Military Review

Russian fleet aircraft carrier

98
After an ambiguously successful campaign, a group of ships of the North fleet to the coast of Syria and encouraging statements by military officials of the Ministry of Defense about long-term plans for the construction of a Russian aircraft carrier in the foreseeable future, the intensity of the discussion on this issue has somehow diminished. Supporters, rubbing their hands, swallow mouth-watering drooling, opponents gloatingly await new circumstances in the most difficult issue for the whole country. But cross swords and break spears there is something. There is no application concept, the technical design assignment has not been issued, the tender has not been announced, the place of construction, the fleet and the base have not been determined. And it will be difficult for the government to ignore public opinion, in the formation of which our respected resource will play a role. And there is something to discuss: the Gerald Ford was put into operation, the Queen Elizabeth was built, the tender for the construction of the Indian aircraft carrier was opened, and China is not going to put an end to the third aircraft carrier. Great-power ambitions, opponents will say; global trend, supporters will answer. From the latter: “American aircraft carriers - weapon punishers against weak countries "and" fleet - a collective weapon "!


If you take the American CVN-78 Gerald Ford as an icon of style, then it is difficult not to call this project a further modernization of the Nimitz type. Yes, electromagnetic catapults, yes, a new type of reactors without the need to replace the core, and even new electronics and a slight crew reduction. Everything! The same building, the same composition of the wing, three elevators instead of four and optimistic statements about the 15-20% growth opportunities for the production of aircraft per day. The change in the cost of dropping a bomb / missile launch into 7,5 million per unit is not modestly discussed. We in the navy would change just the last figure in the project. Initially, there are simply no opponents of such ships in the western hemisphere of the planet, the excess dimensions are justified by the duration of the passage across the oceans to the coasts of Eurasia and back. Twenty years ago, on such ships, it was planned to use up to three specialized wings (shock, anti-submarine and universal or multi-purpose), depending on the tasks to be solved.

The English “Queen” seems to be a warrior princess from a Hollywood series, which has a “terrible Russian bear”, a fabulous Middle East and black bloody Africa. Carpet bombardment and napalm fires are not for her. After all, no one doubts the ability of Britain to create an aircraft carrier similar to the US, as they did when creating the platform for the Tridents, only common sense warned the blind copying of leaders in this area. But the troop generation type "Invincible", which for budgetary reasons attributed to the concept of "ships of control of the sea", disappointed the command of the royal fleet after experience with the Anglo-Argentine conflict. An understanding of this was confirmed by the decision of the Soviet leadership to increase the displacement of ships of 1143 projects to the size of "Admiral Kuznetsov", "Varyag" and the designed "Ulyanovsk". The English shipbuilding school in the new project still refused to use starter catapults, deck aircraft DRLO and vertical takeoff of the strike air group, finding these elements too expensive for their aircraft carrier. We take this into account for yourself. The declared ability to lift 24 attack aircraft in 15 minutes, and this is the entire strike group of the ship, which is able to perform any combat mission in the air, at sea and on land, is impressive.

I cannot help but express a personal impression: in the new English aircraft carrier there is still a lot of heavy aircraft carrier “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”! Comparable size, displacement, composition of the wing, springboard, the absence of catapults, three launch positions on the deck ...

We can solve the two main problems of our ocean fleet (cover the SSBN patrolling area and the fight against the American AUG) from the air if we continue to creatively develop the concept of a heavy aircraft carrier cruiser, without getting involved in the multipurpose aircraft carrier race with the Americans.

And now justice and harmony of figures from open sources. When comparing ships, Russian TAVKR and English HMS, out of respect for the difference in age, I will be the first to set the parameters of our ship and through the fraction of the British.

Maximum total displacement 61390 / 70600 tons, maximum width 72 / 73 meters (at the waterline at the mid-point 34 / 39 meters), length 306 / 284 meters, flight deck area 14800 / 13000 square. meters - these geometrical dimensions create the impression that our ship is more “airy”, has a lower density, though it has armored rolled steel, body duplication with dry compartments, anti-torpedo three-layer protection up to 4,5 m wide, which withstands the impact of 400 kg of TNT charge while the complete absence of side armor and armor bulkheads in English is claimed. And indeed, the booking elements correspond more to the name of a heavy, albeit aircraft carrier, cruiser than to a classic aircraft carrier. But the laws of physics are indisputable in our reality: the ratio of length to width with the same draft and almost the same power of the power plant gives an advantage in speed of a full stroke (29 / 25 knots) and economic stroke (18 / 15 knots) to our ship.

In the future project of the Russian heavy aircraft carrier cruiser, such an advantage should be not only with respect to English, Indian or Chinese, but also all the huge nuclear-powered American aircraft carriers. Our AUG should be capable of both catching up and avoiding the pursuit of a potential enemy. A similar situation was in Germany during the construction of "pocket battleships" in the late thirties of the last century. Only German engineers at that time for the first time decided to equip such large warships with diesel power plants. The decision to use a nuclear power plant on the latest Russian aircraft carrier cruiser will not look revolutionary. The country's experience in the construction of submarines, nuclear-powered icebreakers, cruisers and civilian vessels will also create a nuclear heart for a single aircraft carrier. Reactors hidden deep beneath aviation hangar and flight deck, will provide not only the high energy level of the ship and speed, but also have a positive effect on the external architecture of the add-ons. There is no need for huge chimneys and ventilation shafts for internal combustion engines and several thousand cubic meters of tanks for motor fuel.

This speed advantage will also have a positive effect on the work of the aircraft strike group of the ship, increasing the combat load or the duration of the flight of airplanes without an ejection launch. And of course such planes should become if not Su-57, then at least Su-35C. In order for the above-mentioned heavy fighters of the VKS to be adapted as easily as possible for operations from the deck of the ship, sailors and designers should take the categorical requirements for two launch positions with a launch track length of at least 250 meters and two launch positions with a run length of 150 as basis for the ship design. meters Using models of engines with variable thrust vectors of the same type of aircraft with land models will reduce the angle of elevation of the nasal starting springboard from 14,30 (on Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR) to fully adequate 130 (as in Queen Elizabeth). Only in this way, collecting bit by bit tactical, technical, technological advantages and the best world experience in combination with domestic realities, it will be possible to achieve an unsurpassed result.

Specific characteristics for aircraft carriers are the flight deck area (14800 / 13000 m2) and the size of the deck-mounted hangars for aircraft (153 * 26 * 7,2 / 155 * 33 * 6,7 m). The increase in these dimensions will directly affect the increase in the composition of the air group based, the acceleration of training and the increase in the number of aircraft ready to ascend into the air as soon as possible. The Nimitz type has a deck area of ​​18200 m 2 and a hangar within 206 * 33 * 7,6 m. The ratio of hangar length to ship length varies between 0,5 for TAVKR, 0,54 for Elizabeth and 0,62 for Nimitz. Given the placement of Admiral Kuznetsov under the deck of the Granit SCRC, which will not be on the new Russian TAVKR, and without going beyond the length of the ship in the same 305 meters, we can count on an increase in the hangar length to 190 meters. If we also neglect the “model slimness” of our “Admiral” in 34 meters to the fullness in the middle of “Queen Elizabeth” in 39 meters, it makes sense and incentive to try to expand the hangar to those same 34 meters with a height of 7,5 meters. In the estimated operating conditions of our ship in the polar and Far Eastern seas, where the polar night will cover the flight deck, and salty splashes and snowstorms polish it to icy brilliance, the presence of a spacious dry room will not seem unjustified luxury.

One of the main drawbacks of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”, as an aircraft carrier, is the presence of a lengthy and massive superstructure almost in the center of the flight deck and only two aircraft lifters. The American "Gerald Ford" has relatively the smallest deckhouse and even more biased to the stern, in comparison with its predecessors. The British rejected the prevailing stereotype and established two separated "towers", moreover, they separated the functions of controlling the ship and controlling the flights of deck-based aviation between them. For the Russian newest TAVKR, the English version seems more preferable. The advantages lie in the advanced capabilities both for the placement of two of the most powerful antenna posts of surveillance radars, on-board detection and control systems, communications and navigation equipment, and on issues of improving the combat stability of the ship as a whole. And the absence of exhaust engines and the absence of the corresponding highways will simplify the conditions of operation and maintenance of electronic equipment. In the interval between the "islands" will be located the third elevator for aircraft.

None of the above will not cause such disputes as the question of the composition of the air group of the new ship. Any serious operation of the American carrier-mounted wing begins with the rise in the air of the indispensable “Hokaya”, which gives the management the lion's share of information about the air and sea situation within the reach of the onboard locator. But he is also the main harbinger of the appearance of both carrier-based aviation and the aircraft carrier itself in this area of ​​the ocean, as a lighthouse on the coast warns of the dangerous proximity of coastal cliffs. It is difficult to imagine the movement of a carrier strike group of ships, and even when flying in full radio silence mode. Hunter AUG enough to have modern means of electronic reconnaissance to determine the coordinates of the connection of ships. A comparatively small and economical unmanned aerial vehicle, cruising at an altitude of 12000 meters at a speed of 650 km / h for up to 12 hours, is capable of no worse than a deck manned aircraft or a DRLO helicopter in opening the surface and air situation in a passive manner, as for reconnaissance purposes, and target designation shock group with the Russian aircraft carrier. 12-16 of such reconnaissance aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier, when organizing round-the-clock duty of one or two of them in the air, in conjunction with space reconnaissance systems, the VCS reliably guarantee the timely opening of threats and the detection of potential targets for the strike group of aircraft. With a corresponding change of onboard equipment to EW devices, such UAVs will not be superfluous, either during an attack or in a retrade of our connection of the ships.

