Military Review

Why Russia does not need aircraft carriers

129
Why Russia does not need aircraft carriersThis theme, like a sea wave, then runs over, then rolls back. This refers to the aircraft carrier theme, which is so popular among us not only among professional sailors and shipbuilders, but also among the public, which is very far from naval activities.


We have already had occasion to comment on the possibility of building aircraft carriers in Russia (Aviation Itching, NVO from 08.03.13). In order not to repeat the plot of that publication, let us briefly list only the circumstances that will not allow our country to acquire full-fledged aircraft carriers in the foreseeable future.

First, it is the lack of qualified personnel necessary for the design and construction of such complex ships and the service to them.

Secondly, in our country, unfortunately, there is no necessary scientific and technical potential for successful assembly of modern aircraft carriers in shipyards, as well as no industrial base capable of supplying with all the necessary nomenclature of components and weapons such complex ships as aircraft carriers.

Third, new aircraft carriers will need new aircraft, including those that have never been built in the Russian Federation, for example, deck radar patrol and control aircraft, refueling aircraft. According to preliminary estimates, approximately 7 billion will be required only for the development of the DRLO aircraft.

Fourth, it will be necessary to build naval bases for receiving and servicing aircraft carriers.

To date, there are no such bases. Our only heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov ”received a permanent residence permit at the pier of the 35th shipyard in Rosta, from where it occasionally goes to sea.

Fifth, in order to launch an aircraft carrier into the sea, it must be provided with an escort consisting of very expensive surface ships of a class not lower than a frigate and nuclear submarines that are being built with great creak and which take years to fine-tune.

Finally, sixthly, Russia simply does not have the money to build modern aircraft carriers, and even more so - nuclear multipurpose, comparable to American ships of this class. Direct and indirect costs for the creation of the head of such a ship will require about a billion dollars for every thousand tons of its displacement. These expenses not only "eat up" the budget of the Navy, but also significantly "gnaw" the finances of other branches of the Armed Forces.

Of course, I would very much like to have atomic floating airfields in the Russian fleet. But this is possible only “according to the command of a pike”, that is, in a fairy tale.

ABOUT COMPETENCES AND NUANS

Maybe something has changed in our country since the publication of the previous material in 2013? Only that optimism among supporters of Russian aircraft carriers has increased. Here is what Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who is responsible for the defense industry in the government, told Interfax correspondents in March of this year: “We can build everything, we have the competencies for this. If a decision is made on the need to equip our Navy with an aircraft carrier, it will be implemented. We have an understanding of how to do this. there is aviation equipment that can be equipped with a ship, strike weapons. From a technical and production point of view, all this is feasible, there is no doubt. ”

He is echoed by the President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov: “My deep conviction is that we are able to create such a ship. The rest is nuances. ” Finally, on July 30, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of the Federation Committee on Defense and Security, Franz Klintsevich, on the program “Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” on Russia 1 TV channel, referring to aircraft carriers, said: “In the near future, we will lay six,” most unwittingly reminding the hero of Gogol's unfading comedy "The Inspector General".

However, I am sure that all statements of this kind are erroneous. The necessary competencies (this is a word in the sense of "qualification", if I am not mistaken, it was Dmitry Rogozin who first launched) Russia still does not possess and will not pledge any aircraft carrier in the near future. But the "nuances" with which there is no opportunity to cope, will be above the roof.

Shipbuilders and the Ministry of Defense meanwhile are not asleep. Only this year, thanks to their efforts, the carrier-based “wave” has risen high several times. The Krylov State Research Center (KGNTs), which was still in 2015 for the first time at the “Army” forum, presented the concept of a promising atomic aircraft carrier of the 23000E “Storm” project, continues to demonstrate its offspring at various arms exhibitions. Not without it, and at the St. Petersburg International Navy Salon this year.

This leviathan with a displacement of 95 KT, length 330 m, hull width 42 m, draft 11 m and width of the flight deck 85 m with unlimited cruising range can carry up to 90 aircraft. Just breathtaking! However, “Storm” was an advance project, that is, a sketch, and it remained so. Such concepts can be done even by students of the shipbuilders, as St. Petersburg State Marine Technical University is commonly called. The technical project of the miracle ship, not to mention the detailed design, is still very far away. And there will not be enough specialists, and these stages of work will require funds for the Nemer.

That is why, in the second half of this year, the accents began to shift towards a lighter version of the aircraft carrier. At the MAKS-2017 air show, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said that in 2025, it was planned to lay a new heavy aircraft carrier with the possibility of accommodating short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (SUVVP). At the Army-2017 forum, Borisov reaffirmed this information, stating that the Defense Ministry is discussing with aircraft manufacturers the creation of a promising aircraft that will be the development of the Yakovlev vertical take-off and landing aircraft line. It is worth recalling that at the dawn of the post-Soviet era, the fleet began to disown, as a devil from incense, from the supersonic VTOL of the Yak-141, which set the 12 world records for speed and payload, under the pretext that Americans prefer conventional deck planes. After the F-35B Lightning II SUWVP, created with extensive use of the Yak-141, appeared in service with the US Marine Corps and the United Kingdom Navy, the interest in the vehicles of this class awoke again. Only work in this area will require a lot of time and money.

And in the beginning of November of this year, the KNSC reported that in the near future it would introduce the concept of a promising light multipurpose aircraft carrier (LMA), the development of which is being carried out by the Center on its own initiative. It should be "cheaper and faster to build." Its approximate displacement should be in the range 30 – 40 thousand tons, and the number of aircraft that the LMA will carry, 40 – 50. Among them are deck fighters Su-33, as well as MiG-29K. A light aircraft carrier should also be able to receive radar patrol aircraft. The construction of such a ship is possible at Severodvinsk Sevmash or at the Zaliv plant in Kerch. Nothing is said about the power plant of the ship. But in order to reduce the cost, it will be necessary to abandon the nuclear power plant (AES), which, among other things, requires the deployment of biological protection systems, significantly weighting ships with a power plant of this type. But the domestic industry does not yet produce diesel and gas turbine installations of large capacity, and it does not make sense to install anti-flooded and capricious steam-turbine power plants.

Torture "man"

The pursuit of cheapness carries many unpleasant surprises. We illustrate this statement with the example of the Indian aircraft carrier "Vikrant" (translated from Sanskrit "Masculine") with a displacement of 40 thousand tons, which should be based on 40 aircraft, including MiG-29K fighters with a springboard takeoff. The development of his project was launched in 1999 year, and the laying took place at the shipyard in Kochi in February 2009. The implementation of the 71 project, created with the participation of the Nevsky Design Bureau (NPKB), the Italian company Fincantieri and the French concern DCNS (now the Naval Group), was then estimated at ridiculous 0,5 billion dollars. The project also involved Americans who supplied four gas turbine engines LM 2500 +, Western European electronic profile companies and Israel, which supplied the Barak-1 and Barak-8 anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM).

It should be noted here that the designers and builders of modern warships abroad are in much more favorable conditions than their Russian counterparts. It is enough for them to open the reference book in order to select for their offspring gas turbine engines of American, British, Ukrainian or Chinese production, diesel engines of German, American, French or the same Chinese companies. Then it remains only to agree on the price and delivery time. The same applies to electronic equipment and various weapons. Our shipbuilders have to deal with counterparties only within the country. Sometimes they do not even have much idea what is required of them. Because of this - long deadlines and high prices.

But back to the "Manly". Despite international assistance, the ship hovered on the stocks until August 2013, when it was lowered into the water. By that time, the estimate was exceeded several times. Today it is 3,765 billion dollars, and the ship is supposed to be handed over to the fleet in 2023 year, that is, 14 years after the launch. Despite the motto “I defeat those who fight with me,” the aircraft carrier failed to overcome low qualifications, oh, sorry, the competence of Indian shipbuilders.

Formerly, the Indian Navy wanted to acquire three aircraft carriers of the "Vikrant" type. Now those plans have been forgotten. The next step is to create a project of the aircraft carrier Vishal (“Giant”) with a displacement of about 65 thousand tons with an air group of 50 – 55 aircraft. It is possible that it will be equipped with a nuclear power plant. However, there is an obstacle to this - the development of the AEU will require 10 – 15 years. Meanwhile, the Indians are not without reason afraid that the Chinese will overtake them in a carrier race and turn the Indian Ocean into their lake.

Indeed, the PLA Navy will soon have a second aircraft carrier, built, albeit based on the somewhat enlarged Soviet 11435 project, but solely on its own. Yes, and the appearance in the seas and oceans of nuclear aircraft carriers under the flag of the PRC is left to wait no longer for as long as many think. Beijing needs them not so much to project power in remote areas as for purely practical purposes — ensuring the security of communications that supply the constantly growing economy of the country with raw materials. And although Beijing is now increasingly focused on Russian gas and oil, it is unlikely to put all its eggs in one basket and continue to consume raw materials from the Middle East and other regions.

That is why Indians are in a hurry. And now, apparently, their main partners in the field of aircraft carrier construction will be the undoubted leaders and authorities in this area of ​​shipbuilding - the Americans. Washington has already offered Delhi its services for the supply and licensed production of electromagnetic catalysts EMALS. Negotiations are underway between Boeing Corporation and HAL, the Indian state-owned aircraft manufacturing company, on the possibility of jointly producing the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet fighter aircraft, since, according to various sources, the Indian fleet has become disillusioned with Russian MiG-29К / KUB because of their frequent breakdowns.

