Military Review

Time for Storm: TOP-5 of the most powerful aircraft carriers of the future

18
The Navy is one of the components of the Armed Forces of countries with access to the oceans. At one time, many empires spread their influence precisely because of the powerful the fleet.


Today, little has changed. The huge and modern US naval forces are conducting military operations in different parts of the planet, feeling at the same time in complete safety. The flagships of the US Navy became aircraft carriers, which are also the core of the aircraft carrier groups. Having been armed with under a hundred combat aircraft, one such group surpasses the fleets of many countries in its strike power.

In addition to the United States, aircraft carrier ships are part of the naval forces of Japan, Britain, Spain, Brazil, Italy, France, China and Russia. Some of these countries refuse to maintain such huge ships (for example, Brazil, Italy and Spain). Others, on the contrary, intend to build new aircraft carriers.

18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 22 January 2018 18: 33 New
    +5
    Honestly - I don’t even want to discuss it. The situation in the world and in the development of military equipment is changing very quickly, and there is no certainty that aircraft carriers, BIG aircraft carriers will not disappear, due to their enormous vulnerability. And will not be replaced by small aircraft carriers for UAVs
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 22 January 2018 19: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      there is no certainty that aircraft carriers BIG aircraft carriers will not disappear due to their enormous vulnerability

      This is a grandmother in two said, as for me the vulnerability of aircraft carriers STRONGLY exaggerated. What the error is, in principle, understandable, it is, as always, ANALYTICS (because they think this place). Here, as it turns out, the vulnerabilities of aircraft carriers and aircraft carrier groups are discussed according to the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles, only this effectiveness is measured by the destruction of single ships without aircraft AWACS, but any reasonable person should understand that the aircraft carrier always has AWACS, and that it is always in the air, and therefore the range of detection and target designation, and therefore the effectiveness of the defense, must be measured across the entire AUG and not its individual parts. here it is true that it is necessary to make a reservation that there is “non-flying weather” when the AUG is really vulnerable, but such cases are rare and are easily compensated by various practical / organizational methods.
      1. svp67
        svp67 22 January 2018 19: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        ut, as it turns out, they talk about the vulnerability of aircraft carriers and aircraft carrier groups by the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles, but they only measure this efficiency by destroying single ships without an aircraft AWACS,

        But what about underwater drones? How will the AWAC save the aircraft carrier and the entire AUG from them?
        I remember the Americans offered to build an aircraft carrier in the wake, so that the Russian miracle torpedoes would start firing the AUG from the terminal ships ... but now you can make the torpedo so that it would sink SELECTIVELY.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 22 January 2018 21: 17 New
          +1
          Everything is the same, only in this case there is PLO aviation, which scatters a network of acoustic drones NOT BUYOV, but DRONS! Which firstly last longer, and secondly they are reusable! Thanks to such drones and their delivering aircraft (both manned and unmanned), you can very quickly create an acoustic network in a given region and prevent the submarine from hiding due to the difference in water layers. And such drones will not be disturbed by the noise from the propellers of the ship pulling the acoustic buoy. And such drones can be used VERY MUCH, and not one at a time per ship. And such drones will make all coastal ships like our corvettes completely useless, because these drones can work in real time for 24 \ 7 \ 365, and can be based on coastal airfields of the Navy or UDC \ AV ...
    2. Lexus
      Lexus 22 January 2018 22: 00 New
      +1
      And will not be replaced by small aircraft carriers for UAVs

      In principle, a large UAV already has an intercontinental range. And refueling in the air, if not “right now,” then in the near future.
  2. Simon
    Simon 22 January 2018 18: 38 New
    +2
    How to say - the Army, Navy and VKS are the main allies of Russia, which protect the existence and independence of Russia! soldier
  3. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 23 January 2018 01: 54 New
    +2
    Before you do, first think about why. On the Black is not needed, on the Baltic is not needed, on the Middle Earth, the weight is doubtful (Dardanelles and Gibraltar. Do not run anywhere). Northern Fleet - there are some kind of "aircraft-carrying" icebreakers needed with a small crew. Quiet - the only place, and there you need to go through the Kuril Islands, do not walk. AG is needed by the United States for world domination, China to protect transport lines for the supply of vital raw materials and hang over India and India to fend off China. England - only that they would not forget the flag. USSR - were needed to confront the United States, but did not have time. Now .... And there are no bases and goals.
    Nonsense, these are your aircraft carriers for us.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 23 January 2018 02: 58 New
      +2
      and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? and cover for the deployment of submarines? and implementation of PLO? And do we need to protect trade routes inappropriately?
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 23 January 2018 04: 52 New
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? and cover for the deployment of submarines? and implementation of PLO? And do we need to protect trade routes inappropriately?

        1. Sea of ​​Okhotsk - nonsense. To repel a U.S. airborne landing company, hold an aircraft carrier?
        2. Ways to deploy submarines. To England and back?
        3. PLO - small helicopter carriers are needed, out of 100 tons - 000 will be released.
        4. We have trade routes - ridiculous. They and the USSR were not.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 23 January 2018 05: 24 New
          +1
          1) to move the front from the coastline of the Russian Federation, more precisely from the bases of the Navy and populated areas
          2) your sarcasm is not appropriate, it is the narrowness between the islands that is very convenient for mining and thereby blocking our submarines within the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the Adversary will simply mine passages through its submarines and then will not allow them to be cleared.
          3) here, yes, I agree, in which smaller aircraft carriers are better in terms of maneuver and survival (of course, other things being equal, which are never there), that's just one large aircraft carrier is cheaper than several small ones, because it has fewer complex and expensive nodes, more precisely, it will have to purchase more nodes from small vessels with the same number of aircraft, because there are more ships.
          4) Well, yes, there wasn’t in the USSR, especially there weren’t any landlords and northern convoys. You understand a simple thing, during the war a large part of the population here will not be able to engage in production by force of conscription. Therefore, we will need to purchase something in other countries. For example, in the event of a war with NATO, we will have to purchase (compensate for the shortage) of vegetables, grain and meat, and the countries of South America will be the best supplier. The same applies to minerals, including fuel, we again have to purchase because of the fact that attacks on our logistics and production units will be carried out, including with the use of fire fighting equipment, which will lead to disruption of supplies. Also, in order to buy something, you will need to sell something, because we have to not only bring in but also transport resources.
          1. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 23 January 2018 10: 25 New
            +1
            1.
            For example, in the event of a war with NATO, we will have to purchase (compensate for the shortage) of vegetables, grain and meat, and the countries of South America will be the best supplier.