Considering the composition of the shock air group of the ship, I would like to substantiate the choice at the beginning of the article in favor of heavy domestic aircraft. If we take the choice of Su-35C in peak with the existing MiG-29K or MiG-35, then this is due primarily to the greater range and duration of the flight. Even for American giants, the increase in the number of take-offs and landings is difficult. But to solve the problems of patrols, it is enough to increase the duration of the flight of the aircraft twice, thereby reducing the number of takeoffs and landings in the same two times. And if Ford will probably have more than one year to puff to achieve the 220 announced departures per day, then the much more modest Elizabeth will most likely quickly achieve maximum intensity in 110 departures in 24 hours. Having on board more long-range aircraft, our aircraft carrier will be able to nullify the advantage in the number of strike aircraft on board a potential enemy when operating in the open ocean. Acting off its shores, the aircraft carrier will also be able to fulfill the role of a kind of aerodrome of a jump, which will easily double the intensity of fire impact along the targets reached from the deck. If the “Queen Elizabeth” in 15 mines take up the 24 F-35C in the air, which will perform the combat mission for two hours and return to full deck in 24 minutes, then these two hours may well be used to receive, refuel and lift into the air of yet another, albeit smaller, group of aircraft from the coastal air base. Such a feint with ears is unlikely to be possible with a small duration of the flight based aircraft. The presence on board the "regiment" in 36 of the same type of heavy universal aircraft will simplify the service system, and the range of specialists and spare parts.

Without reinventing the bike, we will arm the new aircraft carrier according to the old scheme on a new element base, replacing four batteries of the DIRECT "Dirk" with four batteries "Armor M" and 24 vertical PU ZRK "Kinzhal" with ammunition 192 missiles for four packages 15 9М334 with ammunition in 240 missiles for SAM "M-Tor". I do not specifically focus on the types of ammunition and missile modifications; by the time a ship is commissioned, they may have changed several times. But it would be worthwhile to think now about the sabot 30-mm projectile and a radar or programmable fuse. It is impossible not to think about the threat of ballistic missiles. Having abandoned the good old six-piece AK-630М in the arsenal of the new ship, its missile defense will hardly suffer, but it is possible to increase the effective area of ​​the upper flight deck at their expense.

As a non-specialist and as a supporter of the "traditional orientation" of ships, I was shocked by the news of the absence of the SJC on the newest British, and then also on German destroyers. Raising the available literature on the subject of underwater acoustics on aircraft carriers, he was convinced that there were at least hydroacoustic means for detecting and protecting against torpedo threat on aircraft carriers, even though Admiral Kuznetsov did have doubts about its effectiveness. In the pictures of “Gerald Ford” in the dock chamber or on the slipway, the size of the ship’s bow bulb is striking - it’s just a sin not to install the most powerful multifunctional hydroacoustic complex! After all, if the connection of the ships or the area of ​​the SSBN on duty is reliably covered from the threat from the air and the sea surface by the presence of a detachment of our ships with the flagship aircraft carrier at the head, then the threat from submarine hunters has not been canceled either. And the number of captains, successors of Günter Prine and Otto Krechmer, who want to raise the laurels of the winner of the Russian aircraft carrier, in the world around us is much more than on all the American and NATO aircraft carriers combined. I may be mistaken, but the presence and conditions of the use of the SAC on an aircraft-carrying cruiser of estimated sizes will be preferable than on existing BOD and destroyers. And this circumstance will only give more flexibility and stability to the PLO compound, as well as the universality of the cruiser itself when basing on it heavy anti-submarine helicopters or helicopter-minesweepers.

So, the performance characteristics of the future Russian TAVKR from the author:

Length, width (midship), draft (m) - 305, 39, 11.
Displacement standard (full) (t) - 63000 (70000).
The width of the flight deck 73 m, its area 15000 m2.
Underdeck Hangar (length * width * height) (m) - 190 * 34 * 7,5.
The nuclear power plant will provide the 32 ship with full-speed ties and 18 cruising units.
Armament: 36 aircraft type Su-35С; 12 UAV; 12 helicopters PLO and PS; four batteries "Armor M"; four batteries of the M-Tor SAM system with ammunition in 240 missiles; two survey three-coordinate radar of decimeter and centimeter ranges; GAK.
Providing up to 100 departures per day at maximum intensity in 18 sorties in 12 minutes.
Author:
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 19 February 2018 06: 05
    +22
    again, "wet fantasies" about a pipe dream ... talking about an aircraft carrier, it will be possible then, when there is at least a hint of the construction of escort ships. that is, destroyers with a powerful air defense and ASE system. For now, forget it.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 19 February 2018 06: 30
      +3
      Well, why. Once Tsiolkovsky dreamed of space flights. And our fathers and grandfathers made this dream come true .. True, the times are different now. And the main thing is another country.
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      again, "wet fantasies" about a pipe dream ... talking about an aircraft carrier, it will be possible then, when there is at least a hint of the construction of escort ships. that is, destroyers with a powerful air defense and ASE system. For now, forget it.
      1. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 19 February 2018 13: 44
        +4
        Carriers are needed for the United States, so as not to carry it unassembled, but to immediately begin bombing. (and even today it’s only a third-rate enemy). England and France have one each to maintain prestige in the former colonies and no more. The RF problems are all at hand and the flight reaches the destination. For prestige, we only have one (poor lame Kuzya) and we can’t bring it for decades, and what’s new, we’ll also introduce it for decades until it becomes obsolete., Not to mention the escort .. Empty troubles and only with an aircraft carrier ....
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 22 February 2018 08: 42
        0
        Yeah, the country already knows how to make planes with a range of thousands of kilometers and they do not need airfields in the ocean.

        And in space, like floundering in orbit, we are floundering, and even a manned flight to Mars does not shine. If only because there is little sense in this, and the risks for more than a year of flight in only one direction are not great.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 19 February 2018 06: 36
      +12
      Why carry planes and thousands of sailors across the oceans. What did we forget there? Missiles are cheaper, more efficient and faster. winked
      1. Mussasi
        Mussasi 19 February 2018 07: 22
        +10
        Quote: siberalt
        Why carry planes and thousands of sailors across the oceans. What did we forget there? Missiles are cheaper, more efficient and faster. winked

        That's right, if you build space carriers then put them into orbit around the earth with battle drones on board.
        1. Gardamir
          Gardamir 19 February 2018 08: 12
          +5
          then space
          By the way, a good idea, better than a dream about the past of the second comment.
      2. raw174
        raw174 19 February 2018 10: 11
        +5
        Quote: siberalt
        Why carry planes and thousands of sailors across the oceans. What did we forget there? Missiles are cheaper, more efficient and faster.

        Exactly. It is necessary to develop reliable target designation and missiles that are launched almost from fishing longboats. Well, we don’t need an aircraft carrier, we won’t use it! In my opinion, there are two ways of striking an enemy across the oceans: 1. aircraft carriers; 2. rockets. You need to bet on missiles, because they carry the same destructive force, more dangerous for the enemy and cheaper, the latter is the most important.
    3. max702
      max702 19 February 2018 08: 32
      +7
      The main question is WHY? in the coming decades, our country does not have goals and objectives justifying the construction of an AUG .. The author correctly noted the cost of any bomb or missile used by an aircraft carrier aircraft in 7.5 million dollars. The same caliber costs 1 million dollars (I think the purchase for the Navy is much lower) and if you recall what else is a pilot needed ... The finest hour of the AUG fell on the Second World War, but with the development of air defense, rocket, space technology, the AUG became outdated, like armadillos and battleships became obsolete .. On the way hypersound, target designation through space, and other sources up to "sleeping" Aug is not a it’s in a vacuum, and a material object with calculated routes of application, therefore there will be no unexpected, to cover the SSBNs the same isn’t needed today not even half a century ago, they can also shoot from the pier .. And most importantly, we must understand if we are fighting seriously with AUG using all our forces and means it means the third world with one end for all ..
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 19 February 2018 08: 56
        +4
        Quote: max702
        And the most important thing to understand if we are fighting seriously with AUG

        How many times in the past half century have aircraft carriers fought? And how many times did the nuclear submarines fight?
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 19 February 2018 12: 33
          +9
          Quote: Dart2027
          And how many times did the submarine fight?
          Some do not want or can not understand it, others work out orders for someone else’s lobby. All significant fleets of the world have aircraft carriers, it is impossible to do without aviation at sea, and with one basic aviation it is impossible to solve all the tasks, we also need a deck. Italy can build "Giuseppe Garibaldi" and "Conte di Cavour", they need it, and Russia needs to "develop reliable target designation and missiles that are launched almost from fishing longboats" (raw174), even better from the coast, and the fleet is not we need ... Nuclear missiles in mines have been standing for decades, devouring huge sums of money, on duty and renewal, keeping the world static, while aircraft carriers are involved in many operations, including to cover the deployment of their strategic submarines, actively fighting for the interests of the state, timely arresting problems and yav yayas same weapon of deterrence, arms prestart state, which largely determines whether the matter to nuclear missiles will reach. Fans of playing chess with pawns alone will be pseudo-chess players, lovers of having a rocket fleet of longboats will lose the country. In the photo the ships of small Italy.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 19 February 2018 13: 22
            +1
            Quote: Per se.
            All significant fleets of the world have aircraft carriers, you can’t do without aviation at sea, and you can’t solve all problems with one basic aircraft, you need a deck.