WHAT IS IT LOOKING FOR IN A COUNTRY FAR

What tasks will be performed by promising Russian aircraft carriers is not very clear. In any case, in terms of the criterion "cost - efficiency." Russia has all the necessary resources for prosperous development. Because of the sea-ocean, we have nothing to import in large quantities. Then why write floating airfields? Compete with the Americans? There is no point in such a confrontation, because we do not catch up with them. Be no worse than the Chinese? But compared with China, Russia simply does not have a shipbuilding industry.

Nowadays, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov, a heavy aircraft carrier cruiser, is often addressed to the Syrian campaign at the end of last year. The following figures are often cited: in two months of participation in hostilities, the pilots of the Russian aircraft carrier carried out 420 combat missions, of which 117 at night. Obviously, the way it is. Although the Americans, who watched every “sneeze” of our ship, claim that the 154 aircraft was launched from the Kuznetsov deck to perform combat missions. Probably, both figures are correct - after all, part of the aircraft from the board of the Russian TAVKR immediately after arriving at the shores of Syria flew over to the Khmeimim airbase, from which she carried out combat work.

But it's not that. The normal intensity of flights from the decks of American aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type is 120 departures per day. The performance of the newest aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford with EMALS-160 electromagnetic catapults departures per day, and if necessary it can be brought to 220 sorties. The newest British aircraft carrier "Queen Elizabeth", on which American aircraft of short takeoff and vertical landing F-35B "Lightning II" will be based, should produce 24 fighter in 15 minutes, in a day - 110 machines, and in five days - 420, that is the same amount that rose from the deck of the Russian TAVKR for two months.

The work of Kuznetsov did not make a great impression on our Western "partners". The Syrian group of the Aerospace Forces (VKS) would cope with it without the participation of the deck Su-33 and MiG-29K. But this operation demanded a lot of money. As calculated at the agency RBC, it cost the power in 7,5 – 10 billion rubles. These figures seem to be underestimated, since they do not include preparation for the march: ship repairs, training trips to the sea, and training for pilots that took place over several months.

We must not forget that aircraft carriers and other large-tonnage warships are tasty targets for the enemy. The Russian fleet has excellent anti-ship missiles (PKR) "Caliber" and "Onyx" sea-based and X-32 - air. Soon hypersonic Zircon anti-ship missiles will be added to them, the blow which cannot be reflected by all currently existing air defense missile defense systems. China has anti-ship ballistic missiles DF-21D with a range of up to 2 thousand km, which with good reason is called "aircraft carrier killers". Americans are not asleep. Starting next year, the US Navy will be armed with a new version of the MST, the Tomahawk Marine Attack cruise missiles, to attack not only coastal, but also naval targets at a distance of up to 1000 km. The approach is also unobtrusive LRASM anti-ship missiles, which can destroy enemy surface ships that are at a distance of 800 km, when dropped from an aircraft and 300 km - when firing from destroyers and cruisers. We should not forget about the heavy torpedoes of submarines, which are pretty close to sneak up to aircraft carriers.

The current second cold war is not for a day or two. It will last a long time. And in the confrontation with the United States and NATO aircraft carriers will not help us, but only ruin. In order to make the right impression on the opposing side, the Russian fleet needs more submarines - nuclear and air-powered power plants equipped with cruise missiles. They are quite capable of “pressing” the American fleet to the shores of the United States. The constant combat duty of Russian submarines in the waters adjacent to America will require that the lion's share of surface and submarine forces be pulled back to the East and West Coast of the United States.

Meanwhile, as the USC President Alexey Rakhmanov recently complained, there is not enough money to complete the construction of the strategic Prince Knight Oleg submarine of the 955A project at Severodvinsk Sevmash. But how can they be enough if the modernization of the “prestigious” atomic cruiser “Admiral Nakhimov” requires more and more billions of rubles? By the way, this year the Russian Navy has not received and will not receive a single new submarine, either nuclear or diesel-electric. As it became known last October, there are no funds for the modernization of the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov. Instead of the previously planned 50 billion rubles. no more than half of this amount will be released. It is enough only to replace the boilers and parts of electronics. That is, the combat potential of the ship will not increase significantly.

WHO STANDS FOR AIRWAVE WAVE

Those who do not get tired of chasing the carrier wave seem to be well aware that Russia is not capable of carrying aircraft carriers, and there is no need. Then why do they tirelessly raise this topic? What if it turns out to lay such a ship with a multibillion-dollar budget. Using the mechanism of scrolling money through hundreds and even thousands of counterparties, there will be an amazing opportunity to endlessly “cut” public funds and “roll back” them. At least, there is no other intelligible explanation for the active injection of an aircraft carrier wave from representatives of the fleet and industry.

Do we need naval aircraft carriers? Of course, yes. Only you need to start not from the complex and expensive, but from the simple and more necessary. The workhorses in the Syrian campaign have become large landing ships (BDK), which carry weapons, ammunition and equipment. Some of these BDK under the "fifty dollars", that is, they serve for a very long time. They need a replacement. Such a replacement can be, for example, universal landing ships (UDC) of the “Surf” type with a displacement of 23 thousand tons, a length of 200 m and a width of 34 m. Their cruising range should be 6 thousand nautical miles, and autonomy - 30 days. In addition to the landing of 500 – 900 marines, armored vehicles and airborne assault vehicles, this UDC can be based up to 15 helicopters of various classes. In the future, they will be able to take and fighters vertical takeoff and landing, if such, of course, will be created.

The special value of such ships is that they are able to take part in conflicts of low intensity, transport equipment and display the flag in the seas and oceans. Not by chance ships of this class are becoming increasingly popular. Following the United States, they are replenishing the fleets of Spain, Australia, Turkey, and soon the UDC will also appear in the Chinese Navy.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2017-12-01/1_975_aircraft.html
129 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 3 December 2017 07: 06 New
    +3
    Firstly, the lack of qualified personnel,

    ... but in my opinion FIRST, this lack of finance, for an aircraft carrier is too expensive a colossus, and whether it is needed is also a question ...
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 3 December 2017 08: 03 New
      +7
      With which, in this article, you can completely agree,

      "Does the Navy need aircraft carriers? Of course, yes. You just need to start not with the complex and expensive, but with the simple and more necessary."

      Such a replacement may be, for example, universal landing ships (UDC) of the "Surf" type

      They started talking about the "Surf" after the failure of the Mistral contract. but for some reason they quickly shut up, Really officials considered unpromising as a cut of dough
      1. Shura Sailors
        Shura Sailors 3 December 2017 13: 33 New
        +5
        As said, to build an aircraft carrier is half the problem. Is there an infrastructure for a normal basing of an aircraft carrier? Is there a "motorcade" for an aircraft carrier (at least one)? Nowadays, the Russian Navy is busy building small missile ships (as I understand it, as a relatively cheap way to get enough CD carriers). When the necessary number of frigates (destroyers) is built, then it will be possible to talk about aircraft carriers.
        Regarding the ability to build aircraft carriers as such - if desired (and urgent need) will build
      2. proletarian
        proletarian 3 December 2017 16: 41 New
        +4
        "Does the Navy need aircraft carriers? Of course, yes. You just need to start not with the complex and expensive, but with the simple and more necessary."
        And it’s true, to shoot a dozen “bureaucrats” with confiscation of property not only personal but also relatives, who leave exactly the socially necessary minimum in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
      3. Sergey39
        Sergey39 3 December 2017 17: 01 New
        +1
        They were silent because they received such an order. A new shipyard was opened for what?
      4. seti
        seti 3 December 2017 22: 21 New
        +3
        A lot of lies in this thread. For example, complete nonsense - Direct and indirect costs of creating a leading such ship will require about a billion dollars for every thousand tons of its displacement.
        That is, our aircraft carrier and it is planned under 100 thousand tons will cost 100 mln $? Well, nonsense, after all. And the people hung their ears and listens to the next luminary of thought ...
        - under item 1 - the staff is Krylovsky Research Center. The project is also ready in both nuclear and hybrid versions. The RITM-200 nuclear reactor will soon be tested on the new Arctic icebreaker.
        - according to 2 point - experience is potential too. There is industry too. There are technologies for large-site assembly. It would be a desire and political will. Well, a real need. Even money would be found. But the need is even more urgent in an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers.
        - on the 3 point - The AWACS planes we created earlier on the basis of the Yak -44. Naturally, they are now. This is A-50 and A-100 Premier. If they are large, then you can create something simpler. Based on a smaller aircraft. It will cost clearly not 7 mld $.
        - on the 4 point - here is the truth. Indeed, we even have a problem with the base of TAVKR Kuznetsov.
        - on the 5 point, we have an escort. and you need to understand for what purpose an aircraft carrier is used. To demonstrate the flag or for war. Kuznetsov’s raid to Syria showed that there is someone to accompany him. Let me remind you that the Eagles are not in vain undergoing modernization. So let's pick up ships on two aircraft carrier groups. If need presses down.
        - on the 6 point, already answered at the very beginning. There is money, but is there any point in spending it now? Do we need aircraft carriers now? I guess not. Other buildings in bulk. And until we saturate our coastal regions with corvettes of diesel submarine frigates and the like, the fleet would like to wave death carriers to death carriers.
        While there are Kuznetsov and you need to bring it to mind. Build bases, infrastructure in Severodvinsk and the Far East. The ships that will be like Kuzya all their long life as street children huddle against the wall of the plant are worthless. For a great power, this is simply embarrassing.
        1. Deck
          Deck 4 December 2017 07: 35 New
          +4
          - according to 2 point - experience is potential too. There is industry too. There are technologies for large-site assembly. It would be a desire and political will. Well, a real need. Even money would be found. But the need is even more urgent in an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers.


