Military Review

The future of the Russian fleet: one aircraft carrier or ten submarines?

73
... or how Russia can combine its defense priorities with the strategic interests of its geopolitical allies and partners




The aircraft carrier theme has not given rest to domestic military-patriotic thought for a good hundred years. Since the appearance of the first aircraft carriers in the world, we have always been very squeezed by the fact that the adversary has them, but we do not. I strongly suspect that this was the main “military-strategic” consideration, which was always the basis of our carrier-based ambitions. The last squeak of discussion of this evergreen theme was the quite fantastic concept of an “underwater nuclear aircraft carrier”, which would sneak up on the enemy (read - American) shore and unload its attack drone vehicles from the enemy. True, it is not very clear why all this phantasmagoria is needed if there are no less secretive nuclear submarines in the Russian Navy that carry ballistic missiles with a launch range of up to 10 thousands of kilometers.

It is quite obvious that the main approach to the aircraft carrier theme should not be abstract great-power ambitions, but a clear understanding of the feasibility of developing such a class of ships, along with all their rather big dowry, in terms of the country's geopolitical position and fundamental priorities of its military security.

And in this sense, we have to admit that the need for aircraft carrier navy for such a continental, or rather even an intercontinental power, like Russia, which for centuries has reflected mainly enemy land invasions, is far from obvious. In any case, it is not so indisputable, as, for example, in the case of America separated from the rest of the world by oceans, or island Japan at all. Russia, unlike Japan itself, can, if necessary, survive without sea communications. The Japanese cannot. That is why the fleet for them, as they say, is not a luxury, but a means of survival of the nation.

That is why, in our Fatherland, dreamy impulses of bold mind and daring engineering ideas regarding the conquest of the distant seas, always came into natural conflict with the system of military-political priorities of the state and rationally understood fiscal policy. Within the framework of which aircraft carriers in Russia have never been the subject of the first or even second necessity.

Hence, the current endless discussions, which for decades have tended not to take the form of any government decisions. In my memory, Dmitry Medvedev, when he was president of Russia, quite definitely spoke in favor of building aircraft carriers. And the commander of the Russian Navy of that time, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, completely swung at six carrier strike connections!

Since then, another ten years have passed. But today, this topic remains, in the main, the subject of bold predictions for the distant future, or even completely, of utopian fantasies in the style of an “underwater aircraft carrier”.

The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, the obvious non-priority of the fleet of the far sea zone for a huge land power, which does not depend on an existential scale on ocean communications. Secondly, statesmen always have a more rational way to spend large, or even very large, money of the Russian treasury. For example, at the cost of one AUG (and this, even in a poor way, no less than 10 billion dollars) you can build a dozen nuclear-powered submarine missile carriers of the newest modification and, thus, completely close the topic of guarantees of nuclear security of Russia - an early strike on the aggressor. About how much the most modern weapons you can buy for the land with this money, how many new divisions can be deployed in potentially dangerous areas, I don’t say so. And of course, nobody will sacrifice all this to carrier ambitions.

But does this mean that the topic of aircraft carriers is, in principle, unpromising for Russia? I would not hurry with this conclusion. If we proceed from the fact that the current Russian Federation is a normal, modern country with a dynamic economy interested in conquering and maintaining world markets, then the need for a military component adequate to these ambitions becomes not so doubtful. Moreover, these markets and the system of international military-political alliances ensuring their security may be located at a considerable distance from the territory of the Russian Federation itself and require the projection of precisely naval force. Which without air support, provided, in particular, by aircraft carriers, is unlikely to be possible.

The option of a fundamental refusal by Russia to fight for the external markets for its goods and to go to deaf self-isolation can not even be considered, if we consider the Russian Federation a promising country. And the fact that the struggle for such markets will constantly run up against the fiercest opposition from other centers of power - no need to go to the fortuneteller.

Examples before eyes. As soon as Russia took active steps in the Middle East to consolidate its geopolitical and, as a result, economic influence there, it almost did not reach the third world war. So the traditional owners of these markets perceive and will take any attempt on their life.

So, in the long term, Russia will not be able to manage without long-range power arguments, including such operatively flexible ones as amphibious and carrier groups.

But again - how to combine this "superfluous superfluous" with the paramount domestic security priorities? And most importantly, where can you get money for such ambitious and extremely expensive projects, when they are not enough even for the most urgent needs of the country's defense? What the recent shifts to the right of the implementation dates of many, including very significant military programs, testify to.

And what if they do not combine at all? And not to experience a gap in the domestic economy and defense priorities?

How can I do that? That's how! For a start, it is worth considering what the carrier fleet is in principle. This is undoubtedly a method of projecting forces on the sea and oceanic theaters remote from Russia. That is, in other words, to those coastal countries and territories in which Russia is strategically interested. And which, I will write it in large letters for greater clarity - IN THE SAME MEASURE, OR EVEN IN MORE, STRATEGICALLY INTERESTED IN RUSSIA! Without chewing the topic into mush, I will clarify - even if only for my elementary defense against US aggression.

But gentlemen, let me remind you that interest is essentially the same demand for goods. In this case - on military strategic services. Which, by the way, are the most expensive. And, therefore, potential military-political clients of Russia, like any normal buyer, must pay for these services. And here a practical question arises - why should the participants of such a strategic partnership not resort in this case to an advance settlement system and to translate this mutual interest into concrete programs of advanced cooperation, including military technical?

I would say even simpler - why would these powers interested in the existence of an alternative American global projection of naval force not throw off, who and how much can for the construction of the Russian aircraft carrier fleet?

Do not rush to point fingers at me, as if you were an idiot. This does not mean at all that the Russian aircraft carriers built in such a way will be thrown around the world in the manner of the fire brigade on the first whistle of the “concession participants” concerned by some kind of nonsense. Such a vision is primitive and stupid.