            Yes, I understand that.
          2. Winnie76
            Winnie76 19 February 2018 15: 46
            +3
            Quote: Per se.
            All significant fleets of the world have aircraft carriers, you can’t do without aviation at sea, and you can’t solve all problems with one basic aircraft, you need a deck.

            Shoba was like everyone else ... a significant argument.
            Quote: Per se.
            aircraft carriers, on the other hand, participate in many operations, including on the cover of deploying their strategic boats, actively fighting for the interests of the state, timely stopping problems

            Cousi had a lot of active operations? Did he stop many problems?
            Quote: Per se.
            Those who like to play chess with only pawns will be unfortunate chess players, those who have a missile fleet of “longboats” will lose the country. In the photo ships of little Italy.

            The fact of the matter is that Italy is small. An aircraft carrier fundamentally limits the mobility of an air group. During that time, while Kuzya, smoking from all the cracks, reached Syria, his air group could drive back and forth 50 times. And 50 times cheaper.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 19 February 2018 17: 51
              +6
              Quote: Winnie76
              Cousi had a lot of active operations? Did he stop many problems?

              So "Kuznetsov" is a good example of a beggarly attitude towards AB. Build one ship, drive it a quarter of a century without repair - and then be surprised that the AB gets out around the corner once a year according to the promise.
              With a normal attitude to AB, it should spend at least 25% of its time in the repair and maintenance on early service life and at least 33% in the later. And we have...
              We do not have a formidable aircraft carrier, we have a springboard for flying achievements, from time to time giving the course and occasionally providing flights of naval aviation with even more rarely working radio equipment.
              We do not have an aircraft carrier, we have a barge with individual randomly preserved radio-electronic elements that will require tens of millions and many months to recover, and we represent the division commander to the admiral, and the commander of the ship breaks into the General Staff Academy instead of procuring rusks.
              © u_96. Admiral's Mouth-2
              Quote: Winnie76
              An aircraft carrier fundamentally limits the mobility of an air group. During that time, while Kuzya, smoking from all the cracks, reached Syria, his air group could drive back and forth 50 times. And 50 times cheaper.

              The problem is that these airports are not everywhere. It is very difficult to find a nearby airfield at about. Bearish. Or at the throat of the White Sea. And our ship forces need to work there.
            2. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 21 February 2018 02: 44
              +1
              Quote: Winnie76
              Shoba was like everyone else ... a significant argument

              Well, your arguments do not stand up to criticism at all. It is necessary to consider an aircraft carrier precisely as a floating airfield. And he is needed where coastal aviation promptly not reaching out. His tasks can be very different, and are determined by the composition of the air group.
              You still have inveterate patterns such as “an aircraft carrier a weapon of aggression of a decaying west,” he “is only needed to bomb banana countries,” and so on. Do you deny the need and need for aviation at the right time in the right place? It is the aircraft carrier that provides it. So what's wrong with them? Does logic burst at the seams?
          3. max702
            max702 19 February 2018 23: 36
            +2
            Quote: Per se.
            Italy can build "Giuseppe Garibaldi" and "Conte di Cavour", they need it,

            Are you seriously separating Italy from the rest of the bourgeois world? They are another US fleet with comrades .. That's about IT IT IS NECESSARY. and not because directly the data of the pelvis is vital for her .. Russia does not have such tasks, and if we assume that such a need arises, the AUG should be built in a series of 10-12, because the whole bourgeois world will have to resist and bear its inexorable will .. Will we pull? Clear pepper no! And to fence 1-3 AUG there is not the slightest sense! Therefore, nafig it is necessary .. We rivet the submarines, frigates, corvettes, and it is highly desirable transport supply ..
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 20 February 2018 05: 46
              +2
              Quote: max702
              then it is necessary to build AUG with the 10-12 series for the whole Burzhuin world will have to resist and carry its inexorable will.
              You are a maximalist, Max, or-or, if it is impossible to stand up on aircraft carriers "the rest of the bourgeois world", so we don’t have them for nothing ... Interestingly, on boats or destroyers, the same point of view (they are also more of a NATO will be totally more always)? The fleet must be complete, because of all the possibilities, all the tasks that must be performed. And, without naval aviation, without deck aircraft, many tasks are not accomplished. We do not need 10-12 aircraft carriers to confront the entire bourgeois world (who programmed this nonsense to you in the brain), and, behold, the 3-4 aircraft carrier for the Russian fleet is just enough. "Rivet" thoughtlessly just do not need anything, you need to make ships for a balanced fleet, capable of performing the whole range of tasks at sea.
              1. max702
                max702 20 February 2018 13: 10
                +1
                What are 3-4 AUGs? What do you take off really do? Only the United States has 12, and how many have NATO and other sympathizers? So name at least one real country on the planet where we could use 1-3 AUG without hitting the interests of the United States and comrades? The name of the country please .. There are no such countries, the world has been divided for a long time, such costly solutions will not pay for themselves ..
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 20 February 2018 14: 24
                  0
                  Quote: max702
                  not hitting US interests comrades
                  There are no situations at all where the interests of the USA cannot be touched. Where are you and yours, - "We rivet nuclear submarines, frigates, corvettes, and highly desirable supply logistics," are you then going to "resist", if all this is true for the US and NATO, and there will always be more? All the best, Maxim.
                  1. max702
                    max702 21 February 2018 11: 30
                    0
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Where are you with yours, “We rivet nuclear submarines, frigates, corvettes, and it is highly desirable to supply vehicles,” then you are going to “oppose” if the USA and NATO have much more of this and will always be more?

                    For one simple reason we are we can unlike the construction of 10 aug, and it will be effective an asymmetric response to the threat from the bourgeois navy led by the AUG ..
                    1. Per se.
                      Per se. 21 February 2018 13: 23
                      0
                      Quote: max702
                      For one simple reason, we can do this, in contrast to the construction of 10 AUG
                      Our frigates without engines are stuck, and we are happy with the descents “Grachat”, like the descent of an aircraft carrier, since even the same frigates can be built for ten years ... “Asymmetrical answer”, is it piercing a wheel at a neighbor on Lexus? The problem is not that we would not be able to make 10 AUG, we do not need them in such numbers, the problem is that with such an economy, and frigates build a problem. Russia needs a full-fledged fleet, and we will get it, but for this the oligarch's yacht should not be more important than the cruiser.
      2. Shteffan
        Shteffan 21 February 2018 13: 13
        +1
        The Falkland War showed that you are mistaken. An aircraft carrier crowns the "food chain" on the seas. Why, then, contain deliberately weak 4 fleets?
      3. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich 25 February 2018 21: 51
        +1
        Quote: max702
        The main question is WHY? in the coming decades, our country does not have goals and objectives justifying the construction of the AUG ..

        freeze.
        systems that do not complicate / increase collapse.
        goals need to have the same.
  2. 210ox
    210ox 19 February 2018 06: 27
    +6
    An interesting article .. Only our government is it ... If the ship cannot transport LNG, then why is it needed?
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 21 February 2018 00: 10
      +1
      Quote: 210ox
      Interesting article..

      I also liked it: with brains and logic, analytics and an easy syllable. The author is Scharnhorst ... But it seems to me that Oleg Kaptsov changed his pseudonym. According to the style and flight of thought: when thoughts are free, but words are crowded ...
      fellow In short - a complete KAPETS!
  3. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 19 February 2018 06: 40
    +12
    After an ambiguously successful ....

    Here is the expression! No, I’m taking off my hat .... I’ll definitely take this phrase for “armament” —I will use it to write “letters” to my superiors. Thank you author! hi
    1. True
      True 19 February 2018 09: 18
      +10
      Have you replaced this turn too?) How did the author wrap it up! No, well, not all the starships drowned. The ship itself did not drown / burned out. Definitely a mixed success!)
  4. lance
    lance 19 February 2018 06: 42
    +4
    Aug again, where the author was going to sail? to Antarctica? to fight with aliens.
    1. raw174
      raw174 19 February 2018 10: 15
      +2
      Quote: Lance
      Aug again, where the author was going to sail? to Antarctica? to fight with aliens.

      Well, yes, remember how in the movie "Attraction", there were planes from Kuznetsov and shot down aliens)))
  5. oracul
    oracul 19 February 2018 06: 58
    +4
    Once again, their desires and arguments are given out as a certain perspective, the development of the Russian Navy. The author’s personal interest is one thing. The real possibilities and needs of the state are different. Discussion just for the sake of discussion is the destiny of a small circle of people. There is no time for specialists - they work.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 19 February 2018 08: 05
      +6
      Quote: oracul
      Once again, their desires and arguments are given out as a certain perspective, the development of the Russian Navy

      The prospect of building aircraft carriers has been under discussion for about 20 years, a whole generation has managed to grow, and we are breaking down our spears, discussing concepts, plans, etc. At the moment, there is nothing to discuss, the key point of the marine part of the state armament program for 2018-2027. will be the construction of ships of the near sea zone with high-precision cruise missiles, as well as strategic and multipurpose submarines

      There will be no aircraft carriers or even large ships of the ocean zone.
  6. Vadim851
    Vadim851 19 February 2018 07: 22
    +1
    Thank you, the article is interesting, one aircraft carrier would not be in the way. That's a bit confusing air defense. Why is the giant ammunition stockpiles of a relatively short range SAM? 48 H6e3 at least, at least 48 pieces. Or, in parallel, build a retinue of destroyers then.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 February 2018 13: 24
      +3
      Quote: Vadim851
      That's a little confusing air defense. Why is the giant ammunition stockpiles of a relatively short range SAM?