          Do not remind: anything built in our country over the past 10 years with a displacement of at least 50 tons
          1. seti
            seti 4 December 2017 09: 59 New
            +3
            There is now no reason for us to create a surface combat ship above even 15 thousand tons, not to mention 50 .. We need to understand why we need this or that ship. Now the shipyards are loaded to capacity. Why build something in 50 thousand tons if a small 4 thousand ton frigate with zircons and calibers will perform the same combat missions ... Especially in conjunction with the VKS and other warships. We will saturate the fleets with corvettes and frigates, submarine nuclear submarines, we will learn how to make new power plants ourselves at NPO Saturn - we can and will swipe at something bigger. For something that really matters to us is infrastructure. and not that more than 50 thousand tons.
            Let me remind you that one aircraft carrier is the 6-7 fully equipped boreas ..
    2. To be or not to be
      To be or not to be 3 December 2017 10: 08 New
      +4
      The question is not "expensive" - ​​the question - "what does Russia want!"
      And the primary role of sea transport in the global transport system.
      Northern Sea Route! things are going well !!
      On the role of maritime transport ..
      “Water transport is primarily characterized by the prominent role of maritime transport. It accounts for 62% of global cargo turnover, it also serves about 4/5 of all international trade. It is thanks to the development of maritime transport that the ocean no longer divides, but connects countries and continents. The total length of sea routes It amounts to millions of kilometers. Sea ships transport mainly bulk cargoes: oil, oil products, coal, ore, grain and others, and usually to a distance of 8-10 thousand km. The “container revolution” in maritime transport has led to a rapid increase in traffic and so-called general cargo - finished goods and semi-finished goods. Sea transportation is provided by the sea merchant fleet, the total tonnage of which exceeds 420 million tons. The Atlantic Ocean holds the first place in world shipping, the Pacific Ocean takes the second place in terms of sea transportation, and the Indian Ocean takes third.
      The international sea canals (especially the Suez and Panama) and the sea straits (English Channel, Gibraltar, etc.) have a very big influence on the geography of maritime transport. "" ((Http://www.grandars.ru/shkola/geografi
      ya / transport-v-ekonomike.html)
      From history, for the "mistress of the seas" at certain moments always became the "golden age", whether it be Portugal or Spain. The Netherlands. England or USA
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 3 December 2017 11: 11 New
        10
        Quote: To be or not to be
        The question is not "expensive" - ​​the question - "what does Russia want!"

        To be or not to be to the Russian fleet?
        Such a replacement can be, for example, universal landing ships (UDC) of the Priboy type with a displacement of 23 thousand tons, a length of 200 m and a width of 34 m. Their cruising range should be 6 thousand nautical miles, and autonomy - 30 days. In addition to the landing force of 500–900 marines, armored vehicles and landing and landing equipment, up to 15 helicopters of various classes can be based on such a UDC

        What kind of replacement? The author wake up, without protection they will be drowned along with the landing and other equipment in five minutes.

        The construction of an aircraft carrier in Russia rests only on the will of the country's leadership, the rest is cunning, there is money, and technology, and a scientific base. At the beginning of 2017, the Russian Central Bank bought US $ 13,5 billion worth of American securities (in my opinion, it was discarded money that could be invested in the same science)
        1. To be or not to be
          To be or not to be 3 December 2017 11: 44 New
          +3
          saturn.mmm

          Russia is washed by the seas of three oceans: in the west and south - the seas of the Atlantic, in the east - the Pacific, in the north - the Arctic Oceans !! Then NATURE decided for Russia ...
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 3 December 2017 12: 09 New
            +6
            Quote: To be or not to be
            Then NATURE decided for Russia ...

            More than half of the Russians do not need a fleet on the site, they don’t understand the people why they need it, they don’t understand that 70% of the earth’s surface is the ocean, land is only islands.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 3 December 2017 12: 43 New
              +4
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              More than half of the Russians do not need a fleet on the site, they don’t understand the people why they need it, they don’t understand that 70% of the earth’s surface is the ocean, land is only islands.

              However, the outcome of world wars is somehow decided on land, the fleet is only an auxiliary force.
              1. To be or not to be
                To be or not to be 3 December 2017 13: 02 New
                +3
                The outcome of world wars was decided in three areas: land, air and sea. Now added space and cyber space. In peacetime (and in war) -information (including psychological) confrontation
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 3 December 2017 13: 11 New
                  +1
                  Quote: To be or not to be
                  The outcome of world wars was decided in three areas: land, air and sea. Now added space and cyber space.

                  No need to attract facts by ears. The outcome of the last three world wars was decided at the land theater of operations.
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 3 December 2017 13: 07 New
                +5
                Quote: KaPToC
                However, the outcome of world wars is somehow decided on land, the fleet is only an auxiliary force.

                You tell this to the Japanese or Great Britain, Americans with a powerful fleet do not let anyone into their territory.
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 3 December 2017 13: 14 New
                  +2
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  You tell this to the Japanese or Great Britain, Americans with a powerful fleet do not let anyone into their territory.

                  The participation of the British in World War II was purely defensive, the Germans knocked them off the continent without straining.
                  The outcome of the war with the Japanese was decided by the defeat of the Kwantung Army, after defeating the Japanese at sea, the Americans did not have the strength and means to storm the Japanese islands and Manchuria.
                  So even the outcome of the war at sea was decided on land.
              3. xtur
                xtur 3 December 2017 13: 30 New
                +5
                > However, the outcome of world wars

                for Japan WWII was just the same at sea
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 3 December 2017 13: 54 New
                  0
                  Quote: xtur
                  for Japan WWII was just the same at sea

                  Only half, they fought on the continent
                2. AllXVahhaB
                  AllXVahhaB 3 December 2017 23: 34 New
                  +2
                  Quote: xtur
                  for Japan WWII was just the same at sea

                  And China and Indo-China?
                  1. xtur
                    xtur 4 December 2017 08: 17 New
                    +1
                    >> for Japan WWII was just the same at sea
                    > What about China and Indo-China?

                    the war that afflicted Japan was waged at sea.
                    1. AllXVahhaB
                      AllXVahhaB 4 December 2017 11: 04 New
                      0
                      Quote: xtur
                      the war that crushed Japan

                      It was called "Kid and Fat Man" ...
                      1. xtur
                        xtur 4 December 2017 13: 17 New
                        0
                        > It was called "Kid and Fat Man" ...

                        Yes, no, called Resource restrictions. The USSR + USA defeated Germany, and here the USA has already taken away all the acquisitions at sea, including the war, with the entry of the USSR into it, it already had no prospects.

                        And before the entry of the USSR, if he took a position of positive neutrality, that is, they would help stealthily, the Japanese could defend themselves indefinitely
                        When they realized that the USSR did not want this option, they gave up because of the obvious meaninglessness. And the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki here was not a factor at all, because the United States bombed Tokyo without such bombs so that there were more victims than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
              4. Alf
                Alf 3 December 2017 20: 05 New
                +2
                Quote: KaPToC
                However, the outcome of world wars is somehow decided on land, the fleet is only an auxiliary force.

                I wonder how the Americans would have defeated Japan in WWII without a fleet?
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 3 December 2017 20: 45 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Alf
                  I wonder how the Americans would have defeated Japan in WWII without a fleet?

                  I don’t care, this question does not affect the need to have a land army. How would the Americans take the Japanese islands without enough ground forces?
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 3 December 2017 20: 49 New
                    +1
                    Quote: KaPToC
                    How would the Americans take the Japanese islands without enough ground forces?

                    And how would they get there without a fleet? And how would they jump around the islands, gradually approaching the metropolis without a fleet? Only after Midway, when the American aircraft carriers knocked out the Japanese, only then did the wheels of the war spin in the opposite direction.
              5. Xnumx vis
                Xnumx vis 3 December 2017 21: 34 New
                +3
                The British had an excellent Navy during the Second World War .. The Germans limited themselves to bombing ... They were afraid to invade Britain-they were afraid of the fleet of England! Without British naval convoys, deliveries of Lend-Lease and other cargoes were not feasible .. A strong fleet in the modern world is the shield and sword of the country .. They drove warships to the shores of the attacked country, put up a PVO barrier, and struck with cruise missiles, from ships and under. boats. And blocked air defense systems retaliation ...
                1. Alf
                  Alf 6 December 2017 21: 39 New
                  0
                  Quote: 30 vis
                  They were afraid to carry out the invasion of Great Britain - they were afraid of the fleet of England!

                  They were not afraid of anything! The basis for the success of the landing operation is the conquest of air supremacy. The Germans could not boast of this. In addition, the islanders themselves recognized that the fleet within the range of coastal aviation is very vulnerable. And the loss of ships at Dunkirk and during the landing on Crete confirmed this.
            2. Chertt
              Chertt 3 December 2017 13: 49 New
              +2
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Here, more than half of the Russians do not need a fleet on the site,

              Why are you lying? Count on the fingers in the comments. No one. There are different opinions about the fleet’s strategy, and based on this, its composition.
              Well, yours "To be or not to be to the Russian fleet?" This is generally some kind of buffoonery. There is a fleet, and it will be whether you want it or not
            3. Winnie76
              Winnie76 3 December 2017 14: 58 New
              +2
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              they don’t understand that 70% of the earth’s surface is the ocean; land is only islands.

