, is better. And there is nothing to be wise here.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 November 2017 14: 42 New
          +1
          Цитата: Сан Саныч
          If you build an aircraft carrier, then the displacement should be at least 60-70 ktn, with catapults and nuclear power plants

          Back in the USSR! smile
          Because the full AB described by you is called pr. 1160 or 1153.
          1. San Sanych
            San Sanych 14 November 2017 15: 06 New
            +1
            1160 is still preferable to the 1153th project, and if you compromise, then 1143.7 Ulyanovsk with a ramp and 2 catapults would be the best option, but the planned “granites” on board were still an excess. PS although of course in the early 70s the project from 1143.7 in the USSR could not appear. And the project 1160 for the country at that time was quite capable.
      2. San Sanych
        San Sanych 13 November 2017 18: 43 New
        +1
        As for the add-ons, everything has already been invented for a long time, there were attempts to place the “islands” on the port side, and even not have “islands” at all, nothing practical came of it. The most suitable is to have an "island" on the starboard side.
  23. Bronevick
    Bronevick 13 November 2017 19: 29 New
    0
    This one is needed more than 100 thousand tons.
  24. faiver
    faiver 13 November 2017 19: 49 New
    +2
    damn painted the air group as if the aircraft carrier will be built in a couple of years laughing
    in the picture there is still a drill aircraft - will they do it in parallel with the aircraft carrier? laughing
  25. alexhol
    alexhol 13 November 2017 19: 56 New
    -1
    I realized: "Light aircraft carrier" - this is because it is made of plastic! what
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. rocket757
    rocket757 14 November 2017 11: 19 New
    +3
    This is understandable, for promising shipbuilding, to build an aircraft carrier is "aerobatics" ... as well as a super tanker / gas carrier ... and a corresponding shipyard and a huge dock are needed !!! it is necessary to prepare engineering and working personnel, the equipment is not the same anyway what to use, but even better to do it yourself, you have to !!!
    These are optimistic prospects for people and industry, for the country ... but for some reason for the last "construction of the century" I do not have an optimistic impression .... am I for the fact that it will not work out as always ???
  28. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 14 November 2017 12: 09 New
    0
    A waste of time and resources. Aircraft carriers as a class have outlived their lives by turning into "expensive targets" for submarines. It seems that the attempt to drag Russia into a hopeless and expensive project was a success. The capabilities of aircraft carriers to conduct "combat" operations were vividly demonstrated by the cruiser Admirol Kuznetsov in the Syrian campaign. What other proofs of the meaninglessness of this “weapon” are needed?
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 14 November 2017 13: 12 New
      +4
      A waste of money for us, I’m ready to agree ... a "big club" for admirals and politicians, with a conditional useful effect.
      For those who are fully armed with such a club and waved it pretty well ... the prospects for use, against a weak enemy, there are not small.
      We have no reason to climb into this sphere ... expensive and the effect is doubtful !!! Here are the supertankers \ gas carriers to build, this is the best option for loading shipbuilding capacities.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 November 2017 14: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: Former battalion commander
      The capabilities of aircraft carriers to conduct "combat" operations were vividly demonstrated by the cruiser Admirol Kuznetsov in the Syrian campaign. What other proofs of the meaninglessness of this “weapon” are needed?

      Well, yes, yes ... it can be said in exactly the same way that the capabilities of the Soviet weapons were vividly demonstrated by the Iraqi army in 2003. smile
      The only thing that Kuznetsov demonstrated was that if a cow is milked a lot and little fed, then it will die. That is, if a carrier, whose overhaul has been delayed for more than 10 years, and whose deck training is limited to rare departures of 2-3 vehicles, is pushed out on a long cruise with real combat use of the deck group, then this will not end in good.
      Even the French with their buggy "ShdG" had fewer problems. And the Yankees regularly demonstrate the real capabilities of normally serviced aircraft with normal training of personnel.
      Quote: Former battalion commander
      Aircraft carriers as a class have outlived their lives by turning into "expensive targets" for submarines.

      Yeah ... 2 "loaves", a couple of "seagulls" and a couple of snacks just to guarantee the destruction of one AB. Is it too expensive a treat? Moreover, unlike AB, the anti-avianos SSGN is an extremely highly specialized thing.
    3. Fedya2017
      Fedya2017 14 November 2017 17: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Former battalion commander
      Aircraft carriers as a class have outlived their lives by turning into "expensive targets" for submarines.

      Do not repeat other people's nonsense ... Those who do not have the opportunity to have AUG console themselves with this nonsense. As soon as the budget began to allow the content of its AUGs, they immediately tried to get hold of them.
      1. Former battalion commander
        Former battalion commander 14 November 2017 19: 39 New
        0
        It’s not regrettable, but you’re repeating “other people's nonsense”. And about "trying to get hold of them," so, in Krylov’s fable about the monkey with glasses about these "trying to get hold of" it is very clearly spelled out. So, supporters of aircraft carriers risk being the same monkeys ... They have no idea why these "points" are, and there they also have to "build."
        1. Fedya2017
          Fedya2017 14 November 2017 19: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: Former battalion commander
          It’s not regrettable, but you’re repeating “other people's nonsense”.

          Clear. The infantry knows everything by itself ... Goodbye.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 14 November 2017 20: 35 New
            +3
            Well, yes, but give the ear-hookers a Spanish galleon !!! And then they will sail to the seas. on the waves ... or all will return to the familiar riverbed ???
          2. Grafova Irina
            Grafova Irina 1 January 2018 12: 39 New
            +1
            Well said drinks
  29. FalconSD
    FalconSD 14 November 2017 21: 02 New
    0
    Quote: insular
    Quote: nod739
    what is it a rough duck

    not a duck, but a penguin ... on the flight deck are f-18 hornets and f-35 penguins laughing
    By the way, yes. )))
  30. NordOst16
    NordOst16 14 November 2017 23: 01 New
    0
    Mmm ... really guessed that it was not within the forces of the Russian Federation to build large aviks like the USA and decided to take an example from the fleet of Her Majesty? I think this is not a bad option. If they can’t attach the planes there, then at least they’ll put a ka52k and that will be the case. In general, reactors were put on icebreakers of lesser displacement (but I’m never an expert here and I can flog this stuff), and on the other hand, we won’t capture Alaska and bombard Chuchmeks just like the Americans
  31. frodgins
    frodgins 14 November 2017 23: 25 New
    +2
    The article is somehow muddy. Photos, allegedly, KGNTS, but in fact it is an image of a possible look of the promising Korean aircraft carrier KCV-X with a displacement of 48000 tons. More like a throw-in to set a topic for discussion to the townsfolk.
  32. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 1 January 2018 12: 35 New
    +1
    Some kind of nonsense ... And what is depicted is also something strange ...
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 1 January 2018 22: 12 New
      +3
      Dreaming in between cases, the picture was drawn from the bulldozer!
      The topic is interesting, but it is better to listen to a specialist, professional tactics!
  33. yehat
    yehat 31 January 2018 17: 49 New
    0
    Damn the projectors got it. What for avik 50 cars, if he cannot use all 50 normally ???
    make 20, but so that they can take off and land normally! without jumps, with an acceleration mechanism,
    with a takeoff weight of 40+ tons !!!
    remove stupid rockets if there is not enough space for flights !!!
  34. Corporal Pupkin
    Corporal Pupkin 18 May 2018 18: 38 New
    0
    Do not tell PAPUAS!
    it is WHEN "as a last resort" aircraft carriers built in Kerch ... "write years ago," ass ??? wassat
    "Those specialists" a long time ago ... crying