      For self defense. Airborne air defense AB should only shoot what will break through the fighters and escort. SAM AD DD is not needed. And even harmful - because it provokes admirals to reduce the escort of AB until its absence. As well as UVP, they take away the area and volumes from the main weapon of the AB - the air group.
      And by the way, where did you see the giant BC? The same Kuznetsov has:
      Four modules of the Dagger air defense system in vertical launch installations (total stock of 192 anti-aircraft missiles) and 8 Kortik air defense systems (256 missiles and 48000 30-mm shells)
      1. Vadim851
        Vadim851 19 February 2018 20: 39
        0
        Thank you for the clarification. Then destroyers should provide air defense of the far zone, at least 4 units + 22350 frigates, which, unfortunately, is still very tight. If on the basis of the Fort air defense system - then yes, it takes up a decent area, but a compact cell-type UVP is quite possible to place without selecting large areas.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote: Vadim851
        That's a little confusing air defense. Why is the giant ammunition stockpiles of a relatively short range SAM?

        For self defense. Airborne air defense AB should only shoot what will break through the fighters and escort. SAM AD DD is not needed. And even harmful - because it provokes admirals to reduce the escort of AB until its absence. As well as UVP, they take away the area and volumes from the main weapon of the AB - the air group.
        And by the way, where did you see the giant BC? The same Kuznetsov has:
        Four modules of the Dagger air defense system in vertical launch installations (total stock of 192 anti-aircraft missiles) and 8 Kortik air defense systems (256 missiles and 48000 30-mm shells)

        four batteries "Shell M"; four M-Tor air defense batteries with an ammunition load of 240 missiles and this is also very much, reduce a bit of short and medium-range missiles, and use the free space for something else.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 21 February 2018 10: 06
          +1
          Quote: Vadim851
          If on the basis of the Fort air defense system - then yes, it takes up a decent area, but a compact cell-type UVP is quite possible to place without selecting large areas.

          This UVP will be compact only in horizontal section. And in the vertical, it will be 2-3 meters longer than the TPK heavy missiles.
          Short UVP “tori” can be pushed along the sides or even put on sponsons. But it will not be possible to place long UVP close to the board - because with this placement they will hang down under the flight deck (the width of the same 11435 on the waterline is 35 m, and on the flight deck - 72 m).

          And this means that the UVP SAM air defense system will have to be entered into the hangar.
          Quote: Vadim851
          four batteries "Shell M"; four batteries of the M-Tor air defense system with an ammunition load of 240 missiles and this is also a lot

          This is the same amount (on batteries) as it was on 11435. It's just that the “tori” of the BC have more modules.
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 February 2018 11: 04
      0
      Quote: Vadim851
      That's a little confusing air defense. Why is the giant ammunition stockpiles of a relatively short range SAM? 48 H6e3 at least, at least 48 pieces. Or, in parallel, build a retinue of destroyers then.

      An aircraft carrier is primarily an airfield. Moreover, in contrast to the land, very small sizes. On it everything should be given to ensure the effective functioning of the air group, and if possible, everything that interferes is removed. All of his weapons (except aviation) are exclusively for self-defense, this is a short-range air defense system and anti-torpedo system. Moreover, as Alexey RA quite rightly remarked, even medium-range systems require a significant subdeck volume, and this will entail a reduction in the air group, fuel reserves and ammunition for it. The AUG's long defense zone should be provided by aviation, the middle - by an escort, the weapons of the aircraft carrier itself - only in order to, if necessary, finish off what broke through these two barriers
      Do not twist, and an aircraft carrier should not go alone. They don’t go. The escort has at least a couple of destroyers, a missile cruiser and a nuclear submarine (not counting support vessels)
  7. Alex_59
    Alex_59 19 February 2018 07: 58
    +4
    our ship is more “airy”, as it were, has a lower density, although it has armored rolled steel, duplication of the hull with dry compartments, and anti-torpedo three-layer protection

    He put the words differently. The meaning has not changed, however! fellow

    our ship is more “three-layered”, has less steel, although it has a kind of armor rolled density, body duplication with dry compartments, anti-torpedo air protection
    1. Tsoy
      Tsoy 19 February 2018 08: 45
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      our ship is more “three-layered”, has less steel, although it has a kind of armor rolled density, body duplication with dry compartments, anti-torpedo air protection


      Great and powerful Russian language. Thank you laughed.
  8. midivan
    midivan 19 February 2018 08: 05
    +6
    And it will be difficult for the government to ignore public opinion, in the formation of which our respected resource will play a role.
    I may not be so long here and not as often as the rest, so I have never seen how - Our Dear resource affects the government -? Yes, the government laid down both on the resource and on public opinion. If I am wrong, at least one fact please, can I? I see how Roman Skomorokhov and Roman Krivov try to defend the captain but influence ... request
  9. Loess
    Loess 19 February 2018 08: 36
    0
    Well, what can I say ... The author painted everything, tomorrow you can start building ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 February 2018 08: 42
      0
      The case was left to the small - 500 billion rubles for research and development and construction to find.
  10. ZVO
    ZVO 19 February 2018 08: 39
    0
    Again pulling an owl on a globe.

    Only a catapult gives an aircraft carrier real advantages ...
  11. Vadim237
    Vadim237 19 February 2018 08: 40
    +2
    Topics on the Russian aircraft carrier can be put off for ten years, at least.
    1. Vladivostok1969
      Vladivostok1969 19 February 2018 09: 23
      0
      What is the reason for this delay?
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 February 2018 21: 22
        +3
        Because these grandmas, which are needed for the construction of an aircraft carrier, you can buy 150 Su 57 fighters or 2500 Armata platforms or 8333 Typhoon U armored vehicles or 500000 guided artillery shells, build 60 new airfields, or buy 10000 Caliber and X 101 cruise missiles. Equip all of our Ground forces outfit Warrior 2.
        1. XXXIII
          XXXIII 19 February 2018 21: 52
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          Because these grandmas, which are needed for the construction of an aircraft carrier, you can buy 150 Su 57 fighters or 2500 Armata platforms or 8333 Typhoon U armored vehicles or 500000 guided artillery shells, build 60 new airfields, or buy 10000 Caliber and X 101 cruise missiles. Equip all of our Ground forces outfit Warrior 2.
          good
          ps From this list I would choose 10000 cruise missiles Caliber and X 101 ... laughing
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 21 February 2018 18: 54
            +1
            Quote: XXXIII

            ps From this list I would choose 10000 cruise missiles Caliber and X 101 ... laughing


            And 100000 hand slingshots. to launch Caliber ...
            And even better Rogozin trampolines ...
            Yeah ...
  12. ZVO
    ZVO 19 February 2018 08: 43
    0
    I could be wrong, but the presence and conditions of the use of the SAC on an aircraft-carrying cruiser of the estimated size will be preferable than on existing BOD and destroyers.


    And how does this relate to the fact that to be always on the alert and quickly start launching planes - should an aircraft carrier have a high marching speed?
    About 20-25-30 knots ...
    How will HAC (albeit huge) perform its functionality at such speeds? In my opinion ...
    It is easier to use the long-used schemes taken out of the warrant of patrols in the passive mode of all patients.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 19 February 2018 08: 59
      0
      Quote: ZVO
      aircraft carrier must have high marching speed

      If he constantly goes at full speed, he will simply exhaust his resource in a few years. Neither aircraft carriers nor corvettes fly at full speed unnecessarily and most of the time they go on an economical move, that is, about 14 knots.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 19 February 2018 09: 03
        0
        Quote: Dart2027
        Quote: ZVO
        aircraft carrier must have high marching speed

        If he constantly goes at full speed, he will simply exhaust his resource in a few years. Neither aircraft carriers nor corvettes fly at full speed unnecessarily and most of the time they go on an economical move, that is, about 14 knots.


        Well ?
        Those. we begin to approach that. that as soon as flights begin - the entire PLO system, based on the aircraft carrier’s HACK - turns into a pumpkin? And the aircraft carrier, as the main unit, becomes a deaf dummy. and all other ships (according to the author’s concept - not needing powerful HACs) - the same can not do anything in PLO ... So?
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 19 February 2018 09: 17
          0
          Quote: ZVO
          So?

          Well, firstly, all surface ships of rank 1-2 are equipped with a hull, it’s another matter that its size depends on the size of the ship and hull, which can easily be physically pushed into the frigate on an aircraft carrier.
          Secondly, there is no weapon that could do everything. Anyone has his own strengths and weaknesses, so both the fleet and the army must be balanced so that different combat units cover each other. I don’t think that someone will refuse to watch, but their own hack will not be superfluous.
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 19 February 2018 09: 24
            0
            Quote: Dart2027
            I don’t think that someone will refuse to watch, but their own hack will not be superfluous.