              Eva how. Russia is an island laughing
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 3 December 2017 16: 47 New
                +2
                Quote: Winnie76
                Eva how. Russia is an island

                Well, as it were.
            4. Ace Tambourine
              Ace Tambourine 6 December 2017 18: 59 New
              +2
              Well, I’m one of those who don’t understand why we need aircraft carriers ... notice, I’m not talking about the Fleet in the general sense .. Building an AN with an accompanying warrant, but it, the warrant, also needs to be built, maintenance and operation justify itself in only one case, conquering .. the Syrian doctrine never rested on this .. And, then, .. here one author, below, says that it is thanks to the ACG that no one can approach the shores of the only democratic ... Question: what for Topol or Sarmatians to approach from the shore line, if you can just fall on it, drop on your head? ... Well, do not be offended at me by the sailors .... the nuclear submarine is much cheaper and more effective than this gadget ...
          2. AllXVahhaB
            AllXVahhaB 3 December 2017 23: 32 New
            +2
            Quote: To be or not to be
            Then NATURE decided for Russia ...

            Well yes, that's for sure! Two of the four fleets are squeezed in closed waters, the third is locked by the Arctic Circle, and the fourth is so far from the metropolis that you can forget about it ... Indeed - NATURE decided for Russia!
            Navy abroad needed! Type Camrani and Port Arthur)))
        2. Winnie76
          Winnie76 3 December 2017 11: 56 New
          +7
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Otherwise, cunning, there is money, and technology, and a scientific base.

          And that we have all other problems resolved? The army rides on armatures and barrows and flies on the pack fa? The military budget is not rubber, to squander it on the purchase of a huge worthless vessel.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 3 December 2017 12: 55 New
            +5
            Quote: Winnie76
            The military budget is not rubber, to squander it on the purchase of a huge worthless vessel.

            What stupid Americans, Chinese, Great Britain, Indians and others do not understand that they are worthless dishes, but we know for sure.
            Only to get merchant ships past some sort of Somalia have to drive there
            warships, but what if someone is seriously looking for Russian transport, and why not? Russia doesn’t have a Navy, it has nothing to protect its business, and then some Australians will capture a gas tanker and then sell gas as their own or coal or something else, the enemy fleet will enter the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, tear Primorye, land an landing in Vladivostok, here there we will meet them on Armata.
            1. Winnie76
              Winnie76 3 December 2017 14: 55 New
              +5
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              What stupid Americans, Chinese, Great Britain, Indians and others do not understand that they are worthless dishes, but we know for sure.

              Russia is a continental power, access to the sea is limited and little depends on maritime trade.
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Only to get merchant ships past some sort of Somalia have to drive there
              warships, but what if someone is seriously looking for Russian transport, and why not?

              Do you think there are courageous Jedi who want to squeeze the testicles of a nuclear power?
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Russia doesn’t have the Navy, it has nothing to protect its business, and then some Australians will capture a gas tanker and then sell gas as their own or coal or something else,

              It is fundamentally impossible to protect everything and everywhere with limited resources and a budget. You can’t put a border guard on every meter of the border, and assign Gorshkov to each merchant ship. Therefore, it is necessary to determine priorities.
              In my opinion, first of all, we need the ability to protect our territories, and trade is already optional. Therefore, ground forces, airborne forces and air defense in the first place. Carriers on the 100500th place in importance.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 3 December 2017 16: 56 New
                +1
                Quote: Winnie76
                Do you think there are courageous Jedi who want to squeeze the testicles of a nuclear power?

                Quote: Dewy
                we don’t have a nuclear weapon with a nuclear ?????? Australians captured and ruined, no Australia !!! where did ?????? - disappeared tries from KRE)))

                Something Somalia no one jerked.
            2. Dewy
              Dewy 3 December 2017 15: 56 New
              0
              we don’t have a nuclear weapon with a nuclear ?????? Australians captured and ruined, no Australia !!! where did ?????? - disappeared tries from KRE)))
            3. AllXVahhaB
              AllXVahhaB 3 December 2017 23: 40 New
              0
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              it will land troops in Vladivostok, and there we will meet them on Armata.

              The only case in history when a naval landing defeated the land army in a big battle with equal hands was the capture of Port Arthur by the Japanese. And even then they just handed it over, rumors circulate even for grandmas ...
              1. AlexKP
                AlexKP 4 December 2017 12: 36 New
                +1
                What about Corfu? What about Crete?
                1. AllXVahhaB
                  AllXVahhaB 4 December 2017 19: 33 New
                  0
                  Quote: AlexKP
                  What about Corfu? What about Crete?

                  In Crete, the airborne assault decided everything, I don’t know the details about Corfu, but even if you ascribe here the Battle of Guam, the contingent cut off on the island and the overwhelming superiority of the enemy are everywhere. I wrote:
                  Quote: AllXVahhaB
                  amphibious assault defeated the land army in a big battle with equal hands

                  Unless the landing in Normandy, with a stretch, can be compared ...
                  1. AlexKP
                    AlexKP 5 December 2017 09: 11 New
                    0
                    The siege of Corfu (1798-1799) is ashamed not to know the history of his country. airborne landing is even more ephemeral substance, sea landing has forces and means much more than air, therefore the capture of CRETE ISLAND by landing forces can be safely put on a par with any other sea landing
                    1. AllXVahhaB
                      AllXVahhaB 5 December 2017 13: 44 New
                      0
                      Quote: AlexKP
                      The siege of Corfu (1798-1799) ashamed not to know the history of his country

                      You are talking about this operation ... Well then, indicate the years, I thought you were talking about the occupation of Corfu by Italian troops ...
                      Quote: AlexKP
                      therefore, the capture of the ISLAND OF CRETE by landing forces can be safely put on a par with any other sea landing

                      Only at the beginning there the paratroopers were thrown out, which ensured the capture.
            4. AllXVahhaB
              AllXVahhaB 3 December 2017 23: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              What stupid Americans, Chinese, Great Britain, Indians and others do not understand that they are worthless dishes, but we know for sure.

              In addition to the Americans, the rest cannot be called carrier states. This is an urgent need for the Americans - they are on the fringes of civilization. And we are in its very heart, between traditionally developed Europe and booming Asia. We need not build carrier groups, but transit high-speed railways. and pipelines!
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              some Australians will capture the gas tanker and then sell the gas as their own or coal or something else

              Why not the Papuans?
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 4 December 2017 02: 29 New
                0
                Quote: AllXVahhaB
                Why not the Papuans?

                The Papuans are now doing this, I am considering a hypothetical case.
          2. Alf
            Alf 3 December 2017 20: 07 New
            +3
            Quote: Winnie76
            And that we have all other problems resolved? The army rides on armatures and barrows and flies on the pack fa? The military budget is not rubber, to squander it on the purchase of a huge worthless vessel.

            The problem is not this, but those ... who are sitting in the Kremlin. There would have been statesmen, not thieves, and there would have been no problems.
        3. the most important
          the most important 3 December 2017 14: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          The construction of an aircraft carrier in Russia rests only on the will of the country's leadership, the rest is cunning, there is money, and technology, and a scientific base.

          And the cost of an aircraft carrier can be significantly reduced if you build several of them, for yourself and on order, and in cooperation, for example, with India. But it’s not so that from India there is only a flag on a flagpole, but with real joint work right up to building them in India at a joint venture, but with our equipment. There would be a desire, but you can find a way.
          1. AllXVahhaB
            AllXVahhaB 3 December 2017 23: 55 New
            +1
            Quote: the most important
            And the cost of an aircraft carrier can be significantly reduced if you build several of them, for yourself and on order, and in cooperation, for example, with India.

            What are the relevant industrial capacities?
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 4 December 2017 02: 33 New
              0
              Quote: AllXVahhaB
              What are the relevant industrial capacities?

              Admiralty, Baltic, Sevmash, Star, Bay, etc.
              1. AllXVahhaB
                AllXVahhaB 4 December 2017 05: 39 New
                +1
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Admiralty, Baltic, Sevmash, Star, Bay, etc.

                You just listed the shipyard. Which of them is able to build an aircraft carrier?
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 4 December 2017 06: 56 New
                  0
                  Quote: AllXVahhaB
                  You just listed the shipyard. Which of them is able to build an aircraft carrier?

                  Baltic for example poop, will be collected at Sevmash.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC 3 December 2017 12: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: To be or not to be
        "Water transport is primarily characterized by the outstanding role of maritime transport.

        The dominant role of maritime transport is associated primarily with state fragmentation, if Asia were a single state, rail transport would prevail in the world
        1. To be or not to be
          To be or not to be 3 December 2017 14: 15 New
          +2
          First of all, it is determined by its CHEAPER in comparison with other types of transportation, and not by the fragmentation of states. The fragmentation is given by Nature. Their nature was connected by waters. airspace
          And about - “if Asia were a single state”. “Then Putin:“ if my grandmother had ... ”“
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 3 December 2017 14: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: To be or not to be
            Determined primarily by its CHEAPER

            Railroad is a cheap mode of transport.
            1. To be or not to be
              To be or not to be 3 December 2017 14: 58 New
              +3
              [quote = KaPToC] [quote =
              The railway is a cheap form of transport. [/ Quote]
              According to the criterion of cost: -sea -pipes-rail -car-plane
    3. bnm.99
      bnm.99 3 December 2017 14: 10 New
      +4
      First, we need to decide on foreign policy - if we participate in the colonial robbery of the third world, then aircraft carriers are needed and all the costs of their creation will be paid off by colonies and geopolitical buns, see USA. If foreign policy activity concentrates on the near borders, then aircraft carriers become an expensive toy, see Kuznetsov.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 3 December 2017 19: 54 New
        +6
        Quote: bnm.99
        First, we need to decide on foreign policy - if we participate in the colonial robbery of the third world, then aircraft carriers are needed and all the costs of their creation will be paid off by colonies and geopolitical buns, see USA.

