Military Review

The role of aircraft carriers in the Soviet Navy

396
It was assumed that this article would continue the cycle "Russian Navy. A sad look into the future." But when it became clear that the only domestic aircraft carrier was Admiral fleet The Soviet Union Kuznetsov ”(hereinafter referred to as“ Kuznetsov ”) is so huge that it categorically does not want to fit into one article, the author decided to highlight history the emergence of the first domestic Takr aviation horizontal take-off and landing - in a separate material.


In this article we will try to deal with the reasons that prompted the USSR to begin construction of an aircraft carrier fleet.

The history of the creation of Kuznetsov began when, for the first time in the history of the USSR, the development of a draft design of an atomic aircraft carrier with an ejection take-off was included in the naval shipbuilding plan for 1971-1980. However, 1968 could also be taken as a starting point, when the Nevskoye Design Bureau (PCB) of the Ministry of Food Industry in parallel with the creation of the aircraft-carrying cruiser 1143 of the project began to develop a promising nuclear aircraft carrier of the 1160 project.

How did it happen that the Russian Navy suddenly became intently interested "weapons aggression? The fact is that in the 60-s the complex research work “Order” was launched, devoted to the prospects for the development of ships with aircraft armament. Its main findings were formulated in 1972 year and boiled down to the following:

1) Aviation support for the Navy is of paramount, urgent task, since it involves the development of naval strategic nuclear forces; without air cover under the conditions of the domination of anti-submarine aviation of a potential enemy, we will not be able to ensure not only the combat stability, but also the deployment of our submarines with both ballistic missiles and multi-purpose, which are the main striking force of the Navy;

2) Without fighter cover, successful operations of the sea-based missile, reconnaissance and anti-submarine coast-based aviation — the second most important strike component of the Navy;

3) Without a fighter cover, more or less acceptable combat stability of large ships is impossible.

As an alternative, deployment of powerful land-based fighter naval aviation was considered, but it turned out that to provide air cover even in the coastal zone, to a depth of 200-300 km, would require such an increase in the fleet and its structure in addition to the existing one. will exceed all imaginable limits. Most likely, ground-based aviation “failed” the reaction time — an aircraft carrier accompanying a ship group does not have to constantly keep the air group in the air, since it can be limited to one or two patrols and quickly lift the necessary reinforcement into the air. At the same time, airplanes from land aerodromes simply do not have time to take part in repelling an air attack and therefore can only rely on those forces that by the time it began are in the area of ​​patrol. However, the author of this article did not read the “Order” in the original and does not know this for sure.

The Order was meticulously taken into account the experience of the Second World War. The conclusions of Grand Admiral K. Doenitz, who called the main reason for the defeat of the German submarine fleet “the lack of air cover, reconnaissance, target designation, etc.” were fully confirmed during the “Order” research.

According to the results of the “Order”, the TTZ was prepared for the aircraft carrier - it had to have a 75 000 - 80 000 ton displacement, be atomic, have four steam catapults and ensure the basing of an air group not less than 70 aircraft and helicopters, including fighters, attack and anti-submarine aircraft , as well as aircraft RTR, EW, AEW. Interestingly, the developers did not anticipate the deployment of anti-ship missiles on the 1160 project; they were added there later, at the request of the Navy Commander-in-Chief S.G. Gorshkov. TK was transferred to Nevsky PKB for further work.

In 1973, the 1160 advance design was approved by the commanders of the Navy and Navy, the ministers of the shipbuilding and aviation industries, but then the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, D.F. Ustinov. He demanded to consider the possibility of building another heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (the third in a row, after Kyiv and Minsk) under the 1143 project, but with the placement of catapults and MiG-23А fighters on it. It turned out to be impossible, therefore DF Ustinov demanded:

"Make a new project on 36 aircraft, but in the dimensions of" Kiev "


It also turned out to be impossible, in the end, they “agreed” on a new project on the 36 LA, but in increased dimensions. He was given the 1153 cipher, and in June 1974, the commander-in-chief of the Navy, approved the TTZ for a new ship. But at the beginning of 1975, the DF. Ustinov intervenes again with the requirement to decide what exactly to develop - ejection aircraft carriers or aircraft carrying cruisers with VTOL. Naturally, D.F. Ustinov believed that we needed TAKR with VTOL. Nevertheless, the sailors still managed to insist on their own and in 1976 a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers on the creation of "large cruisers with aircraft armament" was issued: two ships of the 1153 project were to be built in 1978-1985.

The 1153 project was a “step back” regarding the concept of a full-fledged aircraft carrier of the 1160 project (both of them had the Eagle code). The new ship was smaller (on the order of 60 000) and carried a more modest air group (50 LA), fewer catapults - 2 units. Yet he, at least, remained atomic. However, when in 1976, the draft design of the 1153 project is completed, the verdict follows:

“Sketch draft approve. Further design of the ship to stop "



Model TAKR project 1153


By this time, “Kiev” was already in the fleet, the “Minsk” was being completed, a year ago it was laid down “Novorossiysk”, and the design work on “Baku” was at such a stage that it was clear: if a return to the catapults and horizontal take-off aircraft takes place then it will be only on the fifth domestic TAKR, which now again had to be designed from scratch. In the next TTZ, the number of aircraft was reduced to 42, the nuclear installation was abandoned, but at least the catapults were saved. TAKR was supposed to carry 18-28 aircraft and 14 helicopters, and it was assumed that the "aircraft" component would include 18 Su-27K, or 28 MiG-29K, or 12 MiG-29К and 16 Yak-141. The helicopter squadron was supposed to be made up of Ka-27 helicopters in anti-submarine and search and rescue variants, as well as in a modification of the radar patrol.

But then another enemy of the aircraft carrier fleet arose - N.N.N. Amelko. He considered aircraft carriers unnecessary, and proposed to build anti-submarine helicopter carriers instead of them on the basis of a civilian container ship. However, the project N.N. Amelko "Halzan" turned out to be completely unsuitable, and as a result DF was rejected. Ustinov (at that time - the Minister of Defense), however, a cross was also put up on the 1153 project.

The role of aircraft carriers in the Soviet Navy

Model helicopter "Halzan"


Now the sailors were asked to develop an aircraft carrier "with the necessary improvements", but in the displacement of no more than 45 000 t, and most importantly - the catapult was anathematized. It is believed that this is the fault OKB them. Sukhoi - his chief designer MP Simonov said that a catapult was not needed for his aircraft, but a springboard would be enough. But most likely, that MP Simonov made his statement after the springboard was chosen for the fifth heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser, so that the Su-27 would not be "out of board" of the aircraft carrier.

The sailors still managed to "beg" another 10 000 t. Displacement, when DF. Ustinov arrived at TAKR "Kiev" on the teachings of "West-81." After stories about the real combat effectiveness of the wing of the "Kiev" D.F. Ustinov "was empathized" and allowed to increase the displacement of the fifth TAKR-a to 55 000 t. In fact, this is how the first and only domestic aircraft carrier appeared.



There is no doubt that the United States was extremely concerned about the program of building aircraft carriers in the USSR and diligently "discouraged" us from this. As they write V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky:

“Foreign publications of those years, concerning the development of aircraft carriers, accompanied our studies“ almost synchronously ”, as if pushing us away from the general course, which they followed themselves. So, with the advent of the VTOLP, the naval and aviation magazines of the West almost immediately “choked with enthusiasm” about the fascinating prospects for the development of this area, which almost all military aviation must follow. We began to increase the displacement of aircraft carrier ships - they immediately began to publish and the inexpediency of the development of such supergiants as the Nimitz, and that it would be preferable to build aircraft carriers "smaller" and besides not with atomic energy, but with conventional energy. We took up the catapult - they began to praise the springboards. Often information flashed and in general about the termination of their aircraft carrier construction. ”


It should be noted that the author of this article himself came across similar publications (translated articles by American authors in 80’s “Foreign Military Review” of XNUMX).

Perhaps today the “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” remains the most controversial ship of the Russian Navy, the assessments addressed to him are as numerous as they are contradictory. And this is not to mention the fact that the need to build aircraft carriers for the Navy of the USSR and the Navy of the Russian Federation is constantly being challenged and serves as a subject of heated discussions, and the history of their development has acquired a lot of legends and conjectures. Before assessing the potential of the first Soviet TAKR, from the deck of which horizontal take-off and landing aircraft could take off, let's deal with at least some of them.