The existence of an alternative military center and, in particular, naval power, comparable to the United States, will in itself completely reformat the world geopolitical situation and create for many, if not for most countries of the world, new opportunities for independent development. About which they, in the conditions of American global hegemony, do not even dare to dream.

Russia is already doing a lot by itself so that such a center on this planet will again take place. So why would those powers, small and medium, which are vitally interested in such a global geopolitical shift, but who themselves never build an aircraft carrier in their lives, do not support Russia in this socially useful endeavor? Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, the Philippines - and this is only the beginning of the list. Not to mention our blood allies in the CIS and the CSTO, with whom, if my memory serves me, we are jointly dragging our common potential military security.

Such a solution to this financial and strategic problem seems acceptable from the point of view of the optimal combination of the fundamental interests of ensuring the security of Russia and its geopolitical partners. Which must clearly understand the defense priorities of the Russian Federation itself and partially compensate for its efforts in those areas which for Moscow have no existential significance, but are the highest priority for themselves. The future Russian carrier fleet may just be on the edge of this common strategic will.
Author:
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mavrus
    mavrus 1 March 2018 15: 20
    +3
    There is nothing new under the sun...
    I remember Raeder with his heavy ships, and Denets and his submarines.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 March 2018 15: 55
      +4
      Quote: mavrus
      I remember Raeder with his heavy ships, and Denets and his submarines.

      A very good example, by the way. It perfectly shows what happens with the hypertrophied development of one class of ships to the detriment of others. The Reich, with great tension, builds highly specialized submarines - and the enemy sweeps them out of the Atlantic with a balanced fleet of multifunctional ships. The same AVE or EME are hunting for submarines today, and in a month they provide anti-aircraft defense, air defense and airborne landing support.
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 1 March 2018 16: 54
        +5
        The point is not in balance, but in the fact that the Allied fleet was quantitatively superior to German by orders of magnitude, and even with long-range aviation to the heap. The example is incorrect. If Germany built all-money surface raiders or balanced KMGs, the result would be the same, but faster.
        PS Verse in the subject

        ... The sea will swell swiftly.
        At the Hudson's Bay
        Will burst into a noisy run.
        And he will be on the shore.

        In the scales, like the heat of grief,
        Class A submarine
        Russian mats hear sounds ..
        the inscription "Yuri Dolgoruky" ...
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 3 March 2018 14: 24
      +1
      Well, we will have at least 5 aircraft carriers. And what, does this make fish cheaper in stores or plane tickets? lol Carriers are designed to attack, and we have enough reliable protection. His land is unmeasured, for a thousand years we will not master.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Andrey Ivanov
    Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 15: 47
    +10
    But does this mean that the topic of aircraft carriers for Russia is, in principle, unpromising?

    What is the general question? For the landmates it means air cover is necessary, but not for the sailors? What kind of nonsense? We need a balanced OCEAN fleet, which will not only attack well, but also defend well.
    1. Loess
      Loess 1 March 2018 16: 02
      +2
      And where will this fleet be based?
      1. Plate
        Plate 1 March 2018 18: 56
        +1
        What do you dislike about the option of the Arctic Ocean? Icebreakers may well ensure passage through the ice when the water freezes, submarines (I mean those included in the potential AUG) can swim under the ice. Another thing is that the icebreaker is also not cheap fun and will only increase the cost of servicing AUG.
    2. Berber
      Berber 1 March 2018 16: 46
      +2
      We need at least two aircraft carriers. And where they will be based, this is a secondary question. As an option, Murmansk and Vladivostok.
      1. masterovoy
        masterovoy 1 March 2018 19: 39
        +3
        You obviously know that the cost of a basing system, combat, special-technical and logistical support exceeds the cost of an aircraft carrier by more than three times, and to date has not been created even for the only Kuznetsov already in existence. And the creation of two aircraft carrier groups exceeds the entire two-year budget of the Russian Defense Ministry?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 March 2018 00: 26
          +4
          Quote: masterovoy
          You obviously know that the cost of a basing system, combat, special-technical and rear support exceeds the cost of an aircraft carrier by more than three times

          Why not at thirty-three?
      2. Koronik
        Koronik 3 March 2018 05: 04
        +1
        Well, I think in Murmansk in doubt, but in the Pacific Ocean you definitely need a couple with a base in Vladivostok or the Kuril Islands.
    3. Plate
      Plate 1 March 2018 19: 01
      +3
      I suppose the point here is not even to cover the sailors. You just need to have, in my opinion, the ability to go anywhere in the world at your floating airfield to bomb something there that does not suit us.
      1. Berber
        Berber 2 March 2018 09: 49
        +2
        The same is correct. You need to be able to project power in the right places and different theaters of war. Moreover, we declared ourselves as a Great Power.
  4. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 1 March 2018 16: 03
    +4
    To begin with, it is worth thinking about what a carrier fleet is in principle. This is undoubtedly a way of projecting force onto marine and oceanic theater of operations remote from Russia.

    And, excuse me, where did the main task of the aircraft carrier, formulated back in Gorshkov’s time, be to ensure the combat stability of the defense forces of the strategic missile forces?
    What is the use of building 10 SSBNs if they cannot reach the launch area?
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 1 March 2018 19: 32
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And, excuse me, where did the main task of the aircraft carrier, formulated back in Gorshkov’s time, be to ensure the combat stability of the defense forces of the strategic missile forces?

      Swell half of the defense budget today and now, in order to ensure sustainability in 30 years? Cool, don’t you?
      Quote: Alexey RA
      What is the use of building 10 SSBNs if they cannot reach the launch area?