            Why is HAK an aircraft carrier, which is sent to independent sailing even in peacetime - a crime?
            In combat, the Aircraft Carrier should always be covered with a minimum of 4-6 korabi warrants and a pair of nuclear submarines ...
            A high-power aircraft (as the author initially wants) is redundant on aircraft carriers - especially taking into account the cost of equipment and maintenance. possession.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 19 February 2018 10: 58
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              Why HAK aircraft carrier, which is sent to independent navigation even in peacetime - a crime

              Then, as well as the air defense of the near range - just in case. That is, ideally, escort ships and their own air group should protect it, but for every fireman it is better to have it, all the more so since the HAC is located in the lower part of the hull and does not interfere with the placement of the air group.
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 19 February 2018 13: 49
                0
                Quote: Dart2027
                Quote: ZVO
                Why HAK aircraft carrier, which is sent to independent navigation even in peacetime - a crime

                Then, as well as the air defense of the near range - just in case. That is, ideally, escort ships and their own air group should protect it, but for every fireman it is better to have it, all the more so since the HAC is located in the lower part of the hull and does not interfere with the placement of the air group.


                Let’s just in case of fire there also torpedo weapons, and at the same time we’ll put a dozen SLBMs. What is there ...
                Suddenly a war, and I’m nonsense ...

                An airfield is an airfield. Though floating.
                In addition to the SAM / ZRAK near radius - nothing should be there.
                All PLO - at the mercy of the warrant and airborne wing.
                All long-range air defense - at the mercy of the warrant and airborne wing.
                Etc.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 19 February 2018 15: 04
                  0
                  Quote: ZVO
                  An airfield is an airfield. Though floating.

                  I do not argue with that. Let's just say - if there is an opportunity, then availability will not hurt, if not, then there is nothing to worry about.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 19 February 2018 14: 03
                0
                Quote: Dart2027
                That is, ideally, escort ships and their own air group should protect it, but for every fireman it is better to have it, especially since the HAC is located in the lower part of the hull and does not interfere with the placement of the air group.

                The question is different - why a HOOK for a ship that cannot use it normally? At the most dangerous time for takeoff and landing operations for the aircraft, its aircraft cannot work - too high speed.
                Of course, I understand that the AB is a large ship and it seems that the extra load for it is not a hindrance. But I want to remind you of how such good intentions ended in 1144 and 1164. So, in 1164:
                “Just think, they added“ just something ”(!) Less than a meter of length and less than a ton (!) Of weight” (meaning a new rocket). Looking ahead, we note that these "just something" cost the ship an additional 13 m in length, 2,3 m in width and 2700 tons of displacement.
                © V.P. Cousin
                Instead of a hull, it’s better to include a few more PLO helicopters in the wing.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 19 February 2018 15: 06
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  But I want to remind you of how these good intentions ended in 1144 and 1164.

                  It happens. It all depends on the specific case.
  13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 February 2018 12: 05
    +3
    Sorry, but ... extremely controversial argument
  14. alstr
    alstr 19 February 2018 12: 11
    0
    I agree with those who ask the question why do we need an aircraft carrier?
    My IMHO.
    First of all, an aircraft carrier is needed for reconnaissance and target designation.
    Secondly, to improve the stability of the naval group.
    And only in the third turn, for hitting the coast and showing the flag.

    Now we need to consider these goals in more detail.
    We take target designation.
    The question arises: who can strike at sea and shore. We list:
    1. Ships of different ranks
    2. Anti-ship coastal complexes
    3. Submarines

    In fact, we have ships and coastal batteries attached to the shore, because in a real situation, their operation outside the coastal aviation flight zone (about 1 thousand km, and the strike radius will be no more than 1,5 thousand km) is suicide (sometimes quite rational if you exchange the same TARK for an aircraft carrier).
    on the other hand, submarines (preferably atomic ones) can get close enough to the target unnoticed, but without the necessary target designation.

    Those. really we need good target designation for submarines. The surface fleet we have never built stronger than the NATO fleet (one US fleet does not even surpass).

    Plus the development of all kinds of drones.

    Combining all this, the following concept of the future fleet can be proposed.
    1. The fleet must be divided into two parts. Fleet defending the coast and demonstrating the flag and strike fleet.

    The coastal defense fleet is a flotilla of corvettes and patrol ships. Here you can also build large helicopter carriers to provide landing operations and display the flag.
    You can also create groups in each fleet of TARKs, helicopter carriers and several corvettes and frigates.
    In any case, the task of such a "home fleet" is to protect the coast in cooperation with coastal aviation, coastal air defense systems and air defense systems (VAL, Bastion), as well as electronic warfare systems.
    But turn the strike fleet into a completely submarine.
    Create several groups of shock submarines. It should be understood that we will need new types of submarines - uterine submarines for underwater and air drones.
    Those. the idea is this: a group of submarines is created for different purposes. Some are purely percussion, i.e. submarines arsenals with weapons of about 150-200 PRK.
    Part of the search (but also have PPH, but in small numbers). Their main weapon will be reconnaissance drones, both underwater and air. Now the dimensions allow even on existing submarines to launch UAVs. It remains to provide communication and immediately the enemy receives a secretive and strong opponent. The launch of 150-200 missiles will not be able to repel even the AUG, and if there are more of them, the AUG will cease to exist. And here, both on land - wounded animals are worse than a corpse, because it is a diversion of forces and means.

    Tactics, in principle, primitive search boats using drones detect and transmit coordinates to submarines arsenals. And they shoot at once with everything they can and roll off.

    In addition, an interesting situation arises. To group submarines of this type do not need air defense from the word at all. Only a PLO is needed, but a PLO under water is provided better than for surface ships. In addition, we will not receive more than 8 torpedoes from one enemy’s boat (i.e., the USA) (and now we’ll compare with the number of possible salvos of a PRK from any destroyer). And the speeds are orders of magnitude lower, i.e. response time is much more.

    It follows that we do not need aircraft carriers from the word at all. But the submarine carriers drones very much.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 February 2018 14: 07
      +1
      Quote: alstr
      Tactics, in principle, primitive search boats using drones detect and transmit coordinates to submarines arsenals. And they shoot at once with everything they can and roll off.

      In this case, the RTR of the enemy looking to the sky ©. Just think, next to AUG there is a constant data exchange. smile
      I’ll just remind you - back in the 80s, the main mode of operation of the Hokai - Proler connection, which provided AWACS for AUG, was passive: detection of signal sources - classification - target designation.
      1. alstr
        alstr 19 February 2018 14: 42
        0
        So I write that it is necessary to solve the issue of communication.
        There is an option to batch dump information.
        There is an option of directed information dumping strictly down (narrow beam) to an underwater drone.
        You can come up with a lot of things.
        But having solved the communication problem, a killer system will turn out. And much cheaper than a full-fledged AUG, because it is not necessary to spend money on air defense and the aircraft carrier is also not necessary. Supply vessels are also not needed.

        In general, I would advise our developers to read such a fantastic series about Honor Harrickton. If we omit all the fiction, then the logic of the development of the fleet can be traced quite clearly.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 February 2018 17: 09
          0
          Quote: alstr
          There is an option to batch dump information.

          There is. But RTR does not need to decode the information - it is enough to detect the fact of data transmission and the transmitter azimuth.
          Quote: alstr
          There is an option of directed information dumping strictly down (narrow beam) to an underwater drone.

          Which imperceptibly moves under water behind the air UAV, going in the air "for a hundred." smile And imperceptibly transfers data to the submarine.
          Quote: alstr
          In general, I would advise our developers to read such a fantastic series about Honor Harrickton. If we omit all the fiction, then the logic of the development of the fleet can be traced quite clearly.

          Yeah ... we will hang suspensions to the SD (p), to which we will hang more suspensions, to which .... and then with all this we will accelerate and maneuver. Oh yes, all this still requires superlight transmission of data (for reconnaissance and control of SD in real time) and undetected intelligence platforms. laughing
          1. alstr
            alstr 19 February 2018 20: 32
            0
            Well, if you completely get to Marzism, then you can recall the old grandfather's way - to throw off a capsule with the data that an underwater drone or the submarine itself will pick up. ((((
            But as they say in every joke there is a fraction of a joke.

            What I mean is that solutions can be devised. Again, even if they detect a drone, they can be sacrificed in exchange for data for firing at the AUG.
            And there, even if it is destroyed, the reaction time at the AUG will be short.

            In short, I am all inclined to the fact that it will be easier and cheaper to solve the problems of interaction (just like that) of the whole group than to design and build an aircraft carrier and then serve it.
            At the same time, the cost of an aircraft carrier is 3-4 submarines. Those. for the cost of only an aircraft carrier, we can get a mini-group, which in autonomy can sink the AUG.
            To everything else, if the problems of communication and interaction are solved, then they can be applied on land, which is also relevant.


            Threat about pendants from the world of Harrickton. It’s quite a working idea to use pop-up containers with calibers / onyx (disposable) for launching missiles.
            The submarine can release it (and in several places at once, and then give a command to launch. This will reduce the launch time and reduce the likelihood of detection (because the boat can simply lie at the bottom and give a command from there). And in this state it detect very difficult.
            And these are just the obvious things. And if you think about it, you can come up with a lot of things.
  15. Tektor
    Tektor 19 February 2018 14: 29
    +1
    You need to add Buk-M3 / Polement, pieces 48 and Onyx / Zircon, pieces 24 in the same place near or along the outer side of the superstructure.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 19 February 2018 16: 13
      +1
      And it’s best to throw an air group out of the armament. All the same, there will be little sense from her. The expected range / duration of the flight is achievable only with a full refueling. And the limitation on take-off from the springboard is 28000 kg (for the current version of the springboard). Given that the decked version will be heavier than the land version (due to the reinforced structure, for example, an empty Su-33 is 27 tons heavier than the base Su-2,5), its empty mass will be ~ 22,5 tons. The minimum curb weight (without fuel) is ~ 850 kg more (4 V-V missiles, gun ammunition, pilot, etc.), which means that ~ 4,5 tons remain for fuel. Despite the fact that 3 tons is the minimum allowable fuel balance.
      And with a full refueling Su-35 from the deck will not take off even without any suspensions.
      Indirectly, this is confirmed by the statistics of the flight of the decked Su-33, when during a trip to the Mediterranean Sea in 2011-12. carrier-based fighter aircraft performed about 150 flights with a raid of more than 120 hours. That is, the flight duration averaged 45 minutes.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 19 February 2018 17: 33
        +1
        Quote: Snakebyte
        And it’s best to throw an air group out of the armament. All the same, there will be little sense from her.