            You are wrong from the word quite.
            In the war with NATO, and it will be + Japan (I recall that NATO is both the United States and Canada) from South America we will not receive a single gram of products. Only from China and meat from Mongolia. With serious disassembly, the US is gouging a lone AWG without getting up off the couch.
            2. including fuel, we again have to purchase because of the fact that attacks will be made on our logistics and production units,

            There’s fuel in Sr.Az, and among the Azeris, even if you pour in and hunt "for a hundred miles of kissel to slurp?"
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 23 January 2018 22: 19 New
              +1
              Firstly, Central Asia is far from the fact that it will be friendly to us during the war, and even if it is friendly, it will be subject to NATO attacks.
              Secondly, this is NOW we don’t have a fleet, or rather what is completely useless! therefore, we cannot "now" receive or ship deliveries across the oceans. Therefore, we need a fleet, both merchant and a fleet covering convoys.
              1. Mavrikiy
                Mavrikiy 24 January 2018 18: 29 New
                +1
                Where is the logic, brother?
                Did Latin America swear allegiance to us before the first US whistle? Here, no whistle is required. A tanker with bananas to drive across the ocean .... 1UAG will never solve anything or even make it easier. She is doomed like a tank on the battlefield. 5 minutes.
                1.Because we "now" will not be able to receive or send deliveries across the oceans
                . Praaaaavilno Uncle Fedor you say, we can’t ... only we do not need. All our affairs on the continent.
                2.and need a fleet, both merchant and fleet covering convoys.
                Before sending convoys, drink some water and think about where to send the convoys.
                “Generals are preparing for past wars” and are completely unwilling to see that if we fight with NATO, then “Argentinean meat”, Brazilian coffee, Australian sheep, Vietnamese bananas and Cuban oranges do not shine for us.
                I repeat, there will be a continental block.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 24 January 2018 22: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Mavrikiy
                  I repeat, there will be a continental block.

                  the intracontinental blockade will be the same, and there will also be the destruction of transport, logistics and production hubs. They destroyed the nut factory, the warehouses were empty, where would you get the nuts? once again, the nuts are needed "yesterday" there are no resources for the new plant, what will you do? Yes, I immediately warn you, all yelling about "other plants", "allocate resources", etc. I will ignore it, because there is no time for them, and resources are spent on restoring other nodes.
                  Quote: Mavrikiy
                  Did Latin America swear allegiance to us before the first US whistle?

                  This is thirsty nonsense, in case of war all the second and third countries not directly involved in the hostilities will WISH to cooperate with us (with the enemy too), because they can make good money from this, and earn more than money. And yes, by the way, if we don’t have a fleet we can’t block supplies from these countries towards our enemy, as a result, we will fight not with one NATO, but with the whole world. Yes, having a fleet that is corny, or rather AUG, we will be able to deploy submarine supply bases far from the coastline of the Russian Federation and as close to the theater of operations as possible, thereby increasing efficiency. And about land operations to disperse enemy resources, I generally keep silent.
  4. krokus792
    krokus792 23 January 2018 07: 47 New
    +1
    What about hypersonic missiles? Will AUG survive a massive attack?
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 23 January 2018 08: 12 New
      +1
      In any case, the AUG has a chance to survive more than a single ship or a small group of ships without air support (for example, like our corvette-frigate fleet)
    2. tchoni
      tchoni 23 January 2018 10: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: krokus792
      Will AUG survive a massive attack?

      But we can organize it!? -)
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 23 January 2018 22: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: tchoni
        Quote: krokus792
        Will AUG survive a massive attack?

        But we can organize it!? -)

        Why not? You just need to think with your head and not try to imitate the US Navy. Then the price will drop sharply.
        What is needed for that:
        1) MKO (multifunctional guard ship), that is, a ship of the sea-ocean class, but at the same time suitable for transporting along the rivers of the Russian Federation, having special hold sections, and designed to protect the coast and convoys. In fact, its cost will be approximately equal to the cost of a corvette, maybe a little more expensive at the initial stage. (This ship replaces all corvettes / frigates and partially destroyers / cruisers).
        2) submarines, there is already everything there is nothing new to do inappropriately
        3) MVTK (multifunctional military transport ship) In fact, a hybrid of UDC / DVKD and a container ship. (this ship will be replaced by everything that cannot be replaced by MCO)
        4) a manned tiltrotor or other type of hybrid transport aircraft combining the functions of a helicopter and an airplane. Ideally (from the simplest and the existing one) there will be a convertiplane according to the type of disputes, but with a number of changes, firstly the installation of conventional helicopter engines in the center of the wing, secondly a slightly larger fuselage, and thirdly a wing of a rotatable type.
        Actually, everything, this is the minimum that is needed, the various lines of activity are overlapped by elements based on the above voiced vessels or coastal bases and a change in the organizational structure.