      What is the use of building one aircraft carrier if the whole army is on a starvation diet?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 March 2018 00: 34
        +4
        Quote: Winnie76
        Swell half the defense budget today and now

        What? Which half? :))))) wassat Expenditures on AV were maximally determined at 400 billion rubles, this is with everything, including the base and aircraft. We double - 800 billion (for the sake of laughter) Design and build it will be good if 10 years, but generally much more. Total of 80 billion per year. The military budget of the Russian Federation for the next ten years is about 19 trillion, i.e. roughly 1,9 trillion a year in total the cost of a super-super-insane-crazed avian carrier - as much as 4% of the military budget! (This despite the fact that AB can be made much cheaper)
        1. LLI.YT
          LLI.YT 14 March 2018 14: 19
          0
          4% of the military budget on the one hand against several anti-submarine missiles. IMHO but in my opinion the construction of AB is unprofitable
    2. Alf
      Alf 1 March 2018 20: 45
      +1
      I'm also for an aircraft carrier, but
      Quote: Alexey RA
      What is the use of building 10 SSBNs if they cannot reach the launch area?
      the fact is that our SSBNs can reach our opponents without falling off the pier. By the way, from the surface.
      1. Andrey Ivanov
        Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 21: 15
        +2
        Quote: Alf
        the fact is that our SSBNs can reach our opponents without falling off the pier. By the way, from the surface.

        They can ... but there’s only a difference — shoot from a hundred meters and the question is whether you’ll get where and most importantly, or put a gun to the enemy’s temple and look into his face with good eyes?
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 March 2018 10: 39
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        the fact is that our SSBNs can reach our opponents without falling off the pier.

        And then why are they needed at all? Why build expensive SLBM carriers, the main advantage of which is stealth, if they shoot from the pier in the water position? Let's build barges with SLBMs and weld them to the piers. Or even better - instead of the SSBN we order a PGRK. smile
    3. alstr
      alstr 2 March 2018 09: 32
      +1
      Alas, a lot has changed since then.
      Firstly, the range of strategic missile submarines has increased significantly and they can shoot from piers (more precisely, without leaving under the cover of a coastal umbrella)
      Secondly, new anti-ship missiles have appeared, which make the protection of ACG very difficult.
      Thirdly, the AUG is useless without an AWAC, which we do not have yet.

      Now from the opposite side.
      Because Since the range of the tomahawks is about 2500 km, strike ships must be in the North Sea or in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Italy and Greece to strike Moscow.
      Now the question is: who will let us go there even with the AUG into the war? The answer to my opinion is lyrical.
      Anyway, there are really some chances to reach the open space in the Far East only in the Far East.
      In the north, the corridor is too narrow and long for access to the operational space and runs along the NATO countries. He will remember that during Kuznetsov’s campaign in Syria he was led from Norway to Syria.
      About the Baltic and the Black Sea, and so it is clear. there AUG has nothing to do.

      But even in the Far East the question arises - where should the AUG go? We have no special allies there - only maybe Indonesia or the Philippines, but even that is unlikely. China - it has everything much better than ours (by the way, note that despite the presence of ACG on the disputed islands, they immediately build a runway).
      DPRK - you can go under the shore.
      The rest are too far away to go unnoticed. In this case, you will have to bypass (much bypass)


      Therefore, our AUG remains only one real task - it is targeting attacking AUG.
      But these tasks can be solved by other means. Including the same drones.
      And here the submarine as a carrier of target-indicating drones is one of the realizable options.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 March 2018 11: 14
        +1
        Quote: alstr
        Firstly, the range of strategic missile submarines has increased significantly and they can shoot from piers (more precisely, without leaving under the cover of a coastal umbrella)

        They can. And they may die right at the pier, failing to fulfill their mission - if the enemy launches from close range, so that the passage time for the launch command will be longer than the flight time of the UBC.
        The task of the SSBN is to secretly creep into the launch areas and secretly be there, depicting inevitable and indestructible retaliation. Moreover, due to our geography in the same Severs, the launch area at the base itself cannot be done - because the bases of our SSBNs are located almost at the border, so that by the forces of their cover they will work both from the sea and from land. If you move the launch area to a safer place, then there will be an empty space between it and the base, not covered from the shore (the same shore of the Kola Peninsula, if you make a launch area in the White Sea).
        In addition, there were submarine carriers SLCM DD, which it is better not to let in to their bases.
        Quote: alstr
        Secondly, new anti-ship missiles have appeared, which make the protection of ACG very difficult.

        What kind? And who will be the carrier of these anti-ship missiles?
        Quote: alstr
        Thirdly, the AUG is useless without an AWAC, which we do not have yet.

        The ersatz version is already there - helicopter.
        Quote: alstr
        Because Since the range of the tomahawks is about 2500 km, strike ships must be in the North Sea or in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Italy and Greece to strike Moscow.

        Starting from the maximum range is the best way to waste CD. The shorter the approach time - the less time the air defense has to work on targets.
        Quote: alstr
        Anyway, there are really some chances to reach the open space in the Far East only in the Far East.

        Why do we go out into the open? The task of our AB in the variant of preventing the SLCM strike at our bases is to cover its naval forces hunting for the enemy’s ICAPL and to early intercept the SLCM.
        1. alstr
          alstr 2 March 2018 13: 20
          0
          If about the North, then to destroy our ships do not need AUG, because There are Norwegian airfields from which many more planes will take off. Moreover, simple tactical missile systems (about 120-150 km from the border there) can reach Murmansk.
          Therefore, it is impossible to move the missile launch area at our bases from the word ABSOLUTELY.
          And SLCM DD we, too, by and large will not be able, because they just get up in the waters of Norway and shoot out from there.

          This used to make sense when the launch range was much lower. Now it has lost its relevance. What are they, what do we have no sense in the old positional areas in the North, because Now you can safely run everything from ports.

          Garant presented the carriers and new anti-ship missiles yesterday.