        Well, let's remember the Mediterranean 5th flotilla of the times of the USSR. Our ships patrolled there, mattresses and all other evil spirits were not even close. The Middle East lived its own life, and many of the BV countries flourished. As soon as our flotilla left that region, what began, to remind?
        Now about the aircraft carrier. In order to start building aircraft carriers, we need new ships of the first and second rank in order to provide escort in the AUG. Next, we need support ships, and also new ones. That's when we build Leader destroyers, and also build a good series of Project 22350M frigates, when we don’t have one and a half multi-purpose nuclear submarines of 4 generations, then we can talk about something. Today, all the talk about the construction of an aircraft carrier (even a light one) is just bullshit.
        We do not need aircraft carriers to rob the third countries, but to cover our KUG from the air. The presence of a force capable of "giving up sweaty grabbing little hands" (as it was during the Soviet era, greatly reduces the appetites of the peddlers of democracy.
        At the same time, we must not forget that rocket science does not stand still, and, accordingly, it is quite possible that with the appearance of, say, our ships, anti-ship missiles with a range of 1500-2500 km, while being hypersonic, can very strongly deliver in question, in general, the construction of aircraft carriers in principle.
        Today, the issue of building new multi-purpose nuclear submarines, the Leader destroyer (maybe even two versions with nuclear and nuclear power stations), project 22350M frigates, as well as support ships, is much more important to us.
      2. AllXVahhaB
        AllXVahhaB 3 December 2017 23: 58 New
        0
        Quote: bnm.99
        if we engage in colonial robbery of the third world

        We would have to develop our own resources stop
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 December 2017 16: 25 New
      0
      Quote: aszzz888
      ... but in my opinion FIRST, this lack of finance, for an aircraft carrier is too expensive a colossus, and whether it is needed is also a question ...

      At the Airbase, they laid out a piece of the old Yankee study on the comparison of the cost of coastal and aircraft carrier aviation:
      During the Vietnam War, a force assessment was carried out. necessary to replace one AB. It turned out that to ensure the same number of departures that 1 AB performs, 5 ground-based squadrons and 20 KC-135 tankers are required. The cost of ground infrastructure for these forces was estimated at $ 1 billion.
      During the raid on Tripoli, the equivalent of two ABs were 2 airbases with a capacity of 1 air wing each for attack vehicles and three more air bases for tankers. The cost of building and maintaining these bases was several times higher than the cost of an AB with an air wing. In addition, it suddenly turned out that the two airbases planned for the strike in Spain, for which the United States had been paying rent since WWII, were not available at the right time - the Spanish government refused permission to use them. The rent for these bases was equal to the cost of eight fully equipped ABs.
  2. Bastinda
    Bastinda 3 December 2017 07: 16 New
    +5
    While our "managers" have such appetites, it is better not to start at all.
    According to preliminary estimates, only 7 billion dollars will be required to develop an AWACS aircraft.

    From another article on the same site.
    In early June, the U.S. Navy received the latest aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, which cost $ 13 billion and is considered the most expensive warship in the world.

    Steal.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 3 December 2017 08: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Bastinda
      While our "managers" have such appetites, it’s better not to start at all

      And for our managers, appetites tend only to grow, so well, never build anything. Maybe it's time to start "punitive medicine"
    2. xtur
      xtur 4 December 2017 08: 23 New
      0
      > As long as our "managers" have such appetites, it is better not to start at all.
      > From another article on the same site.

      these calculations are utter nonsense. You can google the cost of developing the PAKFA program, already Su-57, it is less than the amount, according to the authors of the article, necessary for the development of an easy AWAC. But the technical complexity of these programs is not comparable
  3. Alex 2016
    Alex 2016 3 December 2017 08: 00 New
    +5
    [Third, new aircraft carriers will require new aircraft, including those in the Russian Federation never created, for example, carrier-based long-range radar monitoring and control] and what about the Yak-44? There is progress, a little outdated of course, but there is. Yes, and for other systems and assemblies, there are developments.
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 3 December 2017 12: 03 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey 2016
      There is progress, a little outdated of course, but there is. Yes, and for other systems and assemblies, there are developments.

      Sell ​​these developments as a Yak -141 to Americans or Chinese. Let them themselves suffer with them. If it doesn’t work out, stupidly forget it, like a nightmare.
  4. Deck
    Deck 3 December 2017 08: 10 New
    +9
    First, it is the lack of qualified personnel necessary for the design and construction of such complex ships and the service to them.


    Skilled personnel are needed primarily by the government. While there Medvedev, Rogozin, Siluanov, Nabiulin (well, to the heap of Rakhmanov, and the State Duma with the Federation Council there too), thinking about aircraft carriers is ridiculous. The tsarist shipbuilding program 1909 is an example of thoughtfulness and subtlety of execution compared to modern throwings
    1. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 4 December 2017 00: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Deck
      The tsarist shipbuilding program 1909 is an example of thoughtfulness and subtlety of execution compared to modern throwings

      http://www.lessons-of-war.ru/dreadnought_1/
  5. Boris55
    Boris55 3 December 2017 08: 14 New
    +5
    Russia does not need aircraft carriers. This is the weapon of the gendarme, to maintain its hegemony throughout the world. We are for peace, for all nations to solve their problems themselves, and if necessary, we have enough means to get any aggressor in his den, anywhere in the world.
    1. avt
      avt 3 December 2017 10: 23 New
      +7
      Quote: Boris55
      Russia does not need aircraft carriers. This is the weapon of the gendarme, to maintain its hegemony throughout the world. We are for peace, for all nations to solve their problems themselves,

      wassat And big bules! Dear Nykyt Sergeyevich! bully None of Novodevichiev revolted! bully
      Quote: Boris55
      and if necessary, we have enough means to get any aggressor in his den, anywhere in the world.

      If there were flies on the moon, then Soviet rockets would hit the fly in the eye! wassat And in general, that’s how comrades would be great — the Americans are flying to the moon, and there are Soviet border guards! wassat bully
      This topic, like a wave of the sea, then runs, then rolls back.
      Chur me, chur! Really Oleg has risen !? But no, I checked - an adherent. In general, in the morning we had fun, but forgot about the armorbully
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 3 December 2017 10: 42 New
        0
        Quote: avt
        If there were flies on the moon, then Soviet rockets would hit the fly in the eye!

        Putin in the video talks about the bases. An aircraft carrier is the same base.
        Video from 2:42 - Putin: "If someone needs to be got, we will get it anyway."
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 3 December 2017 13: 29 New
          +2
          Quote: Boris55
          Video from 2:42 - Putin: "If someone needs to be got, we will get it anyway."

          Sometimes you don’t understand your president, if you get anyone what to sit in Tartus and in Hmeimim
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 3 December 2017 13: 44 New
            0
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            ... why sit in Tartus and in Hmeimim

            "They do not look at a given horse's teeth".
        2. Alf
          Alf 4 December 2017 21: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Boris55
          "If someone needs to get it, we'll get it anyway."

          Now, if he got his officials like that ...
    2. Alf
      Alf 4 December 2017 21: 35 New
      0
      Quote: Boris55
      and if necessary, we have enough means to get any aggressor in his den, anywhere in the world.

      And we will barmaley hollow vigorous loaves.
  6. Deck
    Deck 3 December 2017 08: 28 New
    +2
    It should be noted here that the designers and builders of modern warships abroad are in much more favorable conditions than their Russian counterparts. It is enough for them to open the reference book in order to select for their offspring gas turbine engines of American, British, Ukrainian or Chinese production, diesel engines of German, American, French or the same Chinese companies. Then it remains only to agree on the price and delivery time. The same applies to electronic equipment and various weapons. Our shipbuilders have to deal with counterparties only within the country. Sometimes they do not even have much idea what is required of them. Because of this - long deadlines and high prices.


    Apparently the counterparties are to blame? Or maybe the president and the Foreign Ministry, pursuing such a clumsy foreign policy. All countries, especially China, have great contradictions with each other. Nevertheless, they try to solve them while preserving the possibility of trade and cooperation. Somehow it turns out. Maybe the Foreign Ministry doesn’t have those “competencies”?
    1. groks
      groks 3 December 2017 14: 08 New
      +1
      The fact is that some elements are made either by the probable enemy, or under his control. They may simply not sell, they may cut deliveries, they may be stuffed with bookmarks - Iranian centrifuges are an example of this. And if you cooperate in weapons with the USA, the question arises - and against whom will this weapon be used at all?
    2. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 4 December 2017 00: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Deck
      All countries, especially China, have great contradictions with each other. Nevertheless, they try to solve them while preserving the possibility of trade and cooperation. Somehow it turns out. Maybe the Foreign Ministry doesn’t have those “competencies”?