1. The aircraft carriers were not needed by the fleet, but their construction was lobbied by a group of admirals, naval commanders led by Navy Commander Gorshkov.

Contrary to popular belief, the need for full-fledged aircraft carriers in the fleet of the USSR was by no means a voluntarist decision "from above" and not "the whim of admirals", but the result of serious research work that lasted several years. The “Order” research was started in 60's, the author could not find out the exact date of its beginning, but even if it was 1969, it didn't matter, it was not fully completed even in 1972. In addition, the history of the development of Soviet aircraft carriers clearly indicates that the most consistent opponent S.G. Gorshkova - D.F. Ustinov was not at all against the construction of aircraft carriers, as such. The need for large aircraft-carrying ocean ships was obvious to him. In essence, the contradiction between S.G. Gorshkov and D.F. Ustinov did not consist in the fact that one wanted to build aircraft carriers, and the second did not, but that SG Gorshkov considered it necessary to build classic aircraft carriers (in many respects comparable to the American Nimitz), while D.F. Ustinov hoped that their tasks could be accomplished by smaller ships that were carriers of VTOL aircraft. Perhaps the only "pure" enemy aircraft carriers, who completely denied the usefulness of carrier-based aviation, was Admiral Amelko, who advanced the construction of anti-submarine helicopter carriers instead of TAKR, but he did not leave behind him anything that was scientific, but generally distinct. justification of its position. But in his case, indeed, it is easy to suspect purely opportunistic, "undercover" actions, since He was considered an opponent of S.G. Gorshkov.

2. Supporters of the construction of aircraft carriers for the Soviet Navy did not take into account the experience of the Second World War, which demonstrated the advantage of a submarine over aircraft carriers.

In fact, in the course of R & D “Order”, the experience of the most effective submarine fleet, the German one, was carefully studied. And it was concluded that submarines can be successful in the face of strong opposition from the enemy only if their deployment and actions are supported by aviation.

3. Carriers are not needed for the defense of the near sea zone.

As the Research and Development Order showed, the provision of air cover for the ship group by land-based aircraft, even at a distance of 200-300 km from the coastline, is significantly more expensive than an aircraft carrier.

4. Carriers were needed, first of all, as a means of neutralizing the wings of the American aircraft carriers. With the advent of long-range anti-ship missiles "Basalt", "Granit" and their underwater carriers, the task of countering US AUG was solved. The submarine missile cruisers and the space reconnaissance and target designation system nullified the power of the United States AUG.

In order to understand the fallacy of this statement, it is enough to recall that according to the “Order” research without air cover, we are not that combat sustainability, we could not even guarantee the deployment of multi-purpose submarines. And, importantly, this conclusion was made in 1972 g, when there were flight design tests of the BCRT missile, and the US-A prototypes, the satellites that were equipped with the Legend radio station, were being tested in space. In other words, the conclusion about the need for aircraft carriers was formulated at a time when we were already very well aware of the potential capabilities of the Basalt RCC and the Legend ICRC.

5. Df Ustinov was right, and we had to abandon the construction of ships, providing the basing of aircraft of horizontal take-off and landing in favor of the aircraft carrier with VTOL.

The dispute about the advantages and disadvantages of VTOLP is endless, but without any doubt, aviation achieves the greatest effect when sharing fighters, EW and DRLO aircraft. But basing the latter on TAKR not equipped with catapults proved impossible. Thus, even taking on trust the thesis that “there’s still a bit of time and money - and Yakovlev’s design bureau would present the world with an analogue of the MiG-29, but with vertical takeoff and landing,” we still understand that VTVP TAKR-and lose the wing of the classic aircraft carrier.

There is no doubt that one can argue about how necessary the carrier fleet is today for the Russian Federation, because almost 50 years have passed since the R & D period “Warrant” has passed and during this time the technology has stepped far forward. The author of this article believes that it is needed, but acknowledges the existence of a field for discussion. At the same time, the need to create an aircraft carrier fleet in the USSR at the beginning of the 70-s is not in any doubt, and the USSR, though not immediately, began its construction.



This aspect is also interesting. The TK and the 1160 Orel project, which was formed based on the results of R & D “Order”, represented themselves as “tracing paper” from the American strike aircraft carrier — not only fighters (or dual-purpose fighters / bombers) were to be present in its air group, but also planned on the basis of the Su-24. In other words, the 1160 project was a multipurpose aircraft carrier. But later, and rather quickly, the air group of the promising TAKR-a lost strike aircraft - starting, perhaps, with 1153, we should talk about designing a non-multi-purpose aircraft carrier, in the image and likeness of the US, but about the air defense aircraft carrier, whose primary task was to air cover the attack forces (surface ships, submarines, missile-carrying aircraft). Does this mean that R & D “Order” confirmed the effectiveness of the American development of naval power in our peak? It is impossible to say this precisely without reading the “Order” reports. But it can be stated that the USSR, designing and creating aircraft carriers, did not copy the American fleet in its development.

In the United States, they confirmed their opinion on the priority of air power over the sea - not counting strategic SSBNs, of course. Otherwise, almost the entire range of tasks "fleet against fleet" and "fleet against the coast" was supposed to be solved by deck aircraft. Thus, the US created a surface fleet "around" aircraft carriers, their destroyers and cruisers - this is primarily escort ships, which were to provide air defense / air defense system of the aircraft carrier, and secondly - the carrier of cruise missiles for action against the coast. But the task of destroying the enemy surface ships before destroyers and cruisers was practically not set, deck installations anti-ship "Harpoons" were for them a very situational weapon "just in case." If you need to save "Harpoons" donated first. For a long time, the new destroyers of the US Navy were not equipped with anti-ship weapons at all, and the Americans did not see anything wrong with that, although then they were still concerned with the development of anti-ship missiles capable of "fit" in the Arly Berkov and Tikonderog TSS. The American submarine fleet was quite numerous, but still multi-purpose submarines, rather, complemented the capabilities of the AUG in terms of anti-submarine defense, and also solved the task of destroying Soviet SSBNs in areas where deck-based aircraft of the United States could not establish their dominance.

At the same time, the Soviet Navy (not counting SSBNs) considered the main task was “fleet versus fleet”, and it was supposed to solve it by land-based missile-carrying aircraft, submarines, and large surface ships carrying the Basalt and Granit heavy anti-ship missiles. The aircraft carrier of the USSR was not the “backbone” around which the rest of the fleet is built, and the deck aircraft of which was to solve “all tasks”. Soviet TAKR-s were considered only as a means of ensuring the sustainability of the fleet attack forces, the role of their wings was to neutralize the air threat posed by deck aircraft of the Americans.

And here we come to another very common misconception, which can be formulated as follows:

6. Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier, but a TAKR. Unlike the classic aircraft carrier, which is a defenseless airfield, the Kuznetsov-type ship possesses the entire spectrum of weapons, allowing it to act independently, without resorting to the protection of numerous surface ships.

Let's take a look at the main characteristics of Kuznetsov.

Displacement. I must say that the data on it vary in different sources. For example, V. Kuzin and G. Nikolsky argue that the standard displacement of a TAKVR is 45 900 t, and the total displacement is 58 500 t, but S.A. Balakin and Zablotsky lead, respectively, 46 540 and 59 100 t. At the same time, they also mention the ship’s “greatest” displacement - 61 390 t.

The Kuznetsov TAKR is equipped with a four-shaft boiler-turbine power plant with a capacity of 200 000 hp, which was supposed to provide the speed of 29 nodes. The steam was produced by eight KVG-4 boilers, with increased steam capacity compared to the KNV 98 / 64 boilers used in the previous Baku TAKR (on which 8 boilers provided the power of the 180 000 hp).

Armament: its basis, of course, was the air group. According to the draft, "Kuznetsov" was to provide 50 basing of aircraft, including: up to 26 Su-27K or MiG-29K, 4 AEW helicopter Ka-25RLD, 18 anti-submarine helicopters Ka-Ka-27 or 29 and 2 prospecting Ka-27PS rescue helicopter. For the base of the air group, a hangar with a length of 153 m, a width of 26 m and a height of 7,2 m was provided, but, of course, it could not accommodate the entire air group. It was assumed that the hangar will be able to accommodate up to 70% of the air group, the rest of the machines should have been on the flight deck.