          Helicopter ersatz is certainly good, but it doesn’t roll against airplanes. In general, from the point of view of expediency, I would have done easier. Would make a flying drone-radar. There, in principle, there is nothing complicated - the Route was set initially (the possibility of adjustment will also be). Communication should still be present, because it is necessary to transmit target designation. But there will be no crew and operators can be put on the ship, where there will be more space and opportunities too. By the way, since there will be no man on board, you can not bother with the protection of the crew.
          Plus, this will reduce the size and weight. And it’s even possible to shove such an AWAC on Kuznetsov.

          As for the Far East, something else makes sense there, because if the Vladivostok region is shot from Japan, then Kamchatka is only from the sea. Here it may be and it makes sense in our AUG to ensure the security of the Kamchatka flotilla. And then again, there is a mass of nuances, at least in the form of weather.

          And again, the option of unmanned radars and submarines is preferable in terms of resources.

          As for long-range launches, there are many nuances. For example, if the launch is carried out from the Mediterranean Sea, then the shortest route from Mstilavl to Moscow is only 400 km (as we understand that Ukraine simply will not do anything with the Kyrgyz Republic, and it can also help). Moreover, over a fairly deserted area (simply by swamps with a minimum of settlements, which excludes ground-based air defense from the game over a significant section of the path). If you launch a large number of air defense systems, then there may be problems simply because of overloading the air defense systems.
          The same applies to launches to Moscow from the North Sea. There is also a sector from the Baltic borders with a marshy and sparsely populated area (here you can say hello to Rust). So we think.
          Of course, everything is not so bad at all, but there is always a limit to the saturation of air defense systems.

          In general, I would say that SIMULTANEOUSLY AND GUARANTEED to destroy ALL of our nuclear forces will not work out with either conventional or strategic missiles. Because this requires hundreds of nuclear and thousands of conventional missiles. And any uncoordinated launch in our direction of one or the other will necessarily entail an instant retaliatory strike by ALL forces.

          CONCLUSION: AUG is needed only for prestige. Because detection and destruction tasks can be solved by cheaper methods.
  5. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 March 2018 16: 30
    +2
    Quote: mavrus
    There is nothing new under the sun...
    I remember Raeder with his heavy ships, and Denets and his submarines.

    The best example. If more submarines were built on the site of battleships and cruisers, they could inflict much greater damage on England in 1939-41.
    To win a war with the USSR in this way is of course impossible.
    The same goes for the Pacific War. The United States could economically strangle Japan and defeat the Japanese Navy only by submarines.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 March 2018 16: 54
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The best example. If more submarines were built on the site of battleships and cruisers, they could inflict much greater damage on England in 1939-41.

      Could not. Because England in response would begin to build PLO ships instead of battleships and cruisers.
      And the worst thing for the Reich is that in order to get submarines in 1939 you need to start building them and preparing crews for them already in 1936. And this means that already in 1936 Adolf would have to clearly and unambiguously identify the vector of future aggression (moreover, let us know by lime - for then the Reich still respected the rules). And Britain will begin to prepare for war not after Chamberlain came, but a year earlier.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The same goes for the Pacific War. The United States could economically strangle Japan and defeat the Japanese Navy only by submarines.

      Could not. Read Lockwood: without the main forces of the fleet capturing the advanced bases (and ensuring supremacy at sea and in the air in the area of ​​their location), American submarines were forced to spend up to 2/3 of the military campaign time to go to the patrol area or from it to the base. Even in real life, it was theoretically possible to base a submarine on Darwin - and get an air group of an AB Kido Butai pair or several squadrons of base bombers one morning on your own head.
      In addition, what will prevent Japan in the absence of US surface forces from transferring light fleet forces to solving missile defense problems? And adjust the construction plan in favor of escort aircraft and escort ships?
    2. Alf
      Alf 1 March 2018 20: 47
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      If more submarines were built on the site of battleships and cruisers, they could inflict much greater damage on England in 1939-41.

      Absolutely not. All the successes of Doenitz boys end in the 43rd, when the Allies created a real PLO system. And the US built anti-submarines much faster than Germany was able to recover the sunken boats.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 March 2018 11: 24
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        And the US built anti-submarines much faster than Germany was able to recover the sunken boats.

        They built transports faster - for themselves and for others. EMNIP, SW. Exeter on VIF2-NE cited statistics on the tonnage of the merchant fleet of Britain - there was a decline only once, in the second half of 1942, and by 5 percent.
        However, what else can one expect of a country that has managed to organize the conveyor construction of ships and ships and to introduce the most severe standardization and control, turning the highly spiritual process of building a ship on a slipway open to all winds, with manual fitting of parts in place, into a soulless process similar to "assembling finished furniture" when a vessel of 15-20 kt was recruited from ready-made parts and blocks and launched on average 40-50 days after laying (with a typical period of 230-240 days). smile
  6. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 1 March 2018 16: 34
    +11
    The author is far from the fleet, and therefore he argues as a trench defender, accustomed to meet the enemy at the walls of Moscow, Stalingrad ...
    What is this boa constrictor? - the adherent of tank avalanches will ask ... But about what. Who is our main opponent today? And where is he located? And how is he going to fight with us on ETVD? And why is he building base ships and working out the tactics of posting army convoys? Maybe, without the help of the Yankees, the old EUROPA will be able to counter something serious to us? Or did the battle for the Atlantic and the role of export aircraft carriers in it teach nothing to the author? Yes, boats are power! But without an umbrella, they are just as vulnerable as trout versus eagle. And this applies not only to rpkSN-s, but multipurpose nuclear-powered ships. So how does the author want to cut the Atlantic Express without air cover for the fleet?
    The only option is the Jedi space fighters! But this is in the future. In the meantime, without a force-balanced fleet (with 4 AVM minimum), we cannot solve this problem with conversion weapons.
    To convince someone that Russia is a great sea power and Russian sailors discovered Antarctica is an ungrateful occupation with the public who believes that "a boot is always above a boot." And "from 40 thousand tons of steel you can make a whole division of tanks!"
    Therefore, as the famous character said, “it’s better to chew and be silent.”
    IMHO.
    1. Andrey Ivanov
      Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 17: 42
      +6
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      In the meantime, without a force-balanced fleet (with 4 AVMs minimum) we cannot solve this problem with conversion weapons.

