Military Review

For the Russian Navy will be built the newest aircraft carrier

118
A certain kind of details appeared in the media about the plans of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the order of a new aircraft carrier for the needs of the Naval fleet. On the TV channel "Star" were announced information on the development of a new project.


This project involves the creation of a new aircraft carrier with the following declared characteristics:
the length of the warship is about 330 m, the width is 40 m. At the same time, the size of the deck will be approximately twice as large as that of the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft carrier. Recall that at the moment "Admiral Kuznetsov" is the only aircraft carrier in the Russian Navy.

For the Russian Navy will be built the newest aircraft carrier


Such dimensions will allow the new aircraft carrier to carry on its board up to 90 air assets - both airplanes and helicopters.

It is known that the project of the newest aircraft carrier assumes the possibility of taking on board its own aircraft and long-range radar patrols.

On the channel "Star" reported that the work on the project of the newest aircraft carrier is carried out by experts of the Krylov State Research Center. And these works are carried out in the framework of the state program, calculated for the period up to 2025 year.
Photos used:
Wikipedia
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 26 February 2018 06: 16
    +8
    According to experts, the construction of the aircraft carrier takes 8-9 years, I don’t even know what to call this construction site. request
    1. Dmitry Belovetsky
      Dmitry Belovetsky 26 February 2018 06: 25
      +53
      Hopefully the navy lobby with a bow left. We better update the fleet of destroyers, frigates, small missile boats to update. Well, and more submarines. The wolf pack of modern apl will devour any AUG. It will be cheap and cheerful. And if something shoots, we will be special ammunition. And there it’s soiling. Before World War I, Russia got involved in a race of battleships and as a result, the fleet gobbled up the entire military budget and the army was not rearmament and prepared for war. And these mastodons were at the piers. At what not only with us, but also with all the warring parties. Everyone was afraid to scratch expensive toys. Let the Chinese with the Americans measure the aircraft carriers. They washed down the second one and it looked very similar to our Kuznetsov. The campaign was simply copied. And we better strengthen the land border with quick-eyes.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 26 February 2018 07: 32
        +8
        Quote: Dmitry Belovetsky
        Before World War I, Russia got involved in a race of battleships

        Or an example of Germany - did she fight a lot with Bismarck and Tirpitz?
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 26 February 2018 08: 54
          +6
          In WWI, one battle at Jutland was worth it.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D1%82%D0%BB%
          D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%81%
          D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5
          in WWII:
          https://topwar.ru/79757-srazheniya-linkorov.html
          But the war of the future will be nothing like the wars of the past. hi
          When they finish 1144.2, for example, their firing range of 2500 km (or maybe more) will allow you to inflict tremendous damage without even leaving the base.
          1. Servisinzhener
            Servisinzhener 26 February 2018 11: 05
            +1
            That's just the Germans defeated in this battle, did not change their position. And they lost the war. About 1144.2 I agree.
          2. Black Colonel
            Black Colonel 26 February 2018 18: 16
            +1
            So maybe it’s impossible to build the Navy either - he missed the rocket from the parking of motor boats and let the adversary tremble - there are a lot of boat stations where you can set up.
        2. Simargl
          Simargl 27 February 2018 05: 18
          0
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Or an example of Germany - did she fight a lot with Bismarck and Tirpitz?
          No one will fight at the AUG.
          Have you noticed that after the Second World War, they are fighting with the USSR and Russia in the territory of third countries?
          Aircraft carrier + UDC, BDK are needed to gain a foothold, because ultimately you need to win back Ground (if we don’t slide down to the "Water World"
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 26 February 2018 08: 13
        +4
        for me, one thing is clear-- THE PERIOD OF FOOTLING IS FINISHED--
        LONG-TERM PLANNING RETURNED TO HIGH OFFICES. we’ll see how the entire Fed budget will be just as calmly planning ahead for 5-10 years. (And the “five-year plan in 4 years” is death for accountant mathematicians)
        this is the only thing that bespectacled nerds (like Kudrin-Zadornov) can do - arithmetic and matan know - put the digit in (in) time, and not just in the safes (needed when feeding banks)
        1. Mustached Kok
          Mustached Kok 26 February 2018 09: 37
          0
          These "bespectacled nerds" and design ships. And Kudrin is not a bespectacled man - but an ordinary bureaucrat.
        2. Servisinzhener
          Servisinzhener 26 February 2018 11: 08
          +1
          Budget planning for 5-10 years looks very dubious. There are too many factors that can change unpredictably. For such a long period, some processes can be planned, but certainly not the federal budget.
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 26 February 2018 14: 15
            0
            Yes, they do not plan money (it’s easier to bend into offshore) AND PROSPECTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE OR DR.
            ENDED-go and don’t know where to bring it.