The attempt to base the Yak-44РЛД DRLO planes on TAKR is interesting. Apparently, this was the case - in 1979 g, when Yakovlev Design Bureau received an order for the design of this aircraft, no one had ever imagined to deprive our TAKRs of catapults and to develop an ejection plane, but after the decision to manage springboard, I also had to “cut” and the air group - the Yak-141 should have made its basis, and all other aircraft, including the MiG-29 and Su-27 - only if they can be adapted to the non-catapult take-off from the springboard, and the same is true for the Yak-44. But if it turned out to be possible in the case of the 4 generation fighters with high thrust-to-weight ratio, the creation of the DRLO aircraft capable of starting from a springboard faced certain difficulties, so its creation “stalled” and accelerated only after it became clear that the seventh TAKR USSR - "Ulyanovsk" still will be catapults. It is also interesting that at some point the fleet made the requirement to base the future Kuznetsov RLD vertical take-off and landing! But in the end they limited themselves to DRLO helicopters.

TAKR was equipped with percussion weapons - 12 under deck PU PKR "Granit". Anti-aircraft missile weapons are represented by the Dagger complex - 24 PU for 8 mines, total 192 missiles. In addition, the "Kuznetsov" installed 8 SPECIALIST "Dirk" and the same AK-630M. Two RBU-12000 "Boa" are not so much anti-submarine as anti-torpedo complex. The principle of its operation is the same as that of the anti-submarine RBU, but the ammunition is different. Thus, in the Udav salvo, the first two projectiles carry false targets to divert homing torpedoes, while the rest constitute a “minefield” through which torpedoes who “do not wish” to be distracted by traps must pass. If it is overcome, then conventional ammunition, representing missiles - depth charges, is already used.

Active countermeasures are complemented by passive ones, and here we are talking not only about electronic warfare systems and setting false targets, etc. The fact is that on the ship for the first time in domestic TAKR implemented underwater structural protection (PKZ), which is a modern analogue of the PTZ of the Second World War eras. The depth of the PKZ is 4,5-5 m. However, even when overcoming it, the capabilities of the TAKR are impressive - it must remain afloat when flooding any five adjacent compartments, while the hangar deck must remain no less than 1,8 m above the water surface. The ammunition and fuel storages received box-booking, unfortunately, its thickness is unknown.

Thus, we see a large, heavy ship, equipped with a variety of weapons. Nevertheless, even the most cursory analysis shows that the armament of the Kuznetsov TAKR is not at all self-sufficient, and can “open up” fully only when interacting with other warships.

Air Group "Kuznetsova" can provide air defense or anti-aircraft defense of the ship, but not both at the same time. The fact is that according to the rules of the Russian Navy, refueling or arming aircraft in the hangar is strictly prohibited, and this is understandable - there is the danger of concentrating kerosene vapors in a confined room, and in general - an enemy rocket that landed on the hangar deck and caused the detonated prepared air-ammunition , will inflict the hardest damage to the ship, and, possibly, will completely lead it to death. A similar incident on the flight deck, no doubt, will also be extremely unpleasant, but the ship will not be threatened with death.

Accordingly, TAKR can use only those aircraft that are located on its flight deck - those that are in the hangar must also be lifted, filled and armed. And there is not too much space on the flight deck - fighters can be placed there, and then the ship will perform the functions of air defense, or helicopters, then the TAKR will be able to implement the PLO functionality, but not both at the same time. That is, you can, of course, roll out a mixed air group, but at the same time, the number of fighters and helicopters will be such that it will not be able to solve the tasks of air defense and anti-aircraft defense with due effectiveness.

As a result, if you focus on air defense, the ability to search for enemy submarines will not exceed those of a large anti-submarine ship of the 1155 project (GAK Polinom and a pair of helicopters), which is completely inadequate for such a huge ship with a rather large air group. The BOD of the 1155 project is, of course, a formidable opponent for the 3-generation submarines, but in a battle with such a submarine, it can, of course, die itself. This is an acceptable risk for a ship in the 7 000 and a displacement, but with the same chance of success being confronted by the APL, the giant TAKR, six times superior to the displacement of the BOD, and with dozens of airplanes and helicopters on board — unthinkable waste. At the same time, if you focus on solving the tasks of the PLO and force the deck by helicopters, the ship’s air defense will be critically weakened. Yes, the TAKR is equipped with rather numerous Dagger air defense systems, but it should be understood that this air defense system has a range of air targets 12 kilometers, with an altitude of 6 000 m, that is, it is aimed at fighting not only with enemy aircraft, but with missiles and guided missiles used by them aerial bombs In essence, both the Dagger and the Dirk, and the AK-630, mounted on the Kuznetsov, this weapon has completed several small missiles whose carriers have broken through the TAKR fighters. By themselves, they will not provide the defense of the ship.

Now - shock weapons. Yes, "Kuznetsov" is equipped with a dozen of the RCC "Granit", but ... this is not enough. According to the calculations of the Russian Navy, in order to "break through" the AUG anti-aircraft defense, at least 20 missiles were needed in the volley, which is why our heavy atomic missile cruisers carried the 20 "Granites", and the submarine Antey SSGNS - even 949 such missiles, so that, so to speak, with a guarantee.

Quite another thing is the situation when the domestic TAKR works together with the RNR of the 1164 Atlant project and a pair of BOD. Together with the RKR, a TAKR could provide 30-rocket volley that no AUG would like to taste, while fulfilling the tasks of the Daggers and Dirks Kuznetsov would be supplemented by the C-300F SAM, thus forming an echeloned Air defense. Conversely, when performing air defense tasks, a pair of BODs with helicopters based on them would add to the capabilities of the TAKR and could well guarantee an ASW of a similar connection.

All of the above suggests that, although domestic TAKR could be used independently, but only at the cost of a significant weakening of efficiency and being subject to excessive risk. In general, as we have said above, the USSR SLRT is not “a warrior alone in the field,” but a support ship for surface, submarine and air strike groups equipped with guided missile weapons and intended for the destruction of large fleets of a potential enemy. But it would be wrong to see in the domestic TAKR such a "hand-written bag," to ensure the protection of which half of the fleet had to be diverted. The TAKR supplemented the fleet's strike forces, allowing it to accomplish the tasks of routing the enemy with a smaller outfit of forces and with a lower level of losses. That is, the creation of the TAKR saved us money that otherwise would have been required to create additional SSGMs, missile cruisers, and missile-carrying aircraft. And of course, the lives of sailors and pilots serving on them.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
396 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. smaug78
    smaug78 April 3 2018 15: 14
    +2
    Unfortunately, it turns out that Russia is in a hopeless situation, I hope so far, the situation. Carriers are needed, as well as a complete update of the Navy, but a land component is also needed. And where to get the money and resources for the harmonious development of both components ((((
    1. Ronald Reagan
      Ronald Reagan April 3 2018 18: 24
      +3
      The tax field has not yet been mastered. At the request of the workers to take and master. laughing
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 33
      +2
      if you do not do AB, then there will be money for the army, Strategic Rocket Forces and VKS
  2. Kars
    Kars April 3 2018 15: 18
    +9
    As it became possible to launch ICBMs at a distance of more than 14 thousand kilometers, it was worth ending the arms race at least twenty years later. The aircraft carriers were definitely not needed.
    1. smaug78
      smaug78 April 3 2018 15: 24
      +1
      Have you read the article carefully?
      1. Kars
        Kars April 3 2018 16: 23
        +7
        Attentively. Yaroslavna’s cry for aircraft carriers. The military did not give them all. There was no sense in them for the USSR. Submarines with ICBMs do not have to leave the coastal aviation cover zone to avoid the first nuclear strike.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 3 2018 17: 29
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          and submarines with ICBMs do not have to leave the coastal aviation cover zone in order not to fall under the first nuclear strike.

          The problem is that without the AB, the Navy cannot operate further 200-300 km from the coast. And beyond this range, the enemy can act with complete impunity.
          ... according to the R&D Order, without air cover, we are not that combat stability, we even could not guarantee the deployment of multi-purpose submarines.

          That is, SLCM carriers can safely join the strike on our territory - their range is just enough.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac April 3 2018 19: 21
            +3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The problem is that without the AB, the Navy cannot operate further 200-300 km from the coast.