        It is better to put on AB catapults. Then it will be possible to have carrier-based AWACS in the air group. Without which AB is blind, deaf and generally of little use.
  16. sevtrash
    sevtrash 19 February 2018 16: 26
    +1
    Aircraft carrier, of course, that would be nice to have. The projection of force, and sometimes in the case, as in Syria, although there it was not so much use. But the main thing is a huge amount of funds for the development, production, service / support of the aircraft carrier itself and its main weapons, for cutting, in the end. Is this money there? It is doubtful. Even if there is, it makes more sense to put them on more necessary projects.
    Starting off from British aircraft carriers seems unnecessary. They are built around the F35, but where is this kind of aircraft in Russia? No, and hardly expected. Especially considering how many Americans have spent and are expending manpower and resources to work with the F35. To consider that Yak141 and F35 are one and the same is approximately the same as to consider that the Americans were not on the moon. In general, it seems that aircraft carriers with jumps are unfinished / defective aircraft carriers, judging by the difference in the characteristics of aircraft in comparison with catapult aircraft carriers. At least for now.
    1. Pingo
      Pingo 24 February 2018 18: 42
      0
      Quote: sevtrash
      the same thing about the same as believing that the Americans were not on the moon.

      how does one follow from the other?
  17. shuravi
    shuravi 19 February 2018 19: 33
    +4
    But doesn’t it bother anyone that somehow such irreplaceable battleships in the fleet have left the arena? Despite all his armor and power of guns.
    That's right, they were primarily sentenced by the same aircraft carriers. Despite all its relative weakness, WWII deck aircraft allowed aircraft carriers to smash those battleships with impunity, that is, beyond the reach of guns.
    But here came the missile weapons, and first of all the guided ones. Now what is the advantage of an aircraft carrier against a missile cruiser? Range? So no. Reaction time? Not even funny.
    And the only niche that remained with aircraft carriers today is the colonial war. In other cases, they have utility like armadillos.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 19 February 2018 19: 59
      +2
      Quote: shuravi

      But here came the missile weapons, and first of all the guided ones. Now what is the advantage of an aircraft carrier against a missile cruiser? Range? So no. Reaction time? Not even funny.
      And the only niche that remained with aircraft carriers today is the colonial war. In other cases, they have utility like armadillos.


      Oh well..
      If we take a spherical horse in a vacuum, i.e. moving away from satellite guidance (which both sides have), the chances of a missile cruiser in a direct collision with an aircraft carrier are zero.

      Aircraft AWACS (and their 3pcs on an aircraft carrier) will detect a missile cruiser at a distance of 800-1000 kilometers.
      EW / RTR aircraft will interfere and suppress the cruiser radar systems at the same distance.

      A distracting wing from 8 aircraft will deliver a coordinated strike from a distance of 800-1000 kilometers of 64-128 with MALD simulators, which will completely overload the missile cruiser air defense and drive all the officers crazy.
      The main strike wing from 24 delivers a 48 strike coordinated with MALD simulators with JASSM-ER missiles from a distance of 800 kilometers.

      All of these missiles, simulators, aircraft are network-centric, have the ability to correct and redirect during the flight.

      there is no chance for a missile cruiser - just do not.
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 19 February 2018 20: 29
        +3
        Quote: ZVO


        Oh well..
        If we take a spherical horse in a vacuum, i.e. moving away from satellite guidance (which both sides have), the chances of a missile cruiser in a direct collision with an aircraft carrier are zero.


        Here you have just a spherical horse in a vacuum and left.

        Aircraft AWACS (and their 3pcs on an aircraft carrier) will detect a missile cruiser at a distance of 800-1000 kilometers.


        Before they find the cruiser, they will be discovered by themselves, did not know? In addition, an escort aircraft carrier is such a "small" target that it will be found much earlier.

        EW / RTR aircraft will interfere and suppress the cruiser radar systems at the same distance.


        Forced to disappoint you, but at such a distance you can’t suppress anything.

        A distracting wing from 8 aircraft will deliver a coordinated strike from a distance of 800-1000 kilometers of 64-128 with MALD simulators, which will completely overload the missile cruiser air defense and drive all the officers crazy.
        The main strike wing from 24 delivers a 48 strike coordinated with MALD simulators with JASSM-ER missiles from a distance of 800 kilometers.


        To do this, they still need to take off. And this is the time that the cruiser uses to launch missiles.

        All of these missiles, simulators, aircraft are network-centric, have the ability to correct and redirect during the flight.


        They still need to have time to apply.

        there is no chance for a missile cruiser - just do not.


        There is no chance for a large trough of an aircraft carrier.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 19 February 2018 22: 14
          +2
          Quote: shuravi

          There is no chance for a large trough of an aircraft carrier.

          I will try to embrace on my fingers already, for I see. that you don’t understand anything about it ...

          Let's say the distance between the aircraft carrier and the missile cruiser is 1000 kilometers (this is easier than in miles).
          Both are cruising at 25 km / h in oncoming courses and do not know about each other.

          Timestamps.

          00.00 - no one knows anything. on surveillance radars of ships - nothing. After all, the radar visibility range is limited to a hundred kilometers.
          Aircraft carrier lifts a drone aircraft into the air.
          An 01.00 AWACS aircraft located at a distance of 300km from an aircraft carrier discovers a missile cruiser at a distance of 600 km. and begins to barrage at a given distance from the ship.
          The cruiser was discovered and escorted at a distance of 950km from the aircraft carrier ..
          Aircraft carrier not found. but the captain of the cruiser knows that he was irradiated and that the aircraft carrier is somewhere in a certain segment, but he does not know where exactly.
          distance between ships - 950 km.

          01.15
          The aircraft carrier gives full speed against the wind to maximize the take-off weight of aircraft. let it be a fair wind.
          The second Hokai and 2 Growler EW with hanging tanks rises in alarm.
          01.20 rise 2 SuperHornet with full tanks, with hanging tanks and air refueling systems. For refueling the first Hokai and Growlers.
          02.20
          distance between ships - 860 km
          in the air is a distracting air wing, 8 aircraft with MALD simulator suspension to the maximum.
          Aircraft do not even include their radar. They don’t need it - they all get target designation from the Hokai.

          03.00
          distance between ships 810 km.
          Another 2 SuperHornet is taking off with full tanks, with hanging tanks and air refueling systems. For refueling only growlers.
          8 aircraft of a distracting air wing at a distance of 500 km from the target are launched by pre-programmed MALD simulators. They are from 64 to 128pcs. They quietly fly a snake toward the target on their 450-500 km / h.

          03.00 - 03.20 rises into the air attacking wing from 12 (there will be enough of them in fact, and even with a huge supply) of aircraft in 24 attack missiles.
          After overcoming 300 km - they launch shock rockets.

          04.00 A coordinated attack from an armada of 150 missiles, planes, and other evil spirits that imitate MALD is launched on the cruiser. And she really is coordinated in seconds. At the same time.
          Not a single ship’s air defense of the world can cope with such a misfortune,
          And the cruiser will be destroyed.
          At a distance of 750 kilometers.
          He will not be able to launch a single missile on the plane — for they are out of reach of both his radar and, all the more, his anti-aircraft missiles.
          So he will not be able to launch a single anti-ship missile.
          For firstly too far. secondly, he does not know where the goal is.
          He can still determine the direction to the target with an accuracy of 15 degrees, but this will not work. The benefit of capturing a target in a GOS is so narrow and its range is so small that it’s a fiction to get into the exact direction. and even if such a fiction occurs, then the aircraft armed with Amraami will shoot at the rocket using target designation from the Hokaev. For which these missiles will be too simple targets.

          the cruiser has no chance. no.
          nobody will let him in on the range of target acquisition and missile launch.
          1. lance
            lance 21 February 2018 14: 03
            0
            this is which cruiser does not detect aug beyond 1000km?
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 21 February 2018 18: 58
              0
              Quote: Lance
              this is which cruiser does not detect aug beyond 1000km?


              Any...
              If I call Peter, can you object to me?
              1. lance
                lance 21 February 2018 20: 27
                0
                In 2017, the Liana satellite system was supplemented by 3 interesting devices in the so-called low stationary orbit, which significantly increased the accuracy of indicating the coordinates of a group of ships (aug). the probability of guidance and damage from granite and onyx reduces the advantage of aug over Peter and Nakhimov to “0”.
                1. ZVO
                  ZVO 22 February 2018 17: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Lance
                  In 2017, the Liana satellite system was supplemented by 3 interesting devices in the so-called low stationary orbit, which significantly increased the accuracy of indicating the coordinates of a group of ships (aug). the probability of guidance and damage from granite and onyx reduces the advantage of aug over Peter and Nakhimov to “0”.