      And you compare the US trade with China and with us ...
      1. Deck
        Deck 4 December 2017 07: 25 New
        +1
        Compare.
        First, who prevents us from having the same?
        Second, before you knock a shoe on the table, compare the turnover and see point one?
  7. Deck
    Deck 3 December 2017 08: 33 New
    +3
    Quote: Boris55
    Russia does not need aircraft carriers. This is the weapon of the gendarme, to maintain its hegemony throughout the world. We are for peace, for all nations to solve their problems themselves, and if necessary, we have enough means to get any aggressor in his den, anywhere in the world.

    The USSR also had several aircraft-carrying ships. They were built to be gendarmes? Here you are in solidarity with the anti-communists.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 3 December 2017 09: 41 New
      +2
      Quote: Deck
      The USSR also had several aircraft-carrying ships. They were built to be gendarmes?

      But don’t you know that the world was divided into two camps and each of them had its own gendarme?
      Quote: Deck
      Here you are in solidarity with the anti-communists.

      Communists against peace, for imposing democracy, tfu apologize for communist ideas by force?
    2. komvap
      komvap 3 December 2017 09: 52 New
      +3
      Quote: Deck
      Quote: Boris55
      Russia does not need aircraft carriers. This is the weapon of the gendarme, to maintain its hegemony throughout the world. We are for peace, for all nations to solve their problems themselves, and if necessary, we have enough means to get any aggressor in his den, anywhere in the world.

      The USSR also had several aircraft-carrying ships. They were built to be gendarmes? Here you are in solidarity with the anti-communists.

      This is the logic!
      There’s even a joke about you:

      -Well, wolf, do you have matches?
      -There is
      - So you smoke, is it logical?
      -Logic
      -And if you smoke, then you drink, is it logical?
      -Logic
      -And if you drink, then you have women, is it logical?
      -Logic
      - And since you have women, then you are not impotent, is it logical?
      -Logic. Listen, hare, the prada is an interesting science, now I will always follow the logic, thank you very much, hare, I ran.
      A wolf runs further through the forest, a bear meets him
      -Well, wolf
      -Healthy bear,
      -From where are you so joyful run
      -Yes, here the hare fox taught logic, but he taught me, it turns out that such an interesting science
      -Truth? Listen, wolf, and teach me!
      -Well, bear, do you have matches?
      -No net
      So you are impotent !!!

      Funny - "against aircraft carriers? Means anti-Soviet and generally a bad boy ...".
      Tenacity, unfortunately, is not always only comical.
      1. Deck
        Deck 3 December 2017 10: 22 New
        +4
        Kuzi’s trip to Syria is comical. And at the same time, to read (for example, IN) what goals TAKR was built. And the pearls about the "gendarme weapon" amuse. So you write to the world gendarmes India and China
        1. komvap
          komvap 3 December 2017 10: 31 New
          +3
          Quote: Deck
          Kuzi’s trip to Syria is comical. And at the same time, to read (for example, IN) what goals TAKR was built. And the pearls about the "gendarme weapon" amuse. So you write to the world gendarmes India and China

          Not only comical, but also terribly expensive.
          We need to quickly shake it off, so beloved by you, China or India, and we ourselves will focus on projects that are more useful for Russia's defense.
          1. Deck
            Deck 3 December 2017 10: 54 New
            +1
            so beloved by you


            You took it from him. I believe that the problem of building aircraft carriers is the hundredth in the list of problems facing the country
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 3 December 2017 12: 47 New
            0
            Quote: komvap
            We need to quickly shake it off, so beloved by you, China or India, and we ourselves will focus on projects that are more useful for Russia's defense.

            But one aircraft carrier is still needed for a general naval battle against the Americans ... however, there is a Strategic Missile Forces for this.
        2. Boris55
          Boris55 3 December 2017 10: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Deck
          So you write to the world gendarmes India and China

          I’m not a clairvoyant and I can’t predict what will happen, but I should know what was there.
    3. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 4 December 2017 00: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Deck
      The USSR also had several aircraft-carrying ships. They were built to be gendarmes? Here you are in solidarity with the anti-communists.

      They were more anti-submarine cruisers and helicopter carriers than full-fledged aircraft carriers.
      Although I remember an article in my opinion in the “Technique of Youth” from 1989, where they wrote that the Takr Tbilisi is a weapon of aggression and needs to be disposed of ...
      1. Deck
        Deck 4 December 2017 07: 28 New
        0
        They were more anti-submarine cruisers and helicopter carriers than full-fledged aircraft carriers


        Yes you !? Here at VO, I read all the time about the panic in NATO when the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov appears
  8. vlad007
    vlad007 3 December 2017 10: 06 New
    +1
    The topic is interesting, but I must say that an aircraft carrier and an aircraft carrying cruiser, as they say in Odessa, are two big differences. It is strange that the author, undoubtedly a competent person, did not focus his attention on this. I will not list the differences, there are enough professionals who will do this better than me, but it is not correct to compare the number of sorties of an aircraft carrier and an aircraft carrying cruiser, which is the Kuznetsov Tavkr.
    1. Izotovp
      Izotovp 3 December 2017 11: 20 New
      +4
      We invented this difference. Nowhere else in the world do they put strike missiles on an aircraft carrier. In all other respects, this is a typical aircraft carrier and they can and should be compared. And UDC actually seems to be more necessary even without a swvp. Enough helicopters and drones, which will be transport and attack and refueling and AWACS.
    2. xtur
      xtur 3 December 2017 13: 52 New
      +2
      > the author is undoubtedly a competent person

      judging by this article, the author can in no way be called competent. The opinion of an unknown author is against the opinions of Rogozin and Rakhmonov (in this case they do not personify themselves, but the public posts they hold), there is no doubt about who to believe.
      And the facts speak for themselves - the Indian aircraft carrier has already given up long ago and it walks quite normally along the waves, and on the same GEM, about which the author said that it does not even make sense to consider them.
      And, what the hell, characteristically, from India cries were heard about low-quality MiG's, about low-quality tanks, but there were never any cries about low-quality engines

      Now about the other arguments taken from the air - even if the Russian Federation could not build aircraft carriers, it would have been obliged to learn how to build them, because a great country that does not know how to protect its sea communications cannot be built without ACG. And, what the hell again, characteristically, this is already spelled out in the Marine Doctrine, as well as the decision to build aircraft carriers. But, for some reason, all geniuses do not consider it important for themselves to refer to such trifles as the collective mind of the Russian state on the issues that are being discussed.
      Another characteristic example of the author’s incompetence is the assessment of the cost of building an AWACS aircraft. Where he got these numbers is known only to him, I have never met estimates of the cost of military programs, except in the case of the T-50. The development cost of the T-50 is quietly placed in the amount of development of the AWACS aircraft
      And the last - according to the IMF in terms of PPP RF it is second only to China, the USA and India. That is, it’s ridiculous to talk about economic restrictions on the issue of ACG.
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 3 December 2017 11: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Vintovkin
      Powerfully pushed you an hour did not Klitschko?

      Do not confuse me with your brother.
  10. prior
    prior 3 December 2017 11: 13 New
    +1
    Why tie Versace if there’s nothing to cover your ass with ?!
  11. sabakina
    sabakina 3 December 2017 11: 15 New
    +4
    We do not need aircraft carriers, but ekranoplanes of the Lun type.
    1. Buffet
      Buffet 3 December 2017 14: 54 New
      +1
      Well, in general, the development of an ekranoplan theme is also, in my opinion, more promising. Especially when everything is decided in minutes and hours. The aircraft carrier is too slow. You can see it still leaving the port. Only banana countries scare ...
  12. vlad007
    vlad007 3 December 2017 11: 21 New
    0
    The use of American aircraft carriers:


    1. Greenwood
      Greenwood 3 December 2017 11: 48 New
      +4
      Quote: vlad007


      Damn, this is generally a great option. Wheelbarrows from Japan to carry, nice thing. It is necessary to buy one for the Vladivostok commercial port. good
  13. Vintovkin
    Vintovkin 3 December 2017 11: 26 New
    +2
    Quote: Boris55
    Do not confuse me with your brother.

    Similarly, Klitschko .. the answer did not go beyond the boundaries of the genre - d. Urak himself .. eh, the site was intellectually intellectual - byad.
  14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2017 11: 37 New
    12
    I read, laughed. Everything as usual - a set of repeating mantras
    First, it is the lack of qualified personnel necessary for the design and construction of such complex ships and the service to them.

    With what fright the author says this - the author himself does not know. The fact that we built Vikramaditya for India, that there is already one aircraft carrier in the Russian fleet, that the president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Aleksey Rakhmanov talks about the possibility of construction, is all nonsense. The author clearly knows better :)
    Secondly, in our country, unfortunately, there is no necessary scientific and technical potential for successful assembly of modern aircraft carriers in shipyards, as well as no industrial base capable of supplying with all the necessary nomenclature of components and weapons such complex ships as aircraft carriers.

    It's ridiculous to even discuss this nonsense. What scientific and technical potential is needed for assembly? :) When needed, ours easily riveted the Mistral stern in order to attach it later to the ship. And, for example, the "assembly" of a nuclear submarine is at least not simpler (and perhaps more difficult) than the "assembly" of an aircraft carrier
    Thirdly, new aircraft carriers will require new aircraft, including those that have never been created in the Russian Federation, for example, carrier-based long-range radar monitoring and control aircraft

    The question is that such a device is needed not so much even by the fleet as by the Air Force, which is very interested in having a compact, relatively small and, therefore, not super expensive to operate aircraft. And there are only monstrous A-50 and A-100
    According to preliminary estimates, only 7 billion dollars will be required to develop an AWACS aircraft.