            BEGINNING-EVERY DULK ON ITS PLACE SHOULD STRIKE TO ... (target)
            - it is possible that the stage of initial capital accumulation ended.
            -and / or only the first phase of the initial accumulation phase. ???
        3. Archivist Vasya
          Archivist Vasya 26 February 2018 11: 55
          +4
          Come back from heaven ... about any long-term planning out of the question !!! fool It all depends on what oil prices will be, whether gas lines will be built or not, whether new sanctions will be introduced, what the dollar and ruble exchange rates will be, etc. Under these conditions, you can only plan for a year, and you have to adjust it.
          PS I hope the budget does not allow the construction of a new aircraft carrier. We need much more ordinary ships and submarines. They are cheaper - it means building them realistically. And then they build it for 5-10 years ...
        4. proletarian
          proletarian 26 February 2018 22: 26
          +1
          But I’m asking you not to touch Zadornov, just count how many of his “frivolities” were confirmed by time.
      3. NEOZ
        NEOZ 26 February 2018 10: 55
        +3
        Quote: Dmitry Belovetsky
        Before World War I, Russia got involved in a race of battleships
        and in WWII the USA defeated Japan thanks to aircraft carriers ... what to do with this fact?
        1. Servisinzhener
          Servisinzhener 26 February 2018 11: 16
          +1
          Just before WWII, such a significant role was not assigned to aircraft carriers and their fundamental influence on naval battles became clear already along the way. Who knows if some other type of weapons will come out in a future conflict, which is now but its significance is underestimated.
          1. NEOZ
            NEOZ 26 February 2018 11: 26
            +2
            Quote: Servisinzhener
            Who knows if it will come out

            that is the point .... therefore, they carried out surveys (maybe even in Syria) and came to the conclusion that a floating airfield was needed!
            1. Servisinzhener
              Servisinzhener 26 February 2018 11: 41
              +1
              And I hope they understood which one in terms of the composition of the air group, equipment and weapons.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      4. Romka47
        Romka47 26 February 2018 12: 33
        +1
        I agree with you, but we need a strong ACG, this is both a prestige and the possibility of waging war against 3 countries on the other side of the globe. If we want to be a real superpower, we will have to use force here and there from time to time, and we would really need it. I am not saying that we need to pursue the United States. But you must admit one is exactly the Aircraft Carrier we need, we are a great power!
      5. Incvizitor
        Incvizitor 26 February 2018 15: 14
        0
        "Karakurt" and "Buyanov" more with calibers, they will put everyone in their place including AUG.
        1. Andy
          Andy 26 February 2018 17: 35
          0
          these trough river-sea without air defense? tie with hawthorn. anti-ship caliber with a range of 300 km and a combat radius of a deck aircraft of 800 km + 200-300 km of missile flight
    2. insular
      insular 26 February 2018 06: 41
      +1
      Quote: Spartanez300
      8-9 years are allocated for the construction of an aircraft carrier

      For a good fee, Khoja Nasreddin took over twenty years to teach donkey literacy. The emir threatened to chop off Nasreddin’s head if the donkey doesn’t learn to read within the specified time. When asked Nasruddin how he took such a risk, he replied:
      - Nothing wrong. In twenty years, either the donkey will die, or the emir will die, or I will die!

      Quote: Spartanez300
      I don’t even know what to call this construction site.

      Actually, donkey, maybe he will learn to read and write, because PAK FA still flew.
    3. kuz363
      kuz363 26 February 2018 07: 58
      +18
      The high rank of the fleet announced that they will build by 2023, when the United States will commission another aircraft carrier. After 5 years, without a project, catapults, technologies, new carrier-based aircraft, ASG escort ships, coastal infrastructure? While smaller ships of the frigate type are being built for 10-15 years? Another cut of money and bullshit.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 26 February 2018 08: 41
        +1
        Quote: kuz363
        High rank of fleet announced that they will build by 2023
        To build by 2023 - it is necessary that the building was almost ready yesterday!
        To build an aircraft carrier, you need 30 lard. The carcass itself is only a third of the amount.
        1. Servisinzhener
          Servisinzhener 26 February 2018 11: 46
          +3
          And it is also desirable to have a suitable shipyard, whose employment in the construction of an aircraft carrier would not block military shipbuilding and ship repair for years. A project of an aircraft carrier that will not be redone every six months a year. As mentioned above, basing infrastructure and escort ships. And then 30 billion, metal cutting and more ..
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 26 February 2018 14: 46
            0
            The carcass itself will fit into 10. Air wing - another 4-7-10. In the same 30 ++ and the shipyard, and the base.
      2. Evgeniy667b
        Evgeniy667b 26 February 2018 15: 12
        0
        kuz363 Cool swung, to the year 23.! As I will present in the northern Atoantica, an armada of aircraft carrier, tankers, tugboats, a dozen "Raptor" and a couple of old men BDK and BPC. But PL 941 of the project everyone wants to cut. To modernize them, there will probably be more sense. Does Russia have other maritime concerns? While the Americans rivet 1-2 virgins a year, we have only one “Severodvinsk” extorted to the flag in as many years as “Kazan” will now bring. An escort is needed for an aircraft carrier, but it is almost nonexistent or fake. And you need reliable air defense and anti-aircraft defense so that coverage is greater
    4. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 26 February 2018 09: 46
      +4
      And call BAM ..... you will not be mistaken ...
      Big Aviation Mudism ....
      We are not FSA, we are not invaders.
      Ask yourself what these ships are for.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 26 February 2018 10: 55
        0
        We are not FSA

        rather United States of America
        And call BAM ..... you will not be mistaken ...

        Shipyard Star in Big Stone, quietly build an aircraft carrier from 30 blocks of 1200 tons, about 36 kT of steel, for 1,5 years (including the metal cutting period) + saturation of another 1,5 of which 0,5 is already afloat
    5. x.andvlad
      x.andvlad 26 February 2018 10: 15
      +6
      Quote: Spartanez300
      I don’t even know what to call this construction site

      Yes, in fact, there is still no construction.
      ... specialists in the Krylov State Scientific Center are working on the project of the latest aircraft carrier. And these works are carried out as part of the state program, designed for the period up to 2025.