                  The first one. What Granite, what Onik - do not fly further than 300-500 kilometers along a high-altitude path. They just can't. The high-altitude trajectory is the most stupid. All in the palm of your hand and stray by any means. The same aircraft will be able to do this with huge rockets at a time.

                  Really dangerous is the low altitude trajectory.
                  But alas. flight range is limited to 120-150km.

                  The range of defeat of any ship by the forces of an aircraft carrier aircraft carrier is 800-1300km easily and naturally.
                  But you still do not understand this, you have not read my words.
                  Apparently not capable.

                  Did Liana's trajectories look? At least once? It is very easy - find the name of the Cosmos of the corresponding Peonies, etc. and look - with what order they are over the same point in the ocean ...

                  Amers have much more such satellites.
                  And in advance, they will also know the location of the cruiser.
                  And in that case they will have an even greater advantage ... From a greater distance they will be able to attack the cruiser.
          2. shuravi
            shuravi 25 February 2018 00: 24
            +1
            Quote: ZVO
            Quote: shuravi

            There is no chance for a large trough of an aircraft carrier.

            I will try to embrace on my fingers already, for I see. that you don’t understand anything about it ...

            Let's say the distance between the aircraft carrier and the missile cruiser is 1000 kilometers (this is easier than in miles).
            Both are cruising at 25 km / h in oncoming courses and do not know about each other.

            Timestamps.

            00.00 - no one knows anything. on surveillance radars of ships - nothing. After all, the radar visibility range is limited to a hundred kilometers.
            Aircraft carrier lifts a drone aircraft into the air.
            An 01.00 AWACS aircraft located at a distance of 300km from an aircraft carrier discovers a missile cruiser at a distance of 600 km. and begins to barrage at a given distance from the ship.
            The cruiser was discovered and escorted at a distance of 950km from the aircraft carrier ..
            Aircraft carrier not found. but the captain of the cruiser knows that he was irradiated and that the aircraft carrier is somewhere in a certain segment, but he does not know where exactly.
            distance between ships - 950 km.

            01.15
            The aircraft carrier gives full speed against the wind to maximize the take-off weight of aircraft. let it be a fair wind.
            The second Hokai and 2 Growler EW with hanging tanks rises in alarm.
            01.20 rise 2 SuperHornet with full tanks, with hanging tanks and air refueling systems. For refueling the first Hokai and Growlers.
            02.20
            distance between ships - 860 km
            in the air is a distracting air wing, 8 aircraft with MALD simulator suspension to the maximum.
            Aircraft do not even include their radar. They don’t need it - they all get target designation from the Hokai.

            03.00
            distance between ships 810 km.
            Another 2 SuperHornet is taking off with full tanks, with hanging tanks and air refueling systems. For refueling only growlers.
            8 aircraft of a distracting air wing at a distance of 500 km from the target are launched by pre-programmed MALD simulators. They are from 64 to 128pcs. They quietly fly a snake toward the target on their 450-500 km / h.

            03.00 - 03.20 rises into the air attacking wing from 12 (there will be enough of them in fact, and even with a huge supply) of aircraft in 24 attack missiles.
            After overcoming 300 km - they launch shock rockets.

            04.00 A coordinated attack from an armada of 150 missiles, planes, and other evil spirits that imitate MALD is launched on the cruiser. And she really is coordinated in seconds. At the same time.
            Not a single ship’s air defense of the world can cope with such a misfortune,
            And the cruiser will be destroyed.
            At a distance of 750 kilometers.
            He will not be able to launch a single missile on the plane — for they are out of reach of both his radar and, all the more, his anti-aircraft missiles.
            So he will not be able to launch a single anti-ship missile.
            For firstly too far. secondly, he does not know where the goal is.
            He can still determine the direction to the target with an accuracy of 15 degrees, but this will not work. The benefit of capturing a target in a GOS is so narrow and its range is so small that it’s a fiction to get into the exact direction. and even if such a fiction occurs, then the aircraft armed with Amraami will shoot at the rocket using target designation from the Hokaev. For which these missiles will be too simple targets.

            the cruiser has no chance. no.
            nobody will let him in on the range of target acquisition and missile launch.


            Sorry, but this is another spherical horse in a vacuum.
            Your cruiser is fighting alone against an entire outfit of forces. You absolutely do not know what a complex use of forces and means is. What makes you think that the cruiser will be looking for an aircraft carrier alone? He will simply get the coordinates of his whereabouts.
            In addition, instead of one aircraft carrier, you can get a whole group of missile ships, each of which will have enough weapons to send the aircraft carrier to the bottom.
            And from your fantasies, excuse me, a mile away from kindergarten.
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 25 February 2018 00: 28
              0
              Quote: shuravi

              And from your fantasies, excuse me, a mile away from kindergarten.


              You read all that first. what i wrote to you ...
              From the very beginning, I wrote about the spherical "cruiser against an aircraft carrier" without the support of other forces ...

              You are completely incapable of perceiving the information written for you carefully - accordingly, it is absolutely useless for society ...

              If both the aircraft carrier and the cruiser are in the modern surrounding information field, then the chances of the cruiser are reduced even more.

              The destruction range will not be 750 km. and 1300 kilometers.

              and if you do not understand this, go and dig the beds.
              At least for now.
              for this is your maximum development.
  18. kuz363
    kuz363 19 February 2018 20: 37
    0
    Dreams Dreams! Where is your sweetness?
  19. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 19 February 2018 20: 38
    +1
    Carriers are needed, but not now. Industry just can't handle it.
  20. internal enemy
    internal enemy 19 February 2018 23: 42
    0
    In Russia, you need to introduce a tax or a levy on the construction of an aircraft carrier and ships to cover it, as 300 years ago, you see and everything will be built quickly.
    1. sleeve
      sleeve 20 February 2018 07: 09
      0
      Cool idea ... Only a lottery is needed. Moreover, some kind of thoroughly public front should be carried out. He’s literally going to tower construction. And what? There is practically nothing secret there in terms of the hull and power plant. The tender for armament and aviation “we will play with our eyes closed” (well, like with our eyes closed) and voila, the national aircraft carrier, and not one. Prizes to give out apartments in the "gaming cities" (so cheaper). Well and so on. Financial yummy. And by the way, after this MO should we? Here let the contract road units at 25% of the amount organize (well, or 100%) and forward and with songs mixed up with local budgets. Wow, let's live! We are building three aircraft carriers, and they give us 6000 km of highway. And we are aircraft carriers for six years (ooh ... probably eight) and they let go at least 600 km a year. And if the same brigades also build apartments for the lottery, then we allow these grandmas and Leaders to build, and Tu-160M2, and even 3,4,5.
  21. pilot8878
    pilot8878 20 February 2018 00: 59
    +2
    Beauty, already admired. But as I, the land, it seems, no matter how the coolest aircraft carrier may be, he alone has nothing to do in the sea. But with the composition of his order (so it seems?), We are very, very bad. To begin with, you still need to build support ships in the right amount. And even after that, the value and necessity of a single aircraft carrier raises huge doubts, and the construction of a large series is not even science fiction.
  22. Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko 20 February 2018 01: 12
    +1
    Empty theorizing. Russia will not be engaged in robbery in underdeveloped countries, like the Yankees. In the event of a serious war, the American AUG is completely “compensated” by our much cheaper multipurpose nuclear submarines. To build their own aircraft carriers (namely, aircraft carriers in the plural, because in order for one aircraft carrier to always go to sea in peacetime, there must be at least three of them) an impossible task; moreover, support aircraft are also “relying” on the aircraft carrier - without them it is a target, especially for a strike from under water. In a word, one for the show off is enough. And serious emphasis is on submarines! The General Staff is well aware of this. But the question is the lack of money. The country has only 1 million people. engaged in the production of material assets, and at the same time a bunch of factories were destroyed and hundreds of defense technologies were lost - where will it come from?
  23. sleeve
    sleeve 20 February 2018 07: 00
    0
    In principle, close. But there is a proposal: to finally decide that our aircraft carrier is not intended to "confront" the American AUG. Limit goals and objectives to local conflicts, solving strategic problems in a different, cheaper and more efficient way. Then you can "shrink" even a little. Now the wing. Why not modify the Mig-29? It is smaller, albeit with a compressed radius. But within the framework of tasks, and with at least 2 refueling tanks (if they are needed at all), they will simply fit into the hangar more. In conjunction with the “Leaders” this is of course a serious argument will be at sea. Properly distributed deck logistics, taking into account the lack of a catapult, you can try to achieve maximum take-off and landing ability. Solving these problems is not through size, but easier. The attack aircraft can be made to order, then 40 (probably so that with conveniences) Mig-29 (well, or Mig-29KM there) are in principle capable of providing dense air defense over a sphere of 200 km radius. An additional 320 SD is not bad at all. If you observe even the NATO intervals for take-off, even at 2 points we will get as many as 4 cars per minute. And so everything is great. Only anti-torpedo can not be forgotten. 4 The duo is good, even against the "kamikaze mosquitoes", but you need to reduce the lines of fire above the ship itself, so that the dead zone lies a hundred meters from the deck. This, in principle, is not difficult when there are specialized low-power radars, divorced along the bow and stern sponson (this is all against the ballistic trajectory). Do not rely heavily on escort, especially in the near-field air defense and anti-torpedo protection, taking into account the anti-atomic dilution of the AUG (something in the area of ​​five miles no less). And then the principle of "better, less, better" will give a good fighter of the upper and distant echelons and a friend of the coastal units in the "Syrian" version.
  24. Sagaidark
    Sagaidark 20 February 2018 10: 32
    0
    And again, another author paints a strike aircraft carrier. It is written well, I will not quibble. for a drummer, that's fine.
    But I’ll go to another plane.
    No. 1 base and infrastructure (who will do where and for how much?)
    No. 2 service (repair / modernization, etc. - who, where?)
    No. 3 price issue, the number of boards?
    No. 4 What tasks will he perform? To fight with the USA? So there other priority tasks will be drawn, and he will not be ready to solve them.