    Did the author make the calculations personally? Judging by what he managed to write
    Direct and indirect costs of creating the leading such ship will require about a billion dollars for every thousand tons of its displacement.

    the author is a great economist :))) You just think about it - in order to build a ship of 80 thousand tons, you will need 80 BILLION dollars :))))) Even well-known experts in terms of inflating budgets are Americans, and even a 100 aircraft carrier can reach 000 billion failed.
    Incidentally, the costs of creating a deck-mounted AWACS are overestimated in approximately the same proportion - that is, an order of magnitude.
    Fourthly, it will be necessary to build naval bases for receiving and servicing aircraft carriers

    Bases for this are not built, they create moorings and infrastructure.
    Fifth, in order to launch an aircraft carrier into the sea, it needs to be provided with an escort consisting of very expensive surface ships of a class not lower than the “frigate” and nuclear submarines

    We have a fleet, it includes submarines, frigates, etc. So, the capabilities of these most CONSTANT ships are greatly increased in the presence of an aircraft carrier
    Finally, sixth, Russia simply does not have the money to build modern aircraft carriers, and even more so - nuclear multipurpose ones, comparable to American ships of this class

    Oh yeah. We can find hundreds of billions of rubles for the World Cup; for the maintenance of skolkoy / Rosnan, please. It took the country to build a bridge to the Crimea (for once, a reasonable thing) - we are building it. Who around the world has gone from this construction? Who gave the last cowards? Yes, the average Russian did not feel this at all. But the cost of the bridge in billions of dollars is measured.
    But for aircraft carriers - there is no money :))))))
    To argue about the necessity / unnecessaryness of AB is possible and necessary. But to cite completely absurd 100 times refuted arguments as the ultimate truth is ridiculous
    1. 11 black
      11 black 3 December 2017 12: 20 New
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Fifth, in order to launch an aircraft carrier into the sea, it needs to be provided with an escort consisting of very expensive surface ships of a class not lower than the “frigate” and nuclear submarines
      We have a fleet, it includes submarines, frigates, etc. So, the capabilities of these most CONSTANT ships are greatly increased in the presence of an aircraft carrier

      One can argue (the vulnerability of single aircraft carriers is a very common misconception).
      In the open ocean, even a lonely carrierless carrier without any support can drown an entire fleet - thanks to the highest quality reconnaissance, which still does not give out the coordinates of the carrier ship.
    2. Winnie76
      Winnie76 3 December 2017 13: 06 New
      +6
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The fact that we built for India "Vikramaditya"

      We did not build this Titus, but finished it.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      that the Russian fleet already has one aircraft carrier,

      Oh yes, this miracle has shown itself in all its glory. One single conflict in 26 years of service and such incredible efficiency. 26 years (twenty-six years, Karl,) to spend a bunch of dough, feed a horde of military personnel and get what they got in Syria. A disgrace.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      that the president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Alexei Rakhmanov, talks about the possibility of construction - this is all nonsense.

      This same Alexei Rakhmanov is undoubtedly a very worthy person, but an interested person.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      It’s ridiculous to even discuss this nonsense. What scientific and technical potential is needed for assembly? :) When it was necessary, our

      Well, for example, many of our built steam catapults? Or maybe electromagnetic on our stream? Is everything all right with the power plant? About aerofinisher generally silent. And how are things going with Polement with our Redoubt? Is it funny to discuss with you?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      And, for example, the "assembly" of a nuclear submarine is at least not simpler (and perhaps more difficult) than the "assembly" of an aircraft carrier

      Yeah, which is more difficult - an elephant or a horse?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      the author is a great economist :))) You just think about it - in order to build a ship of 80 thousand tons, you will need 80 BILLION dollars :))))) Even well-known experts in terms of inflating budgets are Americans, and even a 100 aircraft carrier can reach 000 billion failed.

      The author is a realist and perhaps even an optimist. The Americans have aircraft carriers on the conveyor belt. Cooperation has been established. Each supplier knows what is required of him, each node is worked out for years of operation.
      And we may have to create entire industries from scratch. Soviet aircraft carriers were built under the union, hundreds, if not thousands of enterprises participated in cooperation. Now the USSR has collapsed, in the place of many enterprises - shopping centers. So you need to create new enterprises, train new specialists. It is long, complicated and very expensive.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Bases for this are not built, they create moorings and infrastructure

      And what, we all have a bunch of infrastructure?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      We have a fleet, it includes submarines, frigates, etc. So, the capabilities of these most CONSTANT ships are greatly increased in the presence of an aircraft carrier

      Well yes. And the Death Star will further increase their capabilities. Let's score at the Olympics and build the Death Star.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But for aircraft carriers - there is no money :))))))
      To argue about the necessity / unnecessaryness of AB is possible and necessary. But to cite completely absurd 100 times refuted arguments as the ultimate truth is ridiculous

      Yes. Armata needed. Su -57 is needed. A coalition is needed. EW is needed. Gorshkov is needed. Ash is needed. And the iron pelvis, which will eat all of the above, is not needed.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 3 December 2017 18: 36 New
        +3
        Quote: Winnie76
        and completed.

        Not rebuilt, but rebuilt
        Quote: Winnie76
        A disgrace.

        Опыт
        Quote: Winnie76
        undoubtedly a very worthy person, but an interested person.

        A person who knows and is interested in everything will benefit the state than a person who does not know and is interested
        Quote: Winnie76
        The Americans have aircraft carriers on the conveyor belt. Cooperation has been established. Each supplier knows what is required of him, each node is worked out for years of operation.

        The Americans have a space budget. And this is Az
        Quote: Winnie76
        So you need to create new enterprises, train new specialists. It is long, difficult and very expensive.

        Let’s not do anything at all, we will destroy industry and slide down to the level of service sales of resources. So cheaper and no need to bother. It can be seen who is the "patriot" of his country
        Quote: Winnie76
        And what, we all have a bunch of infrastructure?

        infrastructure is being built simultaneously with the subject for which it is intended to be serviced. They began to build a series of diesel-electric submarines for the Black Sea, immediately began to create infrastructure for their base in Novorossiysk
        Quote: Winnie76
        Let's score at the Olympics and build the Death Star.

        Interested people will forget the Olympics, but the military-industrial complex is the engine of the economy and science.
        Quote: Winnie76
        Yes. Armata needed. Su -57 is needed. A coalition is needed. EW is needed. Gorshkov is needed. Ash is needed. And the iron pelvis, which will eat all of the above, is not needed.

        Deal with your any oligarchs with their withdrawal of capital abroad, then funds will be found on the Gorshkovs squadron and on the Su-57 squadron with Armat regiments. And if you carry out nationalization, then the nuclear carrier can be cooked up easily fellow
        Or is it better to live under capitalism, to look into the mouth of those who rob you and dissolve snot that there is no money? wink
        hi
    3. xtur
      xtur 3 December 2017 14: 12 New
      0
      curiously, your opinion coincided with mine (or vice versa, my opinion coincided with yours), almost exactly to the point of argumentation :-)
    4. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 4 December 2017 00: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The fact that we built Vikramaditya for India, that there is already one aircraft carrier in the Russian fleet,

      Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) was launched in 1982, Admiral Kuznetsov (Tbilisi) was launched in 1987. Well, what does the Russian Federation have to do with it? We have now even well-designed missiles are falling more and more often, just recently, "Soyuz-2.1b" collapsed, although it was lit before the start - only now we can fellow
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      And, for example, the "assembly" of a nuclear submarine is at least not simpler (and perhaps more difficult) than the "assembly" of an aircraft carrier

      You probably know better)))
  15. ded100
    ded100 3 December 2017 11: 40 New
    +1
    Yes, an aircraft carrier is a big and expensive thing that can be invested in the means of killing aircraft carriers, we can do quite well, let the mattresses disappear! wassat
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 3 December 2017 12: 52 New
      0
      Quote: ded100
      Yes, an aircraft carrier is a big and expensive thing that can be invested in the means of killing aircraft carriers, we can do quite well, let the mattresses disappear!

      And this tool is the missile ships that Russia is building so.
  16. eugraphus
    eugraphus 3 December 2017 11: 41 New
    +6
    Today, information has passed that Russia will not build "atomic" trains due to lack of funding. Well, if it’s hard to master railway cars, then roll your lip on aircraft carriers. In the aircraft industry, long-haul and heavy cargo aircraft are also not up to the task. High-speed railway tracks - this is most likely not during our lifetimes. And we just dream and remain at the level of conversation.
  17. borys
    borys 3 December 2017 13: 03 New
    +2
    If desired, Russia will be able to build an aircraft carrier, and not even one. But there is no urgent need for this.
    For many reasons. Russia depends on shipping much less than the United States,
    Great Britain, India, China and others. To understand this simple truth, just look at
    geographic map. For example, with China (the second economy of the world), there is an extended land
    the border. This, by the way, means that no and no one's navy (with aircraft carriers or
    without them) cannot somehow affect the trade between Russia and China in principle. Further -
    on the map. But submarines with ballistic missiles are absolutely necessary for Russia.
  18. Operator
    Operator 3 December 2017 13: 11 New
    +2
    The author of the article is a typical Russophobe (competencies, you see, in Russia are not enough to build a trough with a displacement of 100 thousand tons, while Russia is building three types of nuclear submarines in series).