      As I understand it, they plan to be involved in the project before the age of 25, and build before the 40th year. This is at best.
      In general, an aircraft carrier is more to us for prestige than for real need.
      1. NEOZ
        NEOZ 26 February 2018 10: 59
        0
        Quote: x.andvlad
        an aircraft carrier is more to us for prestige than for real need

        for what prestige? give examples of how an aircraft carrier raised the prestige of the state and thereby the country received any benefits?
        1. x.andvlad
          x.andvlad 26 February 2018 11: 12
          +1
          Quote: NEOZ
          for what prestige?

          Both for political and for military. It is enough to recall that not all countries can afford the construction and maintenance of such ships.
          But we are still very far from this. We have a lot of other primary tasks in the fleet.
      2. Grits
        Grits 26 February 2018 15: 01
        +2
        As I understand it, they plan to be involved in the project before the age of 25, and build before the 40th year.
        I want to work at a design institute. For a long time to design a large piece of iron and get paid. Knowing that this big piece will never float during my mortal life.
    6. Piramidon
      Piramidon 26 February 2018 10: 16
      +5
      Quote: Spartanez300
      According to experts, the construction of an aircraft carrier takes 8-9 years

      Take the BDK "Ivan Gren". Since the launch of the project (1998), 20 years have passed and still cannot give birth. But the aircraft carrier is not easier to build.
    7. sivuch
      sivuch 26 February 2018 10: 32
      +4
      Construction of the century. Given that the Central Research Institute of Krylov in detail (in the sense of working drawings) has never developed anything. AB was always designed by the Germans, timid creeps in the form of Mercury were among the northerners, but the Central Research Institute of Krylov itself was engaged in pure theory.
    8. Grits
      Grits 26 February 2018 14: 51
      +1
      According to experts, the construction of an aircraft carrier takes 8-9 years, I don’t even know what to call this construction site
      You can call it "at the behest ..." For our shipbuilding, it’s about the same that my neighbor, carpenter uncle Petya, was drunk, swayed to build a two-story mansion in a day and a half.
      1. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich 27 February 2018 02: 48
        0
        Actually, this is the normal time to build these types of ships.
    9. arane
      arane 26 February 2018 15: 58
      0
      Quote: Spartanez300
      According to experts, the construction of the aircraft carrier takes 8-9 years, I don’t even know what to call this construction site. request

      No way! They still did not begin to build the last newest aircraft carrier, and now, one more is on the way
  2. Petr petrov
    Petr petrov 26 February 2018 06: 23
    +10
    Another budget cut!
    8-9 years, how many ... !!!!!
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 26 February 2018 06: 33
      +11
      a little ... you can safely add a dime ... add no mistake ...
      one question for storytellers ... and where are you going to fight this miracle ??? ... there is a slipway under it with a crane of 2500 ??? ...
      otherwise the Nikolaev "communard" would have to squeeze out the Ukrainians together with all of New Russia ...
      1. Berkut154
        Berkut154 26 February 2018 06: 37
        +6
        There is nothing to wring out there. Everything that was iron was cut and stolen. The crane has already stood for 25 years.
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 26 February 2018 10: 07
        0
        Quote: kepmor
        otherwise the Nikolaev "communard" would have to squeeze out the Ukrainians together with all of New Russia ...

        With Nikolaev will not give a ride. Turks will not let him out through the straits from the Black Sea.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 February 2018 10: 28
          +1
          Quote: Piramidon
          With Nikolaev will not give a ride. Turks will not let him out through the straits from the Black Sea.

          The atomic Ulyanovsk was built precisely in Nikolaev.
        2. Simargl
          Simargl 26 February 2018 14: 51
          0
          Quote: Piramidon
          Turks will not let him out through the straits from the Black Sea.
          And he crawl under the bridges then?
          1. Piramidon
            Piramidon 26 February 2018 14: 57
            0
            Quote: Simargl
            And he crawl under the bridges then?

            Well, if add-ons are removed and transported in the hold, then we can crawl through. laughing
          2. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich 27 February 2018 02: 50
            0
            The height of the bridge over the Bosphorus is 64 meters.
            Crawl through and with a margin.
            1. Simargl
              Simargl 27 February 2018 08: 59
              0
              Quote: Kyzmich
              The height of the bridge over the Bosphorus is 64 meters.
              Crawl through and with a margin.
              The height of the airbarges of sworn friends with a displacement of 70000 ++ tons - more than 64 m: Nimitsy - 74 m, Fords - 76 m.
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich 27 February 2018 21: 38
                0
                you forgot to subtract the draft of 10-12 meters
        3. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich 27 February 2018 02: 50
          0
          Why ?
          By what right?
    2. maxim947
      maxim947 26 February 2018 06: 37
      +7
      Another budget cut!