            This is a completely false statement.
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 April 3 2018 20: 51
            +10
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The problem is that without the AB, the Navy cannot operate further 200-300 km from the coast. And beyond this range, the enemy can act with complete impunity.

            This value in 200-300 km is justified in the "Order" at the end of 60's. If you look at the radius of action of the aircraft of those years (MiG-23, Su-7, Su-17, MiG-21) then perhaps it is so. But something has changed since then. Su-27 with a typical air-to-air suspension covers 3000 km range. Constantly hanging over the vast expanses of the sea is also not necessary - there are over-the-horizon radars, there are drones (the latter are still in theory, but I hope they will be in iron). In general, after finding a target at a distance of 800 km for an hour in its area will be an air cover. The radius of the coastal umbrella has grown from 200-300 to 800-1000 km.
            This, in turn, for such seas as the Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas seriously raises the question of the advisability of having any ships other than anti-submarine and minesweepers. Well still patrol border guards. Because all other tasks in coastal seas, aviation solves more efficiently, faster, more flexibly. Aviation can fill cast-iron on the shore in volumes inaccessible to the crew, and work on ships to provide both air defense, and an inter-naval maneuver with canonical concentration of efforts in the key direction to ensure in a matter of hours. And if he locks, then fly away to work in some kind of Afghanistan, where not a single ship will get at all.
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte April 4 2018 09: 37
              +4
              Quote: Alex_59
              But something has changed since then. Su-27 with a typical air-to-air suspension covers 3000 km range.

              Specification - when taking off from the coast. From the deck, the Su-33 is not able to take off with a full supply of fuel due to restrictions on take-off weight from the springboard. During the Kuznetsova training trips, the average time spent by fighters in the air was 45 minutes.
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 14 2018 20: 52
                +1
                you have a sign for education
                1. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 14 2018 20: 56
                  0
                  In any case, target designation and air defense will be provided by the coastal forces of the Air Force.
                  The distance of the strike of the Kyrgyz Republic by the forces of the enemy fleet in the theory of 2000 km and in reality 800 km
                  At this distance, not one AUG will not apply to us. without risking being sunk quickly
                2. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte April 15 2018 07: 12
                  -1
                  Probably the sailors and pilots on the Kuznetsovo did not see this plate, so they do not fly at full load.
                  1. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 15 2018 08: 11
                    +1
                    I understand that you are one of them?
                    Never thought crossed my mind, where to put this full load when landing?
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte April 15 2018 22: 03
                      0
                      And never thought that with this full load did not fly from the deck?
                      Look for a photo of the take-off / landing of the Su-33 on the deck. Maybe one or two and find where more than 2xP-27 + 2xP-73 are suspended.
                      Here are just 99% of the photos look like this

                      or as

                      But at the exhibitions, beauty.
                      1. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 16 2018 01: 08
                        0
                        Well, answer, where to put this "full load"?
                        Even if this is a weight training (combat) layout?
                        Where to?
                        You can’t sit with her.
                        Just answer.
                        ps
                        2xP-27 + 2xP-73. by the way this is 1 ton.
                        Try to find a photo of the Su33 take-off from the ground with full BN.
                        As for the F-18, there is also not a lot of usual take-off with a load of 600-1000kg. or empty.
                      2. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 16 2018 01: 31
                        0
                        Regarding the photo "at the exhibition"
                        In the last photo, the aircraft is equipped with a BN of about 1,5. tons.
                        sorptionX2-200kg
                        NAR S25X2-500kg
                        R73X2-220kg
                        R27X2-600kg
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 4 2018 10: 47
              +2
              Quote: Alex_59
              This value of 200-300 km is justified in the "Order" in the late 60s. If you look at the radius of action of the aircraft of those years (MiG-23, Su-7, Su-17, MiG-21), then perhaps it is so. But something has changed since then. Su-27 with a typical air-to-air suspension covers 3000 km range.

              The point is not the radius, but the reaction speed. You can have a range of at least 30 kilometers, but if reinforcements from the airfield to the duty unit come later than the enemy’s exit to the RVV launch range, then no range will help. And for an operational reaction, it is necessary either to move the airfield to the covered ships, or to detect the enemy earlier - so that at the time of detection the distance from the enemy’s strike group to the covered ships would be 000-1,2 times greater than from the covered ships to the airfield .
              Quote: Alex_59
              Constantly hanging over the vast expanses of the sea is also not necessary - there are over-the-horizon radars, there are drones (the latter are still in theory, but I hope they will be in iron).

              ZG radar is. At 500-600 km range. And it’s not clear for what height the target’s flight.
              As for the rest, this Manilovism looks particularly contrasted against the background of one regiment of AWACS aircraft throughout the country, the machines of which are modernized in homeopathic quantities - on the 1 board in two years. Or against the background of the A-100, which, according to plans, should be delivered to the Air Force for two years now.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 April 4 2018 14: 53
                +4
                The point is not the radius, but the reaction speed.
                Speed ​​reaction? At a distance of 800 km from the coast, aviation will arrive in an hour. During this time, even the fastest ship grouping can move no more than 50 km. It is an acceptable reaction rate. And I would say that the reaction rate is quite impressive. After all, you can work hard and stomp not at the cruising speed 850 km / h, but more (though at the cost of reducing the fuel available for battle in the area). In general, this is solvable.
                You can have a range of at least 30 000 kilometers, but if reinforcements from the airfield to the duty link come later than the enemy’s exit to the RVV launch range, then no range will help.
                I would like to understand the scenario. And what does the duty link do there? Spends money aimlessly cutting circles? Let’s admit the enemy’s AHG to our shores in order to seize supremacy in the coastal strip and not give maneuver to our SSBNs. Such a thing as AUG, but at a distance of 1000 km from our shores, we must somehow be able to detect it. This is not an Atlantic without a margin. And it’s not with the help of a dangling it’s not clear where the duty link is (and does it just hang out where the AUG will go?). To do this, there is intelligence, radio intelligence, satellite, reconnaissance aircraft, etc. If you please, be able to detect. Well, then at the moment of their approach to the line of the long-suffering 800 km from the coast, we lift into the air everything that flies and that floats and we bring down the crowd to drown this AUG. This is more realistic than the hypothetical access of our AUG to the Atlantic in order to provide some more scope for the deployment of our SSBNs. There are chances to win at least.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                As for the rest, this Manilovism looks particularly contrasted against the background of one regiment of AWACS aircraft throughout the country, the machines of which are modernized in homeopathic quantities - on the 1 board in two years. Or against the background of the A-100, which, according to plans, should be delivered to the Air Force for two years now.

                The proposal to build their own AUGs is even more Manilovism. If only because UAVs and AWACS aircraft are needed in any case, they will find work not only on the sea but also in areas far from water. But I don’t believe at all that we will build several capable AUGs capable of shaking the dominance of NATO fleets in the Atlantic without any reliance on coastal infrastructure.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA April 4 2018 19: 12
                  +4
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Speed ​​reaction? At a distance of 800 km from the coast, aircraft will arrive in an hour. During this time, even the fastest ship grouping can move no more than 50 km. It is an acceptable reaction rate.

                  You are considering a pure percussion problem. And our main task is to cover our ships.
                  Suppose that our KUG works at the Bear’s - at the near boundary of the “bastion”. In a nearby area the duty link spins. The distance to the nearest airfield is 600 km. And suddenly, at a distance of 300-350 km from the KUG, a group of enemy vehicles was seen marching on the KUG. The question is - who will survive by the time reinforcements approach from the airfield?
                  And the second question is what to do if the discovered group suddenly turns out to be false targets? In this case, we lose time on the return and refueling of cars, leaving the KMG naked, or are forced to spend the reserve.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Such a thing as AUG, but at a distance of 1000 km from our shores, we must somehow be able to detect it. This is not an Atlantic without a margin.

                  In the 80s, at the peak of its power, the KSF managed to lose a full-blooded ACG off the coast of Norway. AB Yankees just lost in the fjords.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  But I don’t believe at all that we will build several capable AUGs capable of shaking the dominance of NATO fleets in the Atlantic without any reliance on coastal infrastructure.