    Aircraft carriers in the nuclear missile age are just the subject of localization of local idolaters to the West.
    1. Dewy
      Dewy 3 December 2017 15: 59 New
      +1
      1000% agree)))) drinks
  19. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 3 December 2017 13: 28 New
    +5
    Well, not needed, so not needed. Wonderful reason for the repair of "Admiral Kuznetsov" 60 billion save. good And if you still have to hand over what was left of him in the scrap ... The same pivasik lope can be purchased! drinks
  20. groks
    groks 3 December 2017 13: 54 New
    +1
    Everything is correct. The author wrote the obvious for most. Actually, UDC is not very necessary. For containment, nuclear submarines are needed. However, containment begins to turn into a fiction.
    But ... . According to the logic of the third paragraph from the bottom, we will build not what the army and navy need, but what is beneficial to the oligarchs. And this is a dead end. There is no and cannot be an exit, within the existing system.
  21. Buffet
    Buffet 3 December 2017 14: 50 New
    +3
    First, it is the lack of qualified personnel necessary for the design and construction of such complex ships and the service to them.
    Secondly, in our country, unfortunately, there is no necessary scientific and technical potential for successful assembly of modern aircraft carriers in shipyards, as well as no industrial base capable of supplying with all the necessary nomenclature of components and weapons such complex ships as aircraft carriers.
    That is, they were able to transfer Vikramadity, but there is no new one to build? The Chinese were able to copy Krechet, and our engineers are stupid, what a horror. So??? And what about the new boathouses that were laid under the 1-2 ships of rank then how to understand?
    According to preliminary estimates, only 7 billion dollars will be required to develop an AWACS aircraft.
    What are these calculations? On the basis of what were they taken? From the ceiling?
    Of course, I would very much like to have atomic floating airfields in the Russian fleet. But this is possible only “according to the command of a pike”, that is, in a fairy tale.
    The main question to Nona is: “Why do Russia need aircraft carriers in principle?” After all, the fleet is created for specific purposes. If the United States scares the banana republics, then who can scare Russia?
    However, “Storm” as it was an advance project, that is, a sketch, it remained so. Even students of “shipbuilding” are able to make such concepts, as the St. Petersburg State Marine Technical University is commonly called. The technical project of the miracle ship, not to mention the detailed design, is still very far away. And there are not enough specialists, and these stages of work will require a lot of funds.
    But other things do not require? T-14, Su-57 do not belong to the same projects? Well, you can continue to slap your "irons" because it's easier than looking at the front. And yes, Rogozin is still right in something, if the need arises, but there are also specialists and money. Then, what about the "Leader" ?? The road will be overpowered by a walker.
    After the F-35B Lightning II SUVVP, created with the wide use of groundwork on the Yak-141, appeared in service with the United States Marine Corps and the United Kingdom Navy, interest in this class of vehicles woke up again. Only work in this area will require a lot of time and money.
    See how much was spent on other aircraft systems, and Su57 and MiG-31BM, MiG35, A-100 "Premier". And nothing ... I repeat, you can continue to make irons further ...
    By that time, the estimate was exceeded several times. Today it amounts to 3,765 billion dollars, and the ship is supposed to be handed over to the fleet in 2023, that is, 14 years after laying.
    Well, given that India also suffers from brain drain and its scientific schools are not so developed, it’s easier for them to buy abroad. Plus the same corruption and kickbacks. Tell me at least a few projects that in India were developed independently and brought to mind? China, although it copies, but copies wisely.
    Negotiations are underway between Boeing Corporation and the Indian state-owned aircraft manufacturer HAL on the possibility of joint production of carrier-based F / A-18E / F Super Hornet fighters, since, according to various sources, the Indian fleet has become disillusioned with Russian MiG-29K / KUB fighters due to their frequent breakdowns.
    There’s nothing to blame if the erysipelas curve.
    The work of Kuznetsov did not make much impression on our western “partners”. The Syrian group of the Aerospace Forces (VKS) would cope with it without the participation of the deck Su-33 and MiG-29K. But this operation required a lot of money. As calculated by the RBC agency, it cost the country 7,5 – 10 billion rubles.
    Contradict yourself if you haven’t made an impression, why did you follow “every sneeze”? I would have ignored everything .. That would really hit the pride of the Russian leadership. But RBC yeah .... they really like to go into someone else's pocket and count money. Again, based on what calculations? Whose? Which were sent to them from the State Department?
    But at least the conclusion of the article is good.
  22. Aleksandr21
    Aleksandr21 3 December 2017 15: 09 New
    +4
    It seems that many commentators live in parallel reality. Is everything so good with a surface fleet in Russia? Here, at least project 22350 should finally be put into operation, and hand over to the fleet, to say nothing of the Leader, and even more so the construction of an aircraft carrier. We now have nothing to replace the ships built in the USSR (large displacement) and this is the problem that needs to be considered first of all, until the Navy has rolled down to some boats and patrol ships. And the aircraft carrier even if you build it (in which I completely agree with the author on the above problems in the text) then with whom will he go? What kind of cover group will he have and do we have one? that is the question....
  23. Disorder
    Disorder 3 December 2017 19: 29 New
    +1
    Incompetent article with Russophobic darling.
    The AUG should be compared - the principles of their formation and the tasks set before them.
    The author, not bothering himself with comparisons, began to "throw g ... o on the fan."
  24. Suhow
    Suhow 3 December 2017 21: 01 New
    +1
    I do not agree with the author somewhat. In my incompetent opinion of the Russian Federation, aircraft carriers are needed, but not much. The type of the Tbilisi-Kuznetsov TARK, but in an improved version, there is not always a base like in Syria, but someone to support it is worth scaring in the current difficult time. training pilots both for flights from such ships and training the whole as a whole to deal with such ships and protecting against them (partners have aircraft carriers) is a matter of prestige ... I think 1-2 ships of this type are quite enough, given the existing one. And then I consider the author of the rights, pl, modernization and construction of surface ships, PCRs, and in my opinion an increase in D, A.-carriers of anti-ship missiles and anti-submarines.
  25. AllXVahhaB
    AllXVahhaB 3 December 2017 23: 17 New
    +3
    I agree! Aircraft carriers are in no hurry. Yes, and UDC where to build? Yes, we are not just cruisers or destroyers, we cannot fully build a series of frigates. You need to start small, since everything has collapsed. And it would be nice to overcome Southern Ukraine with Nikolaev shipyards.
    1. xtur
      xtur 4 December 2017 08: 29 New
      0
      > Yes, we are not like there are cruisers or destroyers, we cannot build a series of frigates until the end

      these are different ships with different equipment weapons systems. An aircraft carrier may well be able to sail for some time without a working full-time air defense system, if it has a working air defense as part of the AUG and frigates. Well, or at least accompanied by Peter, or Lazarev, or Nakhimov, after their modernization.
  26. 7gor
    7gor 3 December 2017 23: 59 New
    0
    This is Oleg Kaptsov and his followers wrote wassat
  27. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 4 December 2017 11: 38 New
    0
    Why Russia does not need aircraft carriers

    Because for the defense of Russia there is no need, and Russia does not have overseas colonies.
  28. Jack Daniel
    Jack Daniel 5 December 2017 06: 13 New
    0
    I think so, there’s nothing for us to use aircraft boats if we are not going to fight! Although a number of comrades want to make money on them, and not a few!
  29. kamski
    kamski 5 December 2017 17: 12 New
    0
    Of course, a full-fledged Aircraft carrier is the prestige of the country's power. The current state of affairs in a country where total corruption is everywhere. No money is enough not just to build, but just to design such a ship
  30. andron352
    andron352 5 December 2017 17: 14 New
    +1
    For Russian aircraft carriers, the main task is to cover the missile submarine deployment areas during the threatened period.
  31. NordUral
    NordUral 5 December 2017 20: 18 New
    0
    Aircraft carriers are a topic of hollow breeds. We can’t pull such a program. Yes, and we do not need them. We are a continental power. And we must keep the defense of our borders and everything that makes up the industrial and defense potential. Aircraft carriers, or rather AUG, are the weapons of aggressors claiming world domination. And we need it, even in sore heads, this does not fit. Myself would defend. The West has grown wiser, now, if it attacks, then with the whole jackal flock and from all sides.
    1. Oberst_71
      Oberst_71 6 December 2017 16: 01 New
      0
      so we clung to our continent. and us destroyers in the black sea go.
      1. aries2200
        aries2200 7 December 2017 09: 04 New
        0
        and REP from the Crimea, make them floating on the water ...
  32. omit
    omit 6 December 2017 13: 35 New
    0
    If we believe that we can build, then we need it, and if not, then we don’t need it. That's the whole logic.
  33. Oberst_71
    Oberst_71 6 December 2017 16: 00 New
    0
    Some crap. Of course we need. Not 15 like the United States.
  34. aries2200
    aries2200 7 December 2017 09: 03 New
    0
    Yes, Russia itself as an aircraft carrier from any side to a potential enemy can fly instantly ....
  35. invalid
    invalid 10 July 2019 20: 32 New
    0
    On the issue of aircraft carriers and similar utopian and outdated plans that we can daily observe on all channels on TV in our country.
    I would like to say that in the age of development of nanotechnology, inventions and developments, talking about the construction of aircraft carriers is the same as starting the construction of dreadnought battleships from the time of Nicholas II Type "Empress Maria". They were designed in 1910-1911. The idea is outdated, unprofitable, unnecessary, especially since our country is not an aggressor. The whole idea boils down to the fact that there is a lot of brains, little metal. Russian aviation is in the same state today.