      They drank their heads to themselves, one stupid horseradish,
  3. 210ox
    210ox 26 February 2018 06: 24
    +7
    Oh, these .... It will be, it will be .... We would have to build frigates, destroyers in the right amount.
  4. Dmitry Belovetsky
    Dmitry Belovetsky 26 February 2018 06: 26
    +7
    A dozen hypersonic missiles are much cheaper than an aircraft carrier. And they do it like a nut.
    Carriers are weapons against the Papuans who cannot defend themselves. Russia is not the United States, it is not fighting the Papuans.
    1. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 26 February 2018 06: 56
      +10
      Quote: Dmitry Belovetsky
      A dozen hypersonic missiles are much cheaper than an aircraft carrier. And they do it like a nut.


      Why aircraft carriers, tanks, planes and infantry? rockets more planed and bullet on adversaries.

      you have a high strategy, thank God not at the helm but behind the clave.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 26 February 2018 14: 52
        0
        Quote: Maki Avellievich
        rockets more planed and bullet on adversaries
        Turned on the bald one?
    2. igorka357
      igorka357 26 February 2018 07: 13
      +8
      To be honest, in fact, they won’t even fly! Because an aircraft carrier doesn’t go alone, and to your ten, a hundred missile defense missiles from Burkov, etc., etc. !!! You read the books of the USSR, there is one AUG, for guaranteed destruction , a couple of regiments of strategists unsubscribed!
      1. alstr
        alstr 26 February 2018 10: 07
        0
        Correctly. And how many missiles are carcasses - 3 pcs maximum. And if you take and shove 100-150 anti-ship missiles into the submarine, then it won’t seem to be enough, again we take into account that it is customary to launch at least 1 anti-aircraft missiles for 2 target in air defense.
        So it turns out that such a volley from one submarine can fend off at least 2 Burke. And to find the submarine is still a pleasure.
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 26 February 2018 12: 24
          0
          You forgot that the carrier itself doesn’t have such a PLO, in the form of airplanes .. plus a couple of stopudovo beneath it, there’s no doubt about it! Let’s honestly say, and we admit that we have only special BCH ... unfortunately we cannot expose anything else!
          1. alstr
            alstr 26 February 2018 13: 43
            0
            Now let's count. The launch range of the same caliber is 300 km (in the RCC version). But take 200 km (for fidelity).
            This means that it is necessary to control a circle with a perimeter of about 1300 km. In order to constantly monitor such a perimeter, it is necessary to have PLO sensors every 30-50 km, i.e. from 25 to 30 pieces of PLO (at the same time - this will be the control of only moving submarines). AUG has no such means.
            And the planes will not help here, because do not have (most do not have PLO, as a class). And in a typical aviation group there are only 10 PLO helicopters. And that’s all. There are 3-4 more submarines. There is a PLO of the escort ships, but such a thing here - either they are PLO or they are air defense (either they provide PLO at distant approaches, or they provide air defense, but very close).
            That is, as a result, in the best case, the AOG can reliably provide a PLO from the breakthrough of several submarines within a radius of 100 km from the center of the AUG.
            And, as practice shows - this also does not help - still pop up nearby.
            Here you can still recall the Argentinean submarine, which still can not be found.
            Therefore, the chances of launching from submarines on AUG are quite high. It’s less likely to leave, but this is also possible if the operation is calculated in advance (it’s not always natural).
        2. igorka357
          igorka357 26 February 2018 12: 26
          +1
          100-150 ... what kind of "death stars" are you talking about? Our best ones are Antei ... how many are on board? That's it!
          1. alstr
            alstr 26 February 2018 13: 59
            0
            I wrote: "If you take and push 100-150 anti-ship missiles into the submarine." For the same Antey there is a project of modernization to 72 Caliber.
            It’s quite possible to shove submarines of 100-150 missiles. By the way, perhaps, from the point of view of survivability, 70-80 missiles are more optimal than 150.
    3. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 26 February 2018 07: 40
      +3
      Russia is not the United States, it is not fighting the Papuans.

      In Syria, actively fighting
    4. Simargl
      Simargl 26 February 2018 08: 15
      +3
      Quote: Dmitry Belovetsky
      Russia is not the United States, it is not fighting the Papuans.
      Come on! Syria - not a hint?
      And an aircraft carrier is needed, and BDK
    5. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 26 February 2018 08: 46
      +1
      Quote: Dmitry Belovetsky
      Carriers - weapons against the Papuans who can not protect themselves

      you want to say that Yugoslavia was a country of the Papuans? fool belay
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 26 February 2018 10: 34
        +1
        In terms of armament - yes
        1. Tiksi-3
          Tiksi-3 26 February 2018 10: 44
          +1
          Quote: sivuch
          In terms of armament - yes

          then the Jewish army in those days can be called a "primitive herd"?
  5. Square
    Square 26 February 2018 06: 28
    +2
    And what's the point in one car?
    While the new build, the old oak will give. Not a symbol, but a whole squadron is needed
    This is if we have ocean ambitions
  6. bald
    bald 26 February 2018 06: 38
    +3
    Yes, even create a floating island - it will be destroyed in the first place. And how much will be needed for his staff and escort on the campaign. And technology does not stand still - will it be stolen ?, or they will change the campaign, with an increase in funds.
  7. Herculesic
    Herculesic 26 February 2018 06: 42
    +4
    The deadlines, as always, will be shifted to the right, until the next arms program, and the bookmark will take place at best, so at 40 ohms not earlier!
  8. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 26 February 2018 07: 03
    +21
    I love the "news" that begins with the words "will", "planned", "developed", "think", etc.
    1. Deck
      Deck 26 February 2018 07: 16
      +15
      To this is usually added "NATO scared," "Americans are shocked," "the panic of our partners."
  9. AID.S
    AID.S 26 February 2018 07: 13
    +1
    the latest aircraft carrier will be built