                  And why are the opponents of AB immediately drawn to send them to Atalanitka? What kind of love for Imago (© K. Chapek)? smile
                  First of all, we need AB for protection - to restore the very “bastion” in front of the SSBN deployment areas.
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 April 5 2018 08: 34
                    +3
                    Suppose that our KUG works at the Bear’s - at the near boundary of the “bastion”.
                    In the scenario you proposed, the presence of one or two aircraft carriers in the Northern Fleet does not solve the problem at all. Both of our ABs will be drowned at first, and then they will go beyond Bear. And while we run up against this Bear Bear, we are exhausted so that by the time the front line approaches 100 km from the coast, we will not have the strength to ensure dominance even under the coast.
                    To prevent this forecast from coming true, you need to have 5 pieces of aircraft carriers in the SF (taking into account that someone is constantly under repair in order to have at least 4) and a powerful floating rear, so that this Bear AUG always has ammunition and fuel . But I do not believe in the reality of creating such a fleet in our country.
                    And by the way, what does “our KUG work for Bear’s” mean? What is she doing there? Looking for enemy submarines? Duck for reliable overlapping of such an area is necessary not KUG, but a dozen KUG.
                    But what if no one goes for Bear? They shoot in one gulp from Trondheim by the entire NATO crowd at the objects of the Northern Fleet. And hi.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    First of all, we need AB for protection - to restore the very “bastion” in front of the SSBN deployment areas.

                    IMHO for this you need an analogue of SOSUS, powerful intelligence and aviation. If SOSUS detected the arrival of submarines for the dismantling of system objects - we fly to drown it. If they came to cover it with AUG, additional reconnaissance, then we take off with the whole crowd, we withdraw all our PLRK and go to war. Everything is within the radius of coastal aviation. If the enemy breaks one SOSUS line, we are fighting on the next. I think it will be very expensive to come to our shore. It's cheaper to negotiate. And coastal aviation is still needed, no one can doubt it, unlike AB. So let it be better for us to have powerful aviation than half measures in the form of a pair of ABs, which one way or another will not be able to significantly expand the security zone of our SSBNs, this is all half measures and self-deception.
            3. alstr
              alstr April 4 2018 21: 10
              +2
              We add that in the air defense system, the range was not 45 km, but 400.
              1. Rader
                Rader April 5 2018 01: 43
                +4
                Quote: alstr
                We add that in the air defense system, the range was not 45 km, but 400.


                And we add that the Earth as it was round, and remained (radio horizon, however ...). Over-the-horizon radars capable of stably providing target designation have not yet been created. Not so simple wink
                1. alstr
                  alstr April 5 2018 10: 14
                  +1
                  About TsU this is a separate song.
                  However, I meant that in the 60s the missile range for a missile system was 75 km maximum. This is for the S-75 and for high-altitude targets. Actually - a maximum of 30-40 km, and in the Kyrgyz Republic - somewhere around 20 km.
                  Now the S-400 with various missiles has a range of up to 400 km (this is natural for a high-altitude target), but actually up to 100-150 km. And in the presence of an external control unit and corresponding missiles up to 300. That is, only air defense systems can decently close a zone up to 200-300 km from the coast.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    April 5 2018 12: 25
                    +2
                    Quote: alstr
                    .e. only air defense systems can decently close a zone up to 200-300 km from the coast.

                    Yeah. Within the radio horizon - and after it do what you want
                    1. alstr
                      alstr April 5 2018 12: 52
                      +1
                      If you are not in the know, but already shoot for the horizon.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 5 2018 14: 29
                        +4
                        Quote: alstr
                        If you are not in the know, but already shoot for the horizon.

                        No, don’t shoot yet :)
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 3 2018 19: 30
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Odoloks with ICBMs do not have to leave the coastal cover zone

          And you do not know that ICBMs are doomsday weapons? Unlike aircraft carriers.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 3 2018 17: 21
      +2
      Quote: Kars
      As it became possible to launch ICBMs at a distance of more than 14 thousand kilometers, it was worth ending the arms race at least twenty years later. The aircraft carriers were definitely not needed.

      The problem is that in addition to ICBMs and SLBMs, the enemy still has a large number of SLCM carriers. And to intercept their carriers before reaching the launch range or intercept the already launched SLCMs, air defense / anti-aircraft defense lines are needed at sea. So even after increasing the flight range of the SLBM AB air defense system, they will not remain idle.
      1. Kars
        Kars April 3 2018 17: 57
        +9
        I don’t see the problem, if the ICBMs go, then the winged ones will be the least problem.
        In fact, they drove Kuznetsov to Syria, he did not pay back the costs of his trip.
        The United States does not send its aircraft carriers out of business because of the industrial lobby and because it prints dollars. There are no one else to measure aircraft carriers. There are not many of the same tomahawks besides the United States. So a guaranteed nuclear strike against the United States provided peace. Nothing else. And the sense of chasing aug is simply absent.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 3 2018 18: 00
          +7
          Quote: Kars
          US does not send its aircraft carriers for scrap because of the industrial lobby

          :))) The opinion is as widespread as it is not confirmed by anything other than the holy confidence uttering it :)
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 37
            0
            Andrey, so ruin our opinion if you have arguments other than baseless statements that we all have no arguments, and yours are where the arguments are, they aren’t!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 4 2018 00: 23
              +6
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Andrey, so destroy our opinion

              Vladimir, the burden of proof lies with the assertion. If you claim that the United States build aircraft carriers because of the industrial lobby - be so kind as to prove it.
              Instead, you make an unsubstantiated statement, and I have to refute it? :)))
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 10: 42
                0
                https://regnum.ru/news/2213492.html
                https://er.ru/news/161172/
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 4 2018 11: 05
                  +7
                  In these links you wrote that the military-industrial lobby in the opinion of the Russian parliament (!!!) is interested in the confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation in order to obtain profits from the supply of arms.
                  Firstly, this is an opinion, not a proof, and secondly, what does this opinion have to do with aircraft carriers?
                  Vladimir, not only are you a liar ("five thick monographs", huh) so you also have obvious problems with logic. The fact that the US military-industrial complex benefits from having a strong enemy of the Americans does not prove that the US aircraft carriers are inefficient and are built solely as a result of lobbying
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 3 2018 18: 29
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          I don’t see the problem, if the ICBMs go, then the winged ones will be the least problem.

          You do not understand. In the situation "the Navy provides defense for 200-300 km from the coast," the United States will be able to shift to the SLCM the task of hitting coastal targets, freeing the assigned ICBM and SLBM warheads and redirecting them to other targets.
          Quote: Kars
          In fact, they drove Kuznetsov to Syria, he did not pay back the costs of his trip.

          Judging normal AVs by Kuznetsov is the same as evaluating a Mercedes based on a trip of a 30-year-old Lada that has not been repaired since the purchase. smile
          Quote: Kars
          The United States does not send its aircraft carriers because of the industrial lobby and because they print dollars.

          The United States does not send its aircraft carriers into the wreck because there is no more universal means of war at sea. After the end of the Cold War, the deck groups shrank to the only option, and in 70-80 for each of the ABs there were 3-4 standard wing compositions: a pair of shock, anti-submarine and shock-anti-submarine. The AUGs at that time were intended both for breaking through the Soviet “bastions”, and for covering the transfer of forces across the Atalantic (PLO + Air Defense), and for traditionally gaining air supremacy and processing the landing zone of marines (after which the tasks of air support were transferred to Marines aviation).
          1. Kars
            Kars April 3 2018 20: 02
            +5
            I think if Moscow is struck by the Minuteman, it’s not a big difference that it’s not very important with coastal targets. And the attack on coastal targets of the Russian Federation should strike, massed in the USA, there is no other answer ..

            Well, there would be Russian Ulyanovsk off the coast of Syria, what would change?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 4 2018 10: 59
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              I think if Moscow is struck by the Minuteman, it’s not a big difference that it’s not very important with coastal targets. And the attack on coastal targets of the Russian Federation should strike, massed in the USA, there is no other answer ..

              The difference is that in the variant with a joint strike (SLCM and ICBMs), MSB ICBMs will arrive even for those purposes for which they simply were not enough for ICBMs in terms of impact. Simply put, connecting to an SLCM strategic strike is a couple of hundreds of released MBM / SLBM warheads that can be distributed over additional targets.
              Quote: Kars
              Well, there would be Russian Ulyanovsk off the coast of Syria, what would change?