    And now my vision. Russian aircraft carriers are necessary, but of a completely different kind. It is necessary to build the most simple, cheap and relatively small ships designed for an air group of no more than 25 units. LA
    The main objective of these aircraft carriers should be to ensure the safe deployment of our boats - carriers of nuclear ballistic missiles (SSBNs).
    Therefore, the main function is anti-submarine. To the maximum anti-submarine. So much so that the only news of the launch of such a ship into the sea already caused a slight panic at the NATO headquarters and the urgent withdrawal of all boats from the alleged patrol area.
    Well, the opportunity to accommodate 8-12 aircraft on board, in case the tasks need to be solved off the coast of others. it'll be enough. A certain amount of air defense systems of the near zone will also not be superfluous.
    If someone wants to argue, write to me there: https://vk.com/world_policy
  25. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 20 February 2018 14: 20
    0
    "A relatively small and economical unmanned aerial vehicle, cruising at an altitude of 12000 meters at a speed of 650 km / h for up to 12 hours, is capable of opening the surface and air conditions in passive mode as well as for reconnaissance, no worse than a decked manned aircraft or AWACS helicopter. and target designation for an attack group from a Russian aircraft carrier. 12-16 of such scouts aboard the aircraft carrier "

    ostap carries
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 20 February 2018 20: 08
      0
      Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)

      ostap carries


      Well, nevertheless, there is some technical truth in his words.
      if on the basis of the flying laboratories X-47B - to make an RTR aircraft - then both the altitude and the range and the duration of the flight are fully ensured.
  26. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 20 February 2018 14: 31
    0
    Quote: shuravi


    Before they find the cruiser, they will be discovered by themselves, did not know? In addition, an escort aircraft carrier is such a "small" target that it will be found much earlier.


    how? soar so that the horizon does not interfere?
  27. Evgeny Tseprunov
    Evgeny Tseprunov 20 February 2018 14: 40
    0
    In my opinion, it is advisable not to make a universal aircraft carrier for heavy Su, but, on the contrary, to separate the defensive and strike functions of two types of small aircraft carriers, of course, with a nuclear power plant.
    Defensive - with the expectation of light super-maneuverable fighters, moreover with 2 take-off and 2 landing strips of a symmetrical arrangement for reliable and quick take-offs and landings.
    Percussion - based on ekranoplans - they will carry away more and are less noticeable)
    And one should not chase a large number of aircraft placed on each aircraft carrier - it is better that the AUG carriers will be smaller in size, and more in number - 2, 3, 4 ...
    Such a solution will simplify the design and manufacture at various enterprises and also reduce the cost of aircraft carriers. And it will be possible to easily increase the capabilities of the AUG and, thereby, increase the ability to perform combat missions.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 20 February 2018 20: 12
      0
      Quote: Evgeny Tseprunov
      In my opinion, it is advisable not to make a universal aircraft carrier for heavy Su, but, on the contrary, to separate the defensive and strike functions of two types of small aircraft carriers, of course, with a nuclear power plant.
      Defensive - with the expectation of light super-maneuverable fighters, moreover with 2 take-off and 2 landing strips of a symmetrical arrangement for reliable and quick take-offs and landings.
      Percussion - based on ekranoplans - they will carry away more and are less noticeable)
      And one should not chase a large number of aircraft placed on each aircraft carrier - it is better that the AUG carriers will be smaller in size, and more in number - 2, 3, 4 ...
      Such a solution will simplify the design and manufacture at various enterprises and also reduce the cost of aircraft carriers. And it will be possible to easily increase the capabilities of the AUG and, thereby, increase the ability to perform combat missions.


      I do not agree.
      A defensive aircraft carrier will always be weaker than an attacker.
      Light aircraft - have small weapons and a small combat radius.
      Accordingly, the attacking side has a much longer and heavier arm.

      The simplest example of your comparison is a medieval swordsman and a thief with a pocket knife.
      In a real battle - the chances, as you understand the thief, are zero.
      Is the analogy clear?
      1. lance
        lance 21 February 2018 14: 10
        0
        Onyx makes a large metal site out of an aircraft carrier, the second one is a floating but uncontrollable tin can, to top it came granite from where ....... about zircon and there’s nothing to say.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 21 February 2018 19: 16
          0
          Quote: Lance
          Onyx makes a large metal site out of an aircraft carrier, the second one is a floating but uncontrollable tin can, to top it came granite from where ....... about zircon and there’s nothing to say.


          In order for even a single Onyx to fly, it is necessary to create a state-forming infrastructure.
          Dozens of boats - carriers of Onyxes are needed. and atomic.
          Dozens of ships - carriers of Onyxes are needed.
          We need several naval bases with tens of thousands of servants and hundreds of guarding ships of these same naval bases. And air defense echelons covering them
          Dozens of AWACS aircraft are needed.
          Hundreds of planes are needed to cover these AWACS aircraft.
          Dozens of airfields and air defense echelons covering them are needed.
          Etc. etc.

          And this is just for that. that would one onyx hit the target ..
          Learn to look at the world wider, and not through the prism of a matchbox.
      2. Evgeny Tseprunov
        Evgeny Tseprunov 21 February 2018 14: 15
        0
        "A defensive aircraft carrier will always be weaker than an attacker"
        - depending on what tasks! In the defense task, the AUG is definitely stronger!

        "Light aircraft - have small weapons and small combat radius"
        - but there will be more of them and they are better suited for air combat - they do not need to be able to hit large targets on the surface and attack very far from their own. And weapons for air combat, they can have no less than heavy aircraft.

        "Accordingly, the attacker has much longer and heavier arms."
        - in aerial combat, this is a minus. Clean fighters have always been smaller and lighter than the rest of the types.

        "The simplest example of your comparison is a medieval swordsman and a thief with a pocket knife.
        In a real battle, the thief’s chances are zero. "
        - the comparison is strained - the thief has the goal not to kill, but to steal. Peter 1 defeated the heavy Swedish fleet with the help of many light galleys. How do you like this analogy?

        And again - in my comment there are also attack aircraft carriers, and the number of all types of aircraft carriers in the AOG can be increased more easily than using monsters. And it’s harder to drown)
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 21 February 2018 19: 12
          0
          Quote: Evgeny Tseprunov
          "A defensive aircraft carrier will always be weaker than an attacker"
          - depending on what tasks! In the defense task, the AUG is definitely stronger!

          "Light aircraft - have small weapons and small combat radius"
          - but there will be more of them and they are better suited for air combat - they do not need to be able to hit large targets on the surface and attack very far from their own. And weapons for air combat, they can have no less than heavy aircraft.

          There will be no more.
          For the volume occupied by that huge F-14, which is much smaller than the F-35 in hangars is about the same ...
          For a normal flight radius, catapults are needed.
          What the Syrian campaign showed.
          Our jumps gave 40 minutes of flight for the Su-33 and 50 minutes for the Mig-29K with just 2 short-range explosive missiles.
          And catapults are the size of a ship ...
          Etc. etc.
          And the battle in the marine modern scheme is a battle at a distance of over 500 miles ...
          A light airplane - it just won't fly from a light aircraft carrier ...
          Etc. etc.
          1. Evgeny Tseprunov
            Evgeny Tseprunov 21 February 2018 23: 13
            0
            "There will be no more.
            For the volume occupied by that huge F-14, which is much smaller than the F-35 in hangars is about the same ... "
            Your answer contradicts school geometry. A huge aircraft will inevitably occupy a huge volume, and much smaller - much less. Naturally, if the aircraft carrier is not designed universal, but specialized exclusively for light fighters.

            "And catapults are the size of a ship ..."
            The catapults now have a length of about half the length of the ship itself, so this is a matter of design and power of the catapult itself.

            "And the battle in the marine modern scheme is a battle at a distance of over 500 miles ..."

            And what, this distance is unattainable? In addition, the distance should not be taken from the ceiling, but taking into account the range of the enemy’s missile launch.

            "A light airplane - it just won't fly from a light aircraft carrier ..."
            It depends on the fuel supply, and a light fighter will obviously require less fuel than a heavy one.
  28. sxfRipper
    sxfRipper 21 February 2018 22: 30
    0
    the new English aircraft carrier is still a lot from the heavy aircraft carrier cruiser “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”! Comparable sizes, displacement, composition of the wing, springboard, lack of catapults, three starting positions on the deck ...
    In the latest model, Lamborghini still has a lot of domestic buckets with nuts - comparable size, 4 wheels, steering wheel, spare wheel ...
    I did not read further.
  29. Vedzmin
    Vedzmin 23 February 2018 19: 02
    0
    An interesting opinion of the author. Although the idea of ​​building a classic aircraft carrier is closer to me, it’s slightly larger than the American ones with a large air group of up to 80 aircraft.
    Ideally, you need to stop discussions and build a first-born, following him. In 10-15 years they will be able to hand over the first pair.