    The very latest.
    1. kit88
      kit88 26 February 2018 07: 44
      +5
      Shaw ?! Again?
  10. Nix1986
    Nix1986 26 February 2018 07: 20
    +12
    Why not a death star ?! Either the top there is bad with the contents of the skull, or someone urgently needed a sharp cut and it was necessary to organize which thread was also a cool project, which would be very desirable to make the cheers of the patriots piss with boiling water. Why we don’t need it, I don’t even want to write, because the list is such that we start and finish in two years, before that everyone chewed in great detail that we don’t need this type of weapon, and building it in 1 copy is a project akin to a snowstorm - economic diversion.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 26 February 2018 07: 34
      +1
      Quote: Nix1986
      Why not a death star ?!

      It would be better if it was created, it will be cheaper. They would give a damn like the Americans to all the treaties, and would launch nuclear weapons into space. Let the pendos run.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 26 February 2018 07: 41
        0
        They already have an X-37 in this case.
      2. Simargl
        Simargl 26 February 2018 08: 37
        0
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        They would give a damn like the Americans to all the treaties, and would launch nuclear weapons into space.
        And you can put something on the merchant fleet. Then everything will go to the bottom, if that.
        Do you think that if we put space into nuclear weapons, our sworn friends will only squeal?
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 26 February 2018 09: 08
          +1
          Quote: Simargl
          our sworn friends will only squeal?

          Of course not. But placing nuclear weapons in space is much cheaper than counteracting this. Pendosy even with a printing press are unlikely to pull. After all, their missile defense system will become an absolutely useless investment. hi
    2. kit88
      kit88 26 February 2018 07: 46
      +1
      We do not need it for one simple reason. Because Ataman Nem has a gold reserve
    3. engineer74
      engineer74 26 February 2018 08: 30
      0
      Quote: Nix1986
      Why not a death star ?! L

      Before you build the "Death Star" you need to train "on cats"! wink Look at this from the perspective of new technologies, the revival of enterprise cooperation, job creation, etc. bully As a result, an aircraft carrier, like iron, will be released almost for free!
      IMHO
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 26 February 2018 08: 43
        0
        if it is necessary to revive cooperation, then it is cheaper to cover the buffet table for all persons. As for technology, this is a strange thing, on startups and other crowdfunding platforms our startups are full, but either there is no funding, or everything is collapsing on a prototype, and then immediately build an aircraft carrier? laughing This is not a cat, but some kind of tiger for a cloud of dough.
  11. next322
    next322 26 February 2018 07: 34
    +12
    the news is about nothing ...... blah blah ..... the experience of gren and potkov proves that the ship of such displacement and size will be sawn and built for at least 35 years, build better 10 more karakurt is all that the OSK is capable of
  12. syndicalist
    syndicalist 26 February 2018 07: 43
    +2
    The construction of any aircraft carrier is a preparation for the war of the past. And in the 30th year it will be a very distant past
    1. Senior manager
      Senior manager 26 February 2018 07: 55
      0
      The history of war confirms your words.
  13. Aleks2048
    Aleks2048 26 February 2018 08: 02
    +1
    Avik is certainly good, but it's good when everything is in order with the budget. I wonder which AWACS plane will land on the deck of this miracle of technology. But there are still questions about where we are going to use it? The whole horror is that the military doctrine of the Russian Federation does not provide for projecting forces so far that an aircraft carrier is needed, but it’s not a problem, the doctrines can be corrected and new ones written, but the economy must be tightened because the campaign aug itself is not a cheap thing , but God forbid to conduct active hostilities so generally the price tag is sky-high. The army and navy are only good when they are at war, and when they are just preparing for war it is an expensive toy. Well, the army and the navy produce nothing but a hole in the budget. By the way, what ships will be guarded by the future Avik at the same time so as not to weaken the coastal defense of the Russian Federation? In general, some questions for the venture with an aircraft carrier.
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 26 February 2018 08: 32
      +1
      Quote: Alex2048
      The army and navy are only good when they are at war, and when they are just preparing for war it is an expensive toy.
      Army and Navy pay offwhen they conquer (raiding the economy is oldо like Rome).
      When they just prepare for war, they also fight: a deterrent for those who have raiding the economy.
    2. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 26 February 2018 08: 51
      +2
      Quote: Alex2048
      The whole horror is that the military doctrine of the Russian Federation does not provide for the projection of force so far

      belay did you read it? .... - the main thing in our case is ensuring the combat deployment of our nuclear submarines in the oceans. And don’t write that you can shoot from the pier - it’s not even babble
      1. Aleks2048
        Aleks2048 26 February 2018 09: 43
        +2
        Of course, I got acquainted on the Internet. But using aug to withdraw nuclear submarines to their combat deployment sites is nonsense. Building avik for these purposes is simply a crime of cutting the budget. am
        1. Tiksi-3
          Tiksi-3 26 February 2018 09: 45
          +1
          Quote: Alex2048
          . Building avik for these purposes is simply a crime of cutting the budget.

          belay but just did not try to think? fool
          1. Winnie76
            Winnie76 26 February 2018 10: 37
            0
            Quote: Tiksi-3
            but just did not try to think?