              If it was an AB that went through all the planned repairs and with a trained team, then we would get a second Khmeimim. Yes, and with aircraft AWACS.
              I wrote about30-year-old "Lada" not repaired since the purchase". AB is obliged to repair 25-30% of the service life - otherwise it will not be AB, but a floating aircraft carrier barge, the crew of which will be occupied mainly not with combat training, but with troubleshooting.
              We do not have a formidable aircraft carrier, we have a springboard for flying achievements, from time to time giving the course and occasionally providing flights of naval aviation with even more rarely working radio equipment.
              We do not have an aircraft carrier, we have a barge with individual randomly preserved radio-electronic elements that will require tens of millions and many months to recover, and we represent the division commander to the admiral, and the commander of the ship breaks into the General Staff Academy instead of procuring rusks.
              © attributed to Admiral Radzevsky
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 April 3 2018 21: 04
            +9
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In the situation of “the Navy providing defense at 200-300 km from the coast,” the United States will be able to shift to SLCM the task of hitting coastal targets, freeing the assigned ICBM and SLBM warheads and forwarding them to other targets.

            It will be in any case, even if we have AB. Because under no circumstances can I imagine that our Russian AUG would go further in the event of a major war than coastal aircraft can fly. She will not go to the Atlantic. For fear of being defeated. Yes, it will be defeated, it will be torn together by all the NATO fleets, coastal aviation from Norway and Iceland, several US AUGs, US and UK submarines. The crowd will crush.
            In the event of a major war, our AUG will cut circles within the range of coastal aviation and will essentially be a mobile airfield with a reinforcement group of this coastal aviation. That is, even if we have an aircraft carrier, the range of our stable control of the water area is still determined by the radius of action of the coastal Su-27 with air-to-air suspension. Avik will simply provide some variation in flight directions, which is very narrow for coastal aircraft. But going far from the coast will be suicide.
            Either our aircraft carriers should be no less than American, but I do not believe in fairy tales.
            1. alstr
              alstr April 4 2018 21: 15
              +2
              I would say even more than that. The only theater where the use of our AUG is possible is the Pacific Ocean, because on other theater, the AUG is destroyed by coastal aviation.
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 34
          +2
          that's right, that's it
        4. Operator
          Operator April 3 2018 20: 34
          -1
          Quote: Kars
          winged ones will be the least problem

          SLCMs will click like Yak-130 seeds.
      2. Dam
        Dam April 4 2018 01: 59
        +2
        I still do not see any contradictions. At the launch of the SLCM, ICBMs will enter the business and the arrival of the Arctic fox cannot be avoided.
  3. Alex_59
    Alex_59 April 3 2018 15: 56
    +3
    The American submarine fleet was quite numerous, but nevertheless the multipurpose nuclear submarines, rather, supplemented the capabilities of the ASG in terms of anti-submarine defense, and also solved the problem of destroying the Soviet SSBNs in those areas where the U.S. carrier-based aircraft could not establish their dominance.
    It’s hard to agree with this. The operational experience of Ka-25 and IL-38 shows that aviation for establishing primary contact with submarines is not very effective and at the same time very expensive. That's when you need to take contact and arrange a persecution, drive the already discovered submarine that is trying to break away. Then aviation is indispensable.
    But the task of destroying enemy surface ships before the destroyers and cruisers was practically not posed, the deck installations of the anti-ship Harpoons were a very situational weapon for them, just in case.
    And by the way, before the appearance of Harpoon (1972), the US surface fleet did not have any weapons at all to fight enemy ships, except for artillery. Well, carrier-based aviation.
    only if they can be adapted to take-off from the springboard, and the Yak-44 has the same effect
    The network has a video landing E-2 on a US aircraft carrier, shot from the tower. The E-2 sits down, dampens the speed, breaks off the finisher cable and rolls forward, behind the corner runway. It disappears from sight, having gone below deck level. Few seconds. A look is waiting for spray from a fallen plane ... But it reappears at a distance, with a tortoise speed and some kind of wild pitch angle pulling up. Flaps naturally released completely. Those. he took off even without a springboard. But this is so by the way.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 3 2018 17: 34
      +3
      Quote: Alex_59
      And by the way, before the appearance of Harpoon (1972), the US surface fleet did not have any weapons at all to fight enemy ships, except for artillery. Well, carrier-based aviation.

      EMNIP, in Tsushima wrote that the "harpoons" began to be developed to combat the first-generation Soviet anti-ship missiles ("folding beds"), which needed to surface to launch SLCMs (not anti-ship missiles, namely SLCMs). So the Yankees needed weapons to nail down the submarines at the stage of preparing the KR for launch.
    2. andrewkor
      andrewkor April 3 2018 17: 36
      +4
      In case of trouble with the aerofinisher, the afterburner automatically turns on. And in your example, a circus number with the highest pilot professionalism!
      1. NN52
        NN52 April 3 2018 20: 36
        +1
        andrewkor
        Nothing automatically turns on there ... Everything on the pilot ...
        When touching the deck, the pilot gives the engine speed to the MAXIMUM position, in case of breakdown of the air finisher ...
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2018 18: 02
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      It’s hard to agree with this. The operational experience of the Ka-25 and IL-38 shows that aviation for establishing primary contact with submarines is not very effective and at the same time very expensive.

      I, probably, incorrectly formulated. It was a question of the fact that the nuclear submarines in the US Navy were not the main force of the fleet, but had a clearly defined PLO function, thereby supplementing the ASG as the main force of the fleet, which, however, did not solve the problems of the PLO independently drinks
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 39
        0
        oh bent the phrase ..... translate ...
    4. Antares
      Antares April 3 2018 23: 36
      +3
      Quote: Alex_59
      The network has a video landing E-2 on a US aircraft carrier, shot from the tower. The E-2 sits down, dampens the speed, breaks off the finisher cable and rolls forward, behind the corner runway. It disappears from sight, having gone below deck level. Few seconds. A look is waiting for spray from a fallen plane ... But it reappears at a distance, with a tortoise speed and some kind of wild pitch angle pulling up. Flaps naturally released completely. Those. he took off even without a springboard. But this is so by the way.

    5. Photon
      Photon April 4 2018 02: 12
      +3
      As I understand it, he barely took off, and this with the almost exhausted fuel supply. Those. with full weight he would hardly take off
    6. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 4 2018 09: 40
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      And by the way, before the appearance of Harpoon (1972), the US surface fleet did not have any weapons at all to fight enemy ships, except for artillery. Well, carrier-based aviation.

      Actually, there was also Talos air defense system, which had the ability to work on surface targets.
  4. Serge Gorely
    Serge Gorely April 3 2018 16: 11
    +6
    Russia during World War I threw more money into battleships than into all land artillery. The result - the soldiers died from the German "suitcases", and the lads - a sailor from idleness and under coke, prepared the rrrevolution. Now, instead of battleships, aircraft carriers?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 3 2018 18: 02
      +3
      Quote: Serge Gorely
      Russia during World War I threw more money into battleships than into all land artillery.

      The cost of one Sevastopol LC is 37 million in gold (including the cost of spare guns and a second BC). The cost of one LC "Empress Maria" ("pure") is 27-29 million in gold.
      In total, the total cost of the Empire’s LC was about 270 million rubles.
      For comparison: 32 203 mm Schneider howitzers cost 2,362 million rubles.
      And for the reconstruction of the fortress system Voenved requested almost 500 million.
      Quote: Serge Gorely
      The result - the soldiers died from the German "suitcases", and the lads - a sailor from idleness and under the coke prepared rrrevolution.

      The soldiers died from German suitcases because someone smart from the army gave the order in 1910: to abolish the Warsaw SD, to tear down or blow up the fortifications, leaving only Novogeorgievsk fortress. And after 3 years, when the forts were already disarmed and partially blown up, he gave a countersign - unstick dumplings, smoke into the pipe, firewood to the original, we begin to restore SD.
      By the way, the army was the driving force of the revolution — from General Alekseev to soldiers of the reserve regiments.
      Quote: Serge Gorely
      Now, instead of battleships, aircraft carriers?

      You can not cost AB. Then the soldiers will die from the Tomahawks.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 42
        +1
        it’s better not to build an AB and tomahawks to shoot down C400, how many of them can be done instead of AB? and by the way how and how and how many tomahawks can bring down AV? What isn’t it better than C400?
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 3 2018 20: 48
          +3
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and by the way how and how and how many tomahawks can bring down AV? What isn’t it better than C400?