      5 aircraft carriers, Sasha, 5! Rotation, modernization and repairs were not taken into account. And the rest, you say everything correctly.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 1 March 2018 19: 21
        +1
        Quote: Andrey Ivanov
        5 aircraft carriers, Sasha, 5! Rotation, modernization and repairs were not taken into account. And the rest, you say everything correctly.

        What a dreamer. If we start moving now, we will get the first aircraft carrier in 30 years. Moreover, we will have to tie up with rearmament. Those. Armata, Su 57, Coalition, S-500 and others will remain in single copies.
        It is a tempting prospect to change in the next 30 years all the most promising for an unfinished vessel.
        1. Andrey Ivanov
          Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 19: 24
          +8
          Quote: Winnie76
          What a dreamer. If we start moving now, we will get the first aircraft carrier in 30 years. Moreover, we will have to tie up with rearmament. Those. Armata, Su 57, Coalition, S-500 and others will remain in single copies.
          It is a tempting prospect to change in the next 30 years all the most promising for an unfinished vessel.

          And you did not ask yourself, why did the Guarantor personally supervise promising weapons developments? Because they steal from us brazenly, a lot and with impunity. And if you beat the hairy arms with grabbers and do not fantasize about the fact that we are poor and unhappy, and even remember the corruption cases of the last 10 years (I’m talking about the amounts), then there’s not only enough for Almaty with the Su-57, but also for a full-fledged aircraft carrier fleet, and even a couple of Olympics will remain.
          1. Winnie76
            Winnie76 1 March 2018 19: 45
            0
            Quote: Andrey Ivanov
            . And if you beat the hairy handles with a grabber and not fantasize about

            And if my grandmother ... And which of us fantasizes? We have what we have. I have no other guarantor and other officials for you. They stole and will steal. However, this is no reason to lower the military budget into the toilet.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 1 March 2018 21: 08
              +3
              Quote: Winnie76
              However, this is no reason to lower the military budget into the toilet.

              Colleague, you somehow left that 7 trillion rubles were allocated to the Fleet from the reserve fund. And they were not touched, because the schedule was shifting to the right. The fleet agreed to wait its turn, passing forward the Strategic Missile Forces, the airborne forces and the Army. Now it's time to remember us! And you would all gobble up on your needs ... At the same time, for some reason, you don’t remember about doctors and teachers, pensioners and students, patients and cripples ...
              And how is this to be understood? Or, according to the principle, everything yours is ours, but I will eat mine myself !? Feels the "state" approach !!! But!
              1. Andrey Ivanov
                Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 21: 45
                +2
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                And how is this to be understood? Or, according to the principle, everything yours is ours, but I will eat mine myself !? Feels the "state" approach !!! But!

                He's just trying to set the fan up ... wassat Well, about a bad life in Russia, cry.
          2. Alf
            Alf 1 March 2018 20: 49
            +2
            Quote: Andrey Ivanov
            And if you beat the hairy arms with a rake

            We don’t give our own.
            What was said about the theft of 2 billion during the construction of the stadium? "But they built it!" And who SPECIFICALLY sat down for this theft?
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 1 March 2018 20: 51
        +2
        Quote: Andrey Ivanov
        5 aircraft carriers, Sasha, 5!

        Andrei, do you offer 3 in the Pacific Fleet and 2 in the North? I'm not against. But an estimate of the plans for the construction of the Fleet until 2050. only includes 4 AVM. I proceeded from these realities.
        1. Andrey Ivanov
          Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 21: 00
          +3
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Andrei, do you offer 3 in the Pacific Fleet and 2 in the North? I'm not against. But an estimate of the plans for the construction of the Fleet until 2050. only includes 4 AVM. I proceeded from these realities.

          Sasha, if we are talking about prospects, then let's not forget the Atlantic ... And we will have to designate our presence there one way or another. And so there are 5 aircraft carriers, Sasha. And this is in the most economical case, as no one has canceled the rotation and repairs. And we have to move the mattresses, otherwise why the hell is all this fuss with new weapons on new physical principles?
          On the TOF-2, on the SF-2, well, one in the back pocket for the Atlantic, when the time comes. And to drive aircraft carriers from fleet to fleet like bobiks is also somehow not Christian.
          1. Winnie76
            Winnie76 1 March 2018 21: 10
            0
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Andrei, do you offer 3 in the Pacific Fleet and 2 in the North? I'm not against

            Quote: Andrey Ivanov
            And by this 5 aircraft carriers, Sasha.

            Well, since Andryusha agreed with Sasha - so be it laughing Do not forget to inform Shoigu.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 1 March 2018 21: 15
            +2
            Quote: Andrey Ivanov
            And to drive aircraft carriers from fleet to fleet like bobiks is also somehow not Christian.

            Amy 60% stuck their AVUs in the Asia-Pacific region, the Pacific-Indian ... This is called the inter-theater maneuver by forces. In Russia, he was unsuccessful in the performance of the Rozhdestvensky ... I think let's go to the NSR, because the ice is melting !!! laughing
            1. Andrey Ivanov
              Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 21: 19
              +3
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Amy stuffed 60% of their AVUs into the Asia-Pacific, Pacific-Indian ... This is called the inter-theater maneuver by forces.