            Can I try? By the time we have all the necessary elements, namely: money, stocks, specialists, carrier-based aircraft (fighters, AWACS), catapults, escort ships, cooperation has been established (i.e., after 60 years) the aircraft carrier will no longer be relevant.
            We will soon begin to plow the vastness of the universe. IMHO faster and cheaper to build a Death Star. The meaning is clearly more.
          2. Aleks2048
            Aleks2048 26 February 2018 12: 09
            0
            And let's think together. Why didn't it drank the budget? What will Avik do in the Russian fleet? Well, so that’s real.
            1. Tiksi-3
              Tiksi-3 26 February 2018 12: 15
              0
              Quote: Alex2048
              Well, so that’s real.

              read carefully all the posts, since I already answered this question
              for the dull again - The task of AB is to ensure the combat stability of the forces covering the deployment areas SSBN.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 February 2018 10: 40
          +2
          Quote: Alex2048
          But using aug to withdraw nuclear submarines to their combat deployment sites is nonsense.

          Unfortunately, this is a dire need. An alternative to one AB is 2-3 coastal airdromes each with a capacity of an AB air group. For otherwise, it would be impossible to ensure a force of forces equal to the AB air group over the PLOW remote from the base. Moreover, as the line of interception of the enemy’s ICAPL is removed, the number of airfields in the area should increase.
          Task AB - not the withdrawal of nuclear submarines. The task of the AB is to ensure the combat stability of the forces covering the deployment zones of the SSBN.
          1. Aleks2048
            Aleks2048 26 February 2018 12: 18
            0
            A simple calculation only disgusts the idea of ​​building an avik. Firstly, Avik needs not one, but at least three, better than 4. Secondly, it’s already in its advertising what the Russian Federation doesn’t have, namely the AWACS and catapults. Thirdly, what for him an ice class for work beyond the Arctic Circle. With the North Pole completely crazy, there are no competitors in Russia and for many years will not be. Fourth, it may be cheaper to build aviation a little more.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 26 February 2018 16: 22
              +1
              Quote: Alex2048
              First avik need not one, but at least three, better than 4.

              The problem is that in order to eliminate the need for aircraft, you need to build an order of magnitude more coastal airfields. Because AB, when moving from region to region, drags a runway and a power supply.
              But the main problem is different: with the optimal location of the anti-submarine line in the same North, its right flank is 500-600 kilometers from the nearest land airport. And you can’t move the strip closer.
              Quote: Alex2048
              Secondly, it’s already in its advertising that what the Russian Federation does not have, namely the AWACS and catapults.

              Catapult theoretically is: the steam catapult of the Proletarsky factory Ustinov and Amelko were killed after birth - after undergoing factory tests.
              Quote: Alex2048
              Fourth, it may be cheaper to build aviation a little more.

              A little more - this is at least three times more than with carrier-based. For since the time of “Verp” it became clear that the link above the ships requires a squadron on the shore.
  14. Freeman
    Freeman 26 February 2018 08: 05
    0
    "Note" is too uninformative. Here is what RG reports on this subject.
    The announced characteristics of the aircraft carrier coincide with the parameters of the perspective ship of the project 23000 "Storm". It will carry up to 90 planes and helicopters (at Admiral Kuznetsov - 50). The Storm launch complex consists of two ski jumps and a pair electromagnetic catapults. Add-ons (islands) will also be two.
    According to the project, the length of the aircraft carrier is 330, the width is 40, and the maximum draft is 11 meters. Displacement of the order of 100 thousand tons. The power plant is a nuclear one, presumably two RITM-2000 reactors (before they will be tested on the new-generation icebreaker "Arctic"). The aircraft carrier will receive an ice class to work beyond the Arctic Circle.
    https://rg.ru/2018/02/25/reg-szfo/razrabotchik-ra
    sskazal-o-novom-avianosce-vmf-rossii.html

    This raises two questions -
    1. Where do we get electromagnetic catapults, if we don’t even have steam. Will China Share?
    2. There was information that the ice class involves the use of an aircraft carrier on the Northern Sea Route. I just didn’t understand that and how he will protect there.
    Or is an ice class needed to be able to transfer it between the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, along the Northern Sea Route?
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 26 February 2018 08: 29
      0
      2 - shelf.
      3 - and that too.
  15. loginovich
    loginovich 26 February 2018 08: 07
    +5
    Repost from KM.RU On this topic
    Guest: Peter
    A few months ago, it became clear that Russia was not just a cruiser, but destroyers could not be built. And recently it turned out that the creation of corvettes and frigates of Russia, too, can not be pulled. Progress, however)) And then, we waved at the aircraft carrier)) We are singing a song to the frenzy of the brave)))
    http://www.km.ru/forum/v-rossii/2018/02/25/voenna
    ya-aviatsiya-rf / 820545-voenno-morskoi-flot-rossii
    -poluchit-novyi-avianoset
  16. kuz363
    kuz363 26 February 2018 08: 12
    0
    The main thing is not to forget before the start of public construction to reconstruct shipyards and train workers, because now there is no dock of this size for an aircraft carrier! But for Russia's GDP it will be good, like the construction of the East, Kerch Bridge, gas pipelines ... Otherwise, they would not have seen GDP growth!
  17. EvilLion
    EvilLion 26 February 2018 08: 20
    +1
    And I say that it will not. What are we arguing with and with whom?
  18. tchoni
    tchoni 26 February 2018 08: 23
    +1
    Shaw !? Again!?
  19. cats
    cats 26 February 2018 08: 52
    +2
    Once again you prove that you are whining for no reason. That little boat, then why so big .. And maybe just wish good luck to the shipbuilders, and for once rejoice over the country. In your opinion, and in space, send XNUMX kg rockets? There will not be ten of them, and I don’t think that it will be a pelvis like that of myrikos, again with an interesting filling. Your snot, worse than Jewish attention on the site. hi
    1. Archivist Vasya
      Archivist Vasya 26 February 2018 12: 04
      0
      The economy will pull such a boat then? Everything is so good with us. Probably, there is nowhere to put the money in and the army was completely rearmament, aviation. Let's all boom in one ship! fool Which will be built in 20 years ...
      And what does "amerikans-like pelvis" mean?
      1. cats
        cats 26 February 2018 12: 13
        +2
        The economy will pull, just decided to build. Do not exaggerate the dignity of the pelvis .. I think it will not be just a barge with airplanes.
  20. Jingibi
    Jingibi 26 February 2018 09: 08
    0
    Put the Orlan cruisers in operation. Our doctrine declares the defensive component of our fleets
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 February 2018 10: 43
      +1
      Quote: jingibi
      Our doctrine declares the defensive component of our fleets

      In the USSR, the doctrine stated the same thing. However, the fleet demanded AB. And in the end, with a delay of 20 years, a full-fledged AB was still laid.
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 27 February 2018 06: 47
        0
        Oops, but do not tell me the name and design of a full-fledged aircraft carrier of the USSR, TAVKR does not count ..))))) !!!
  21. Geonezis
    Geonezis 26 February 2018 09: 33
    0
    Judging by how much time 22350 is being built, this aircraft carrier will be seen in twenty years from now.
    1. Piramidon
      Piramidon 26 February 2018 09: 59
      0
      Quote: Geonezis
      Judging by how much time 22350 is being built, this aircraft carrier will be seen in twenty years from now.

      If we take into account that he needs to build a bunch of escort ships and at what pace we are building them, then the time will go far to the right. Or is he, like Kuzya, going to plow seas and oceans in splendid isolation, simply showing everyone that we can? But first, you also need to build an appropriate dock for it.
    2. Winnie76
      Winnie76 26 February 2018 10: 46
      +1
      Quote: Geonezis
      Judging by how much time 22350 is being built, this aircraft carrier will be seen in twenty years from now.

      For 20 years, we have built submarines. 60 years, no less
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Larum
    Larum 26 February 2018 11: 38
    +1
    That is, up to 25 g will it only be developed? And there, like Khoja Nasredin ...
  24. Old26
    Old26 26 February 2018 11: 45
    0
    Quote: kuz363
    The high rank of the fleet announced that they will build by 2023, when the United States will commission another aircraft carrier. After 5 years, without a project, catapults, technologies, new carrier-based aircraft, ASG escort ships, coastal infrastructure? While smaller ships of the frigate type are being built for 10-15 years? Another cut of money and bullshit.

    This "high rank of fleet" is an ordinary gouging and a racket. You said it right. Without anything (catapults, aircraft, including AWACS, warrant ships, shipyards, in the end), only a trepak can say this

    Quote: Dmitry Belovetsky
    A dozen hypersonic missiles are much cheaper than an aircraft carrier. And they do it like a nut.
    Carriers are weapons against the Papuans who cannot defend themselves. Russia is not the United States, it is not fighting the Papuans.

    In order for them to do it, it is necessary that the carrier approaches the range of the shot to the aircraft carrier. And so that the aircraft carrier does not have security ships. And then hypersonic missiles did not appear, and from them they already make a prodigy. Another one. Over the past few years, there have already been Caliber caliber, Status-6 policeman waffle and so on and so forth.

    Quote: Maki Avellievich
    Why aircraft carriers, tanks, planes and infantry? rockets more planed and bullet on adversaries.

    One already built. So much so that he left the army without new artillery developments, aviation without aviation guns, and the fleet without naval artillery. Thanks a lot - but don't

    Quote: alstr
    Correctly. And how many missiles are carcasses - 3 pcs maximum. And if you take and shove 100-150 anti-ship missiles into the submarine, then it won’t seem to be enough, again we take into account that it is customary to launch at least 1 anti-aircraft missiles for 2 target in air defense.

    That's just the experience of stuffing 150 RCC into a submarine, you lose sight of the main thing. In front of your mind is an American "Ohio" with 150 missiles. Only rockets then Subsonic (if you still have an unspoken thought about their range). But the supersonic in the same boat of our project 949A will enter half as much. .And the range they will have, in principle, is about 4 hundred kilometers ....

    Quote: BlackMokona
    Russia is not the United States, it is not fighting the Papuans.

    In Syria, actively fighting

    And at the same time, many of those who say that they are not fighting, with fury, with foam at the mouth, vote for bases in Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Africa. And that there these bases will be covered. RTO class river-sea "Buyan-M" with 4-8 launchers for missiles of all classes?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 February 2018 16: 35
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      One already built. So much so that he left the army without new artillery developments, aviation without aviation guns, and the fleet without naval artillery. Thanks a lot - but don't

      Not so simple. ©
      The second generation of shipboard ACs - AK-230, AK-725 and AK-726 - began to be developed just under Khrushchev. And everything developed before them belonged to the category "late for the last war".
      As for the air guns, the GSH-23 was also made under Khrushchev. Another thing is that in the wake of euphoria from the prospects of the RVV, fighters and interceptors lost their guns - well, this was not only ours. A classic example is the initially purely rocket Phantom, to which, after the very first battles, the cannon had to be wrapped with almost blue electrical tape. smile
  25. Archivist Vasya
    Archivist Vasya 26 February 2018 11: 58
    +1
    I hope they change their minds there and abandon the new aircraft carrier. Our economy will not pull such a ship. Or they will build it for 20 years, so that upon completion of construction and delivery to the fleet they’ll immediately send them for repair ... It is much more realistic to build other ships, and even more submarines.
  26. Fkjydjckfrgh
    Fkjydjckfrgh 26 February 2018 14: 21
    0
    Who will build it? Are the Chinese or local specialists who learned to solve Sudoku in the school under the name of the Unified State Examination (with a 10th birthday, and not at the EBN, can you not blame the HMS)?
  27. 23424636
    23424636 26 February 2018 14: 41
    0
    someone is really promoting this Krylovsky test pool as if there is no Nevsky Design Bureau - the main developer of this type of ship ..
  28. Sewer krainiy
    Sewer krainiy 26 February 2018 16: 30
    0
    Quote: kepmor
    otherwise the Nikolaev "communard" would have to squeeze out the Ukrainians together with all of New Russia ...

    ChSZ (Black Sea shipbuilding), there aircraft carriers were built. But the late man is rushing about, has long been ruined ... So alas ...
  29. sleeve
    sleeve 27 February 2018 07: 58
    0
    Until 2025? To get into this framework with such a high-tech gizmo is yes ... Pilotage. Let's see. The emergency work on Zvyozdochka in the Far East is now clear. The second aircraft carrier toy for the Pacific Fleet after the Lazarev repair will receive an appropriate repair base. But measured by aircraft carriers really is nothing. We have another trump card, underwater. Cheap (relatively of course) and cheerful. And if you don’t turn everything into an American-like bedlam with billions of dollars in money, then you can afford it completely and in essence. Such a platform with 40-50 years of service and the ability to "stuff" with its new products as they become available will resolve the issue of ensuring local conflicts for a long time. Yes, and good.
  30. Old26
    Old26 27 February 2018 09: 25
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    As for the air guns, the GSH-23 was also made under Khrushchev. Another thing is that in the wake of euphoria from the prospects of the RVV, fighters and interceptors lost their guns - well, this was not only ours.

    I had this in mind. And with artillery too. What you wrote is small-caliber, in extreme cases the 76-mm can be considered an average caliber, but alas, they did not build full-fledged “trunks” of at least 130-152 caliber. The same is true in land artillery. Father himself served in those years. Then, in the 60s, while studying at the academy, he said that how many unrealized projects were, while the army in tens of thousands of copies continued to use pre-war developments and developments of the war period
  31. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 27 February 2018 12: 10
    +1
    Quote: Freeman
    "Note" is too uninformative. Here is what RG reports on this subject.
    The announced characteristics of the aircraft carrier coincide with the parameters of the perspective ship of the project 23000 "Storm". It will carry up to 90 planes and helicopters (at Admiral Kuznetsov - 50). The Storm launch complex consists of two ski jumps and a pair electromagnetic catapults. Add-ons (islands) will also be two.
    According to the project, the length of the aircraft carrier is 330, the width is 40, and the maximum draft is 11 meters. Displacement of the order of 100 thousand tons. The power plant is a nuclear one, presumably two RITM-2000 reactors (before they will be tested on the new-generation icebreaker "Arctic"). The aircraft carrier will receive an ice class to work beyond the Arctic Circle.
    https://rg.ru/2018/02/25/reg-szfo/razrabotchik-ra
    sskazal-o-novom-avianosce-vmf-rossii.html

    This raises two questions -
    1. Where do we get electromagnetic catapults, if we don’t even have steam. Will China Share?
    2. There was information that the ice class involves the use of an aircraft carrier on the Northern Sea Route. I just didn’t understand that and how he will protect there.
    Or is an ice class needed to be able to transfer it between the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, along the Northern Sea Route?


    1. What we don’t have in service does not mean that they are not and have never been developed.
    2. Mainly for transportation along the Northern Sea Route.

    But my opinion is that they will not build such aircraft carriers anyway. Not so long ago, the Navy leadership stated that these aircraft carriers are a big target and nothing else. But such projects that are regularly laid out are just the hopes of the research institute that they will be allocated money. it’s their job to propose projects in the hope that they will like something. It’s easier to make some light aircraft carriers for 30-40 aircraft. For conflicts like Syria, it’s the most, and competing with the USA in the number of aircraft carriers and their capacity is useless. It would be better to consider a project like Kuznetsov, but on a nuclear power plant, and with 40-50 calibres on board and powerful anti-aircraft weapons. And the number of aircraft on it should be reduced to 30, leaving mostly anti-submarine modifications and AWACS helicopters. And such a ship can be built for ten years, because that for a long time it will not lose its relevance in view of its universality. And to build such an aircraft mast for ten years, and then to build such an amount for itself for another ten years flying, and another 15-20 years escort ships this is pointless, and I hope this will not come to that.