          If the carriers of the Tomahawks are drowned, then they will not fly anywhere.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 21: 22
            +1
            submarines are very effective for slashing ax carriers, they need more
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 April 3 2018 22: 40
              +3
              Quote: vladimir1155
              axes are very effective for stowing ax carriers

              The Germans tried to get around the submarine. Not that to no avail, but it turned out that they alone are not enough.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 10: 44
                0
                very productive, for example, low income, but failure, it rests on the economy and the number of submarines
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 April 4 2018 19: 40
                  +3
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  very productive, for example

                  Really effective - ditch the passenger liner.
              2. alstr
                alstr April 4 2018 21: 26
                +2
                However, then it was necessary to go no further than 10 km for the shot and emerge to the periscope depth.

                Now, to launch anti-ship missiles, you need to approach 500-1000 km. True, the control center is needed, but for this there is now a bunch of tools ranging from UAVs to satellites and ZRLS.
                And if we take into account the nuclear nuclear weapons presented, then the distance increases significantly.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 April 4 2018 23: 22
                  +1
                  Quote: alstr
                  Now, to launch anti-ship missiles, you need to approach 500-1000 km. True, the control center is needed, but for this there is now a bunch of tools ranging from UAVs to satellites and ZRLS.

                  That's just the means of anti-submarine defense are also being improved. Yes, and the combat radius of surface ships, too.
                  1. alstr
                    alstr April 5 2018 07: 00
                    +3
                    Not a single surface ship will detect submarines beyond 100 km. And the sensors discharged from the air have a significantly smaller detection radius of the submarine (while the moving submarine).
                    Therefore, to create a network capable of detecting submarines with a 100% probability of failure, because just the perimeter is just huge and it needs a huge number of sensors.
                    At the same time, it is very difficult to detect submarines in a drift underwater. To do this, you need to use active acoustics and the range of this detection will be less than the range of the torpedo.

                    So now, with the presence of TS, the submarine will win.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 April 5 2018 19: 15
                      0
                      Quote: alstr
                      Not a single surface ship will detect submarines beyond 100 km.

                      And for 100 km this ship will have a chance to repulse launched missiles. Missile defense systems also do not stand still, so the closer you shoot, the better. And the question remains with target designation, which someone should provide.
          2. Dam
            Dam April 4 2018 02: 03
            +3
            It’s not funny, but drowning them with hypersonic daggers is much cheaper and more effective than any AV fleet
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 4 2018 13: 44
              +2
              Quote: Damm
              It’s not funny, but drowning them with hypersonic daggers is much cheaper and more effective than any AV fleet

              Try to sink the "Daggers" the largest carrier SLCM - SSGN type "Ohio" with 154 "tomahawks" on board. smile
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 4 2018 11: 03
          +4
          Quote: vladimir1155
          it’s better not to build an AB and tomahawks to shoot down C400, how many of them can be done instead of AB?

          You can’t tell me the range of the S-400 along the KR in the PMV? wink And then all these 300-400-500 km are given for purposes flying at sky-high altitudes.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and by the way how and how and how many tomahawks can bring down AV? What isn’t it better than C400?

          On AB there is a bunch of fighter-aircraft AWACS. For which the radio horizon is an order of magnitude further than that of ship and ground radars - due to the greater height of the antenna above sea level. The same naval air defense systems, including the S-300F, operate along the SLCM / RCC on the PMV no further than 40 km - they simply do not see them further. Actually, this is precisely why the admirals demanded AB - since the air defense systems could not cover the ship’s connection.
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 4 2018 11: 11
            +1
            A colleague, a horizon and low-flying missiles - this is too difficult for the author of five monographs laughing Of course, he will now remember about land-based AWACS ... Which in the event of war the army will take over in full force, and the fleet will have to suck a finger without AWACS.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 4 2018 14: 01
              +2
              Quote: arturpraetor
              Which in the event of war, the army will take over in full force, and the fleet will have to suck a finger without AWACS.

              I have a big suspicion that the Navy wanted a full-fledged AB, including in order to acquire its own private AWACS aircraft. smile
              And yes, I really want to look at the missile guidance process without an active seeker for an invisible target - according to data from an AWACS aircraft. smile
              1. arturpraetor
                arturpraetor April 4 2018 14: 16
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                I have a big suspicion that the Navy wanted a full-fledged AB, including in order to acquire its own private AWACS aircraft.

                Not only you hi Either the fleet has its own untouchable AWACS aircraft, or the fleet will not receive them at all in case of conflict. What is there - even in peacetime is not a fact ...
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And yes, I really want to look at the missile guidance process without an active seeker for an invisible target - according to data from an AWACS aircraft.

                There is another question - and for an adequate target designation of naval systems, AWACS aircraft are suitable? I somehow doubt it.
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 1 June 2018 20: 44
              0
              Needless to say, you need to use shore-based drills and make them bigger, and for this, abandon the stupid idea of ​​building AB
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 20: 08
        0
        I counted by your numbers, instead of just one battleship, it was possible to make 392 large-caliber Schneider howitzers (which were not enough three-inch), and instead of 4 battleships, 1571 small-sized howitzers of Schneider were obtained ..... I am waiting for the figures at a cost of C 400, and the estimated cost of AB in 1200000 tons of displacement with a new dock for it, the calculator is ready ...
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse April 3 2018 23: 06
          +4
          In general, it can be recalled that the then Minister of Defense Sukhomlinov did not even manage to use the money allocated for the shells before the war. For which, in fact, he was dismissed in 1915. To argue that there should have been much more unused money was somehow ridiculous.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 5 2018 18: 51
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          I calculated by your numbers, instead of just one battleship, it was possible to make 392 large-caliber Schneider howitzers (which were not enough three-inch), and instead of 4 battleships, 1571 Schneider howitzer howitzer is obtained ....

          Who will expose in an open field and will marvel at them. smile
          No, it is necessary to compare the comparable - since the battleship cannons move themselves, then the guns must also be considered with delivery vehicles. That is, you need to compare the LC with the divisions of howitzers / guns with all their equipment.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 23: 05
            +1
            Well, add 4 horsepower, oats and artillerymen ..... but then you still have to count coal, port infrastructure and personnel in the battleship ..... I assure you
        3. pacific
          pacific April 13 2018 04: 00
          0
          Where are you going to make them? In shipyards? Or do you think that factories making howitzers were idle while battleships were being built? As well as air defense systems in our time?
          Well and most importantly - where to make the rockets themselves? To build a new plant? Shipyards are not very suitable for this.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 13 2018 14: 19
            0
            the plant is very dependent on orders, if it’s not there, it’s bad for him, but if there is one, you can 1 work in two or three shifts, 2 expand production, 3 upgrade equipment, 4 reprofile factories of a similar profile. Sure artillery factories did not work in three shifts and were interested in orders
      3. Serge Gorely
        Serge Gorely April 3 2018 21: 30
        +4
        The cost of battleships is far from basic. The associated costs (infrastructure, maintenance, repairs, etc.) did not try to consider? The abolition of ur-and what is it about? The troops simply lacked guns, and for the existing miserable lack of ammunition.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2018 18: 03
      +3
      Quote: Serge Gorely
      Russia in World War I threw more money into battleships than into all land artillery

      wassat fool Figures in the studio. Hunting laugh
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor April 3 2018 18: 25
        +4
        If facts contradict theory - this is a problem of facts laughing
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 20: 10
        0
        the numbers above, laugh
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 4 2018 00: 27
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          the numbers above, laugh

          Where?:)))
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 20: 01
      +2
      these battleships stood the whole war in the port, and there weren’t enough shells for field aryillery
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 April 3 2018 20: 54
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        these battleships stood the whole war in port

        They were written off as much in 1956. So they worked out their expenses with interest. As for the shells, the reason was not in the battleships, but in the incorrect calculations of their number in the upcoming war.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 21: 26
          +2
          Well, how did they work out the costs? if you never fought, although there were two world wars? One day he left Batumi and shot in Kerch and all, One was written off before the war, Stalin did not give any money for the nonsense (repair of the battleship). The third was bombed right in Kronstadt, then it was considered a floating battery .... where are the spent costs?
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 April 3 2018 22: 46
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            if you never fought, although there were two world wars

            They fought in the Second World War more than once. In the Soviet-Finnish too. And in WWI no one was going to conduct offensive operations at sea.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            The third was bombed right in Kronstadt, then it was considered a floating battery

            That is, it was actively used throughout the blockade, although not as intended.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 10: 47
              +1
              the use of a battleship, for shooting with one weapon in gostilitsky swamps without target designation, in areas? yes it would be better if the company of tanks have an additional
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA April 4 2018 14: 04
                +3
                Quote: vladimir1155
                the use of a battleship, for shooting with one weapon in gostilitsky swamps without target designation, in areas? yes it would be better if the company of tanks have an additional

                No difference. Those who were able to organize the shooting of the Civil Code of LK without adjustment will send the tanks to attack without infantry and artillery preparation for uncharted defense - with a predictable end.
                Actually, in the same regions, but a little closer to the Federal Law, in such an attack in October 1941, not just a company was dismantled, but a full-blooded tank brigade in the KV. Researchers have been linking her broken tanks from German photos to the area for about 10 years.
                So usefulness or futility does not depend on technology, but on the people who use it.
              2. Dart2027
                Dart2027 April 4 2018 19: 41
                0
                Quote: vladimir1155
                the use of a battleship, for shooting with one weapon in gostilitsky swamps without target designation, in areas?