              Well, even if mattresses are engaged in such ballet even until they turn blue, but today, they don’t have anything to cover with a hypersound map ... and therefore, while there is time, we need to strengthen our positions. But frigates and corvettes alone will not denote your strength and claims and will not defend yourself if a schucher begins.
  7. lance
    lance 1 March 2018 16: 35
    +2
    state money should go towards the development and protection of the state. What interests of the state are currently being decided by the new aircraft carrier? definitely at the moment 10 pl ash-tree is better than this crap.
  8. Yrec
    Yrec 1 March 2018 16: 45
    +5
    Where to base our AUG? In Severodvinsk? And will she swim only in the summer? From Norway, the outgoing AUG will be visible with the naked eye. In Vladivostok? You can throw a hat to Vladik from Japan. We have nowhere to base AUG! Even if you remove the last underpants (from our ground forces, by the way) and gash a full-fledged AUG and its location (from scratch, because we simply do not have such places), then you can draw a huge target on all this. This will be the primary goal for our “friends”. And the only one, because there’s no more money or strength for anything. So you should not consider yourself smarter than the General Staff of the Russian Federation, they are doing the right thing that they have abandoned AUG in the near term.
    1. Andrey Ivanov
      Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 17: 49
      +4
      Quote: Yrec
      Where to base our AUG?

      Until the aircraft carriers begin to build and transfer to the fleet, they will also build basing places. The aircraft carrier is not Karakurt, and it cannot be built in half a year.
      Quote: Yrec
      And will she swim only in the summer?

      A substance known in the sewer floats, and ships go.
      Quote: Yrec
      You can throw a hat to Vladik from Japan.

      And to receive in response the Frontier (Vanguard) in response.
      Quote: Yrec
      Even if you remove the last shorts (from our ground forces, by the way) and gash a full-fledged AUG and its location (from scratch, because we simply don’t have such places), you can draw a huge target on all this

      Get out of the way ... you first find this target, then point it online, and pray that your missiles are not intercepted by the AUG air defense. And after that, run to the bomb shelter, because the answer will fly from our continent. Read for a change our defense doctrine, which was mentioned at the Meeting and the GDP.
      Quote: Yrec
      This will be the primary goal for our “friends”.

      Just as they have enough goals for our ICBMs.
      Quote: Yrec
      So you should not consider yourself smarter than the General Staff of the Russian Federation, they are doing the right thing that they have abandoned AUG in the near term.

      This is where the woods about "refused"?
      1. Yrec
        Yrec 1 March 2018 18: 16
        +1
        They do not begin to build a basing place, which means that AUG will not start. "Kuzya" where do we stand? At the factory? AUG is not one ship, he needs a special escort, he also doesn’t even hear about projects. This is about the last question, too. I’m a land person, therefore, that in the water for me is either swimming or drowning, excuse me. After cutting our strategic nuclear forces in the 90s, ICBMs will not be enough for everyone. Almost the entire surface of the Aegis is tracked - this is about online guidance.
        1. Andrey Ivanov
          Andrey Ivanov 1 March 2018 18: 30
          +1
          Quote: Yrec
          They do not begin to build a basing place, which means that AUG will not start.

          You need to report everything, where are they building on our vast?
          Quote: Yrec
          After cutting our strategic nuclear forces in the 90s, ICBMs will not be enough for us at all

          Are you sure? What have we cut? Voivode, Poplar, Sineva? Everything is on duty and is being updated, Sarmat will become instead of Voivode, instead of Topol, Yars is already in the army, and in the near future Rubezh (Vanguard) will also become, however, judging by the video at the Meeting, they did not refuse to build Barguzin, but they test and bring up to the mind, as well as a new missile was adopted, which no one knew about at all - the Dagger. Plus for this KR X-102, in the near future X-50, again the same Zircon .. Sineva and Bulava will be modernized. Iskanders, Bastions, S-400/300, Onyxes can also work on the ground, even in the version with YaBCh. There is enough for everyone and still remains.

          Quote: Yrec
          Almost the entire surface of the Aegis is tracked - this is about online guidance.

          wassat Hmm ... I'm telling you about an on-line RCC guidance system. Aegis is a missile defense system, and its effectiveness, given the hyper-velocity rockets presented by the GDP, is rapidly rushing to zero.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 March 2018 19: 01
          +2
          Quote: Yrec
          AUG is not one ship, he needs a special escort, he also doesn’t even hear about projects.

          There is no need for a special escort - serial EM, FR, and ICAPL are suitable. Exactly the same as he will cover at the turn.
          So when there are ships that need an aircraft carrier for cover, then there will be an escort for AB.
          Quote: Yrec
          Almost the entire surface of the Aegis is tracked - this is about online guidance.

          I would very much like to know about the tracking by the "Aegis" of the entire water surface of the Pechora or Kara Sea. And generally about the reliable operation of the radar in high latitudes. smile
          1. alstr
            alstr 2 March 2018 08: 41
            0
            It’s only wonderful how many of these NEW SERIAL ships we have? Let me remind you that you need at least 10 pieces plus supply ships. Of these, at least 2 submarines.
            And do we have at least one AUG? And if there is, is there enough left to do other tasks?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 2 March 2018 11: 26
              +1
              Quote: alstr
              It’s only wonderful how many of these NEW SERIAL ships we have? Let me remind you that you need at least 10 pieces plus supply ships. Of these, at least 2 submarines.
              And do we have at least one AUG? And if there is, is there enough left to do other tasks?

              I didn’t understand - will we have AV tomorrow and we urgently need to cover it? smile
              While we do not have ships for the formation of a 4-5 Plow, we do not need AB either. He will be corny no one to cover.
              1. alstr
                alstr 2 March 2018 13: 44
                +1
                We are about the same thing now.
                In the next article about the destroyers, they clearly showed us that we had them twice and counted off (only 19 for all fleets) and 90% of them will be written off in the next 10 years. (i.e., in fact, only 2 destroyers will remain on ALL fleets).
                Based on this, we need to build only 15-20 destroyers to replace the outgoing Soviet legacy. Unfortunately, the timing of the construction of ships is far from Chinese (((.

                and only after that it is already necessary to build ships for the escort (since those 20 will fulfill their tasks)

                In total, we need in the next 20 years to build about 30 destroyer class ships and about 10 multipurpose submarines. Somehow hardly believe in it.
        3. Alf
          Alf 1 March 2018 20: 56
          0
          Quote: Yrec
          Almost the entire surface of the Aegis is tracked - this is about online guidance.

          Aegis was recently tested on missile defense missions. Result - ALL missiles have passed this system.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 1 March 2018 21: 25
        +1
        Quote: Andrey Ivanov
        A substance known in the sewer floats, and ships go.

        Submariners swim and do not complex about this.
    2. Alf
      Alf 1 March 2018 20: 54
      0
      Quote: Yrec
      then you can draw a huge target on all this. This will be the primary goal for our “friends”.

      And these bases are already the first phase. It will not be worse. Moscow, by the way, is also a primary goal as the top of the state administration system, so what, stop building it?
  9. Troll
    Troll 1 March 2018 18: 06
    0
    One Givi or Somalia
  10. VladGashek
    VladGashek 1 March 2018 20: 40
    +1
    Question: Why is the Russian Federation a carrier fleet? Bring your ideology to the world. No, that doesn’t exist. Realize your economic interests. No, apart from raw materials, we are not selling anything. Carrier groups are not needed to sell weapons. Defend your geopolitical interests. Also no. We have no geopolitical allies. We have clients to whom we give, almost free of charge, loans. Correctly said by the author: the Russian Federation is a continental power. Thinking is not about sea
    1. Ronald Reagan
      Ronald Reagan 1 March 2018 21: 03
      0
      There is a weakness in some people - a globe to consider. laughing
  11. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 1 March 2018 21: 16
    +1
    Quote: BoA KAA
    The author is far from the fleet, and therefore he argues as a trench defender, accustomed to meet the enemy at the walls of Moscow, Stalingrad ...
    What is this boa constrictor? - the adherent of tank avalanches will ask ... But about what. Who is our main opponent today? And where is he located? And how is he going to fight with us on ETVD? And why is he building base ships and working out the tactics of posting army convoys? Maybe, without the help of the Yankees, the old EUROPA will be able to counter something serious to us? Or did the battle for the Atlantic and the role of export aircraft carriers in it teach nothing to the author? Yes, boats are power! But without an umbrella, they are just as vulnerable as trout versus eagle. And this applies not only to rpkSN-s, but multipurpose nuclear-powered ships. So how does the author want to cut the Atlantic Express without air cover for the fleet?
    The only option is the Jedi space fighters! But this is in the future. In the meantime, without a force-balanced fleet (with 4 AVM minimum), we cannot solve this problem with conversion weapons.
    To convince someone that Russia is a great sea power and Russian sailors discovered Antarctica is an ungrateful occupation with the public who believes that "a boot is always above a boot." And "from 40 thousand tons of steel you can make a whole division of tanks!"
    Therefore, as the famous character said, “it’s better to chew and be silent.”
    IMHO.


    Normal comment, with a soul. Rarely plus, but here without question
  12. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 1 March 2018 21: 23
    +2
    Quote: Vladgashek
    Question: Why is the Russian Federation a carrier fleet? Bring your ideology to the world. No, that doesn’t exist. Realize your economic interests. No, apart from raw materials, we are not selling anything. Carrier groups are not needed to sell weapons. Defend your geopolitical interests. Also no. We have no geopolitical allies. We have clients to whom we give, almost free of charge, loans. Correctly said by the author: the Russian Federation is a continental power. Thinking is not about sea



    I think that you went online yesterday, or today, that you really think that we are not selling anything. I will answer at least about the economy. When the Russian naval appears in remote areas of the planet on an ongoing basis, there will be no end to customers, this is already proven by the events of the last ten years.
    As for the rest, I don’t even want to comment. As they say, it’s stupid to teach physics to a person who does not know mathematics.
    1. LLI.YT
      LLI.YT 14 March 2018 13: 51
      0
      How often does Uncle Sam sell aircraft carriers to his allies? What kind of clients are we talking about? And domestic planes, missile systems, tanks, etc. always find their buyer
  13. General70
    General70 1 March 2018 21: 51
    +2
    I think Russia needs to continue the development of rocket technologies, new types of explosives, electronic warfare systems, and submarines from VNEU, and let the Yankees keep their carrier troughs, let the Papuans scare them lol lol lol
  14. timgan777
    timgan777 1 March 2018 22: 29
    +1
    ahahah author, from the topic that you need "one aircraft carrier or ten submarines?" you take us into a fantasy - throw off neighbors on the "CIS and CSTO" to us on an aircraft carrier and you will be protected ,,,,,
    IT IS BETTER TO BUILD 5 SUBMARINE BUT OWN THAN ONE THAN ONE CARRIER BUT SHAPED UP, there will be more sense and less headache
  15. eugraphus
    eugraphus 2 March 2018 04: 56
    +1
    Quote: masterovoy
    And the creation of two aircraft carrier groups exceeds the entire two-year budget of the Russian Defense Ministry?

    Conclusion - everything depends on money, but they are not. And what's the point of ranting about what I should buy, a cool SUV or a few Lada if I don't have money for either.
  16. Operator
    Operator 2 March 2018 08: 54
    +2
    The article has become outdated - the alternative now sounds like this: a hundred unmanned, ultra-deep, ultrafast, low noise submarines with homing ballistic missiles of medium range "Dagger" or one floating trough type "aircraft carrier"?
  17. cats
    cats 2 March 2018 11: 26
    +2
    Or maybe not an aircraft carrier, maybe as the Chinese painted, a large floating platform with the ability to walk in the ice?
    A sort of island, well-maintained, all in the teeth and drones.
  18. Essex62
    Essex62 2 March 2018 11: 54
    0
    And a pair of TAKR (Monsters like mattresses are hardly necessary for us), and heels of the SSBN. The financial resources in the country are not measured. For 25 years, energy and other mineral resources from the country have been whipping in a stream. It is only necessary to nationalize them, means. Enough for everything.
  19. tivivlat
    tivivlat 2 March 2018 16: 14
    0
    or maybe a couple of WIG Wing ?, where speed and maneuverability, and conventional planes, and not vertical take-off, there will be no problems with take-off, and you will have to work out landing.
  20. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 2 March 2018 17: 00
    0
    As soon as it becomes boring, admin immediately throws Temko, like a lavrushka into soup, about a-a-aircraft carriers! So as not to sit up and lie down sofa experts.
    What is there to judge and row, everything is more than obvious! If the Russian Federation is one of the world centers of power, then the presence in the oceans is necessary in the same way as the sparkling boots of the PKK.
    But for the Russian Federation, a repetition of the Amerz experience is unacceptable for many reasons: economic, geostrategic, and from the point of view of common sense! And a variant of this path was designated back in the USSR! The Russian Federation needs large and small aircraft carriers, universal, necessarily shock, capable of independently conducting all types of naval combat — such as the Kuznetsov Tavkr, only with nuclear power plants, greater autonomy, and more airframe ships. Their universality is not a whim, but a tough need to manage with small forces on the vast expanses of the world's oceans. And with the advent of the latest weapons, the Russian Navy is quite up to the challenge.
    Well, small aircraft carriers are (this was already discussed at the forum) ordinary cruisers, destroyers, frigates with an increased composition of the air group. That is, their size is slightly larger for a minimum of 3 cars. And here the revival and adoption of the VTOL aircraft is already imperative! VTOL and will solve the range of problems that turntables can not take on. With the developments on Su PAK FA, introduced in the MiG-141-can get a very interesting topic! Now imagine a KUG of 3-4 ships, reinforced by an air group of 9-12 cars? Cool? And more real than building the Russian Nimitz.
  21. Radikal
    Radikal 3 March 2018 11: 34
    +1
    So why should those powers, small and medium, which are vitally interested in such a global geopolitical shift, but which themselves never in their life build an aircraft carrier, support Russia in this socially useful undertaking? Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, the Philippines - and this is only the beginning of the list.
    This is in what sense - to chip us in an aircraft carrier? Why should Cuba do this when, from the late 80s, the leadership of the USSR, represented by Gorbachev, and then Russia, betrayed all those who were an ally and partner, or simply threw these countries into the arms of the USA, Europe, or China? No. Did the author "eat something wrong?" lol
  22. askme
    askme 3 March 2018 13: 47
    0
    obvious non-priority of the fleet of the far sea zone for a huge land power
    Chukchi is a writer, not a reader. Although he should have read the Russian Marine Doctrine (new), where the construction of an ocean fleet capable of operating effectively anywhere in the world’s oceans is a priority. And without aircraft carriers, this is impossible. Yes, one can argue about their quantity, but not about their fundamental necessity. The question with this is closed. Especially due to the fact that the new STRATEGIC strike submarine-Status-6 system must be covered FROM AIR by tactical and anti-submarine aircraft (from the enemy’s nuclear submarines and from its own underwater drones) during its deployment in the ocean. Everything is obvious to specialists today.

    I repeat: the dispute is only about the number and timing of the start of construction (priority).

    It’s time to end the delusional discourse from Soviet fools who were brainwashed by the stupid ideology of “aircraft carriers - an instrument of imperialism” in childhood and they rush about with it, stupidly applying to the relics of this ideology, which are settled at the level of the reptilian brain in the limbic system, i.e. at the most primitive level of animal instincts. Instead, you need to activate higher nervous activity, to develop not the MOSC, but the brain.
  23. ism_ek
    ism_ek 3 March 2018 15: 40
    +1
    Ten missile carriers will not solve the nuclear security problem. All of them are under the close care of the Americans. The time of their destruction is calculated in minutes.
    1. the same doctor
      the same doctor 7 March 2018 13: 51
      0
      Let's build a hundred. Nahai nits choke. But seriously, today you can create cheap, elusive and uninhabited underwater systems. Or with a crew of 3-5 people ...
  24. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 7 March 2018 12: 31
    0
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: Kostadinov
    If more submarines were built on the site of battleships and cruisers, they could inflict much greater damage on England in 1939-41.

    Absolutely not. All the successes of Doenitz boys end in the 43rd, when the Allies created a real PLO system. And the US built anti-submarines much faster than Germany was able to recover the sunken boats.

    How could the “real PLO system” of the Western Allies of the 43rd prevent Doenitz boats in 1939–41? The mind is incomprehensible. And if the Allies managed to create a “real PLO system” earlier (back in 1939), then the corresponding Doenitsa boats (project 21 and 23) could appear much earlier.
  25. the same doctor
    the same doctor 7 March 2018 13: 48
    0
    “The option of Russia’s fundamental rejection of the struggle for external markets for its products and the withdrawal into deaf self-isolation may not even be considered if the RF is considered a promising country." ...
    .
    First, technological advances offset the demand for huge markets. Secondly, hundreds of millions of workers are no longer required to provide the country with the entire range of industrial products. Automation will lead to the fact that 25 million industrial workers will be able to provide the whole world with everything necessary. Yes, these capacities will be idle, but what for us? After all, they were made by robots.
    .
    Well and most importantly: they still won’t let us into foreign markets, and they won’t sell technologies. And no aircraft carriers can help sell obsolete goods to third world countries. They won’t allow us to capture them. Accordingly, we only have to isolate ourselves from world leaders so that later, as we independently master new technologies, break through into the outside world with our products ...
  26. LLI.YT
    LLI.YT 14 March 2018 13: 49
    0
    Quote: Plate
    I suppose the point here is not even to cover the sailors. You just need to have, in my opinion, the ability to go anywhere in the world at your floating airfield to bomb something there that does not suit us.

    How often does Russia float "bomb something there"? Syria is not considered due to the fact that the planes flew there under their own power.