                Will the source be?
              3. pacific
                pacific April 13 2018 04: 05
                +1
                for shooting with one gun Gostilitsky swamps ....? yes it would be better if the company of tanks have an additional

                A company of tanks in the swamps! lol
                Yes, you are a genius of strategy and tactics!
                For excellent Hochma, I put you +!
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 13 2018 14: 21
                  0
                  I worked at a logging just in these swamps, there are dry driveways, fields, Swamps do not go all together. and in winter it is possible to organize movement through wetlands, while timber trucks passed
                  1. pacific
                    pacific April 13 2018 15: 08
                    +1
                    Do not confuse production with prepared defense.
                    I hope you read about the dowels? Where do you think the Germans organized them? And there are mines, minefields and other engineering barriers ..
                    Now the question is: how long will a tank company last under such circumstances?
                    You only want to hypothetically build it - without sappers, artillery and infantry.
                    And I still don’t understand why you want to destroy the already built battleship? After all, all the KBF LCs were built in 1909-1915. Then tanks in nature did not exist.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 4 2018 11: 10
            +2
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Well, how did they work out the costs? if you never fought, although there were two world wars?

            As I understand it, you safely forgot about the 3 LC Black Sea Fleet in WWI? smile
            Quote: vladimir1155
            One day he came out of Batumi and shot in Kerch and all

            Yeah ... "shot once."
            During the fighting from November 1941 to March 1942, the battleship traveled 7700 miles, having consumed 1159-mm, 305-mm and more than 1169 anti-aircraft shells.
            Despite the absence of combat damage, the battleship was in need of serious repair: six of the 305-mm guns had cracked trunks at the muzzle, and at some ends of the trunks were torn off, the resource of the guns (250 battle shots per barrel) was completely used up.
  5. andrewkor
    andrewkor April 3 2018 17: 33
    +1
    "There is no sadder story in the world ...."
  6. Yak28
    Yak28 April 3 2018 17: 43
    +3
    A good article, an aircraft carrier thing is certainly necessary, especially with aggressive politics (and it should be so). For example, we would have aircraft carriers off the coast of Syria, everything is better than without them. But if we take into account that Russia does not have the technology and experience in building large aircraft carriers like the United States, we’re unlikely to build aircraft carriers with them, at least pieces 3 to build 100 years will be needed.
  7. Operator
    Operator April 3 2018 17: 45
    +9
    All the arguments of the supporters of the construction of domestic aircraft carriers are untenable:

    1) "without air cover under the dominance of aviation by a probable enemy, we will not be able to ensure the combat deployment of our submarines with both ballistic missiles and multipurpose ones" - we will not be able to ensure their deployment with air cover as well, as we will not be able to ensure quantitative parity of surface ships , and let SSBNs swim within the "bastions";

    2) “without the fighter cover, the successful operation of coastal missile, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation is impossible” - missile aviation operates without fighter cover (its range exceeds the range of fighters), reconnaissance is currently presented by UAVs, instead of anti-submarine it is required to create hydrophone fields on our shelf ;

    3) "without fighter cover, more or less acceptable combat stability of large ships is impossible" - there are no large ships, there is no problem.

    The general line in the construction of the fleet should be directed to Poseidon unmanned aerial vehicles with unlimited range, overseas Container radars with a range of detection of 6000 km surface ships and 3000 km aircraft and the Dagger aircraft-missile complex with a range of over 2000 km

    Against the background of this asymmetric response, any aircraft carrier is a trough with bolts bully
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2018 18: 10
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      All arguments of the supporters of the construction of domestic aircraft carriers are untenable

      The operator started his record, not noticing that the article was actually about the need for AB in the USSR :)))
      1. NN52
        NN52 April 3 2018 20: 40
        +3
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk

        The operator started a gramophone ..
      2. Dam
        Dam April 4 2018 02: 13
        +5
        And in the USSR this was not particularly necessary. You can’t try to combine fencing and freestyle wrestling skills at the same high level. In the USSR, at the time of Ch +4, we went out to the English Channel. And then the USA had nothing to protect, Europe was ending. And the amer’s desire to arrange a complete arctic fox was somehow not observed either then or now. (Kim wonders over with dozens of old warheads as he wants). So, in response to the SDI and the deployment of the Pershing, it was necessary to end up with possible locations for them, and not play in the INF Treaty. The USSR did not have such tasks as grandiose naval battles and ABs were not needed on this basis.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 4 2018 11: 45
          +1
          Quote: Damm
          In the USSR, at the time of Ch +4, we went out to the English Channel.

          H + 4? belay We don’t know something, and in the USSR invented supersonic tanks?
          Quote: Damm
          And the desire to arrange a complete arctic fox among the amers was somehow not observed either then or now.

          Then the president of the United States, before the traditional Saturday radio address, allowed himself jokes in the style of:
          My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
          My compatriots are Americans, I am pleased to inform you today that I signed a decree declaring Russia outlawed forever. The bombing will begin in five minutes.

          And his subordinates imitated the attack, choosing one of the Soviet Kuril Islands as the target. There was no desire at all, yes ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 3 2018 18: 31
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      2) "without fighter cover, the successful operation of coastal missile, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation is impossible" - missile aircraft operate without fighter cover (its range exceeds the range of fighters)

      This problem has already been solved in another way - the MPA has been abolished, no one else needs to be covered.
      Seriously, the actions of MRA without fighter cover - this is the new Helgoland or the massacre of Dvinsky. How many do not include EW aircraft in the regiments, but against normal fighter aircraft, and even with an external command center, this will not help.
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 44
      +1
      everything is clear and logical Operator! I support
  8. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor April 3 2018 18: 01
    +3
    You know how to sketch, dear colleague laughing Here, like about aircraft carriers, the srachs subsided, but no - a new topic, a new round! Topvar will live! drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2018 18: 11
      +1
      Quote: arturpraetor
      You know how to sketch, dear colleague

      Oto-zh :)))) It’s just that Kuznetsov’s turn came along the cycle of a sad look, so would he not?
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor April 3 2018 18: 19
        +5
        Just about aircraft carriers on the topwar (and not only on the topwar) - this is more about the issue of faith. If facts and scientific research contradict someone’s faith, then these are problems of facts and research. request And the funniest thing is in many ways a trait of Russians. Among the acquaintances of Ukrainians and Belarusians, I did not notice any rejection of the aircraft carriers. It seems that, unconsciously, some particularly ardent opponents of aircraft carriers understand their capabilities and necessity, but for decades their role has been denied almost at the official level, which has resulted in Russia's fierce lag behind the rest of the world in terms of carrier-based aviation, but to admit that Russia is in something inferior to someone? Yes, not a joke laughing It is better to stubbornly deny the need for such a thing in principle.

        PS Oh, I feel like they’ll attack me now ... I especially look forward to supporters of the galley-submarine fleet))
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 47
          +1
          The Russian Federation has no lag in carrier-based aviation; there are beautiful airplanes; they are on the body and fly too, but they are few, why not enough? Because we don’t need it, it’s better to do front-line aviation and long-range, and IL76, and they are doing it, but more
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 4 2018 09: 45
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            The Russian Federation has no lag in carrier-based aviation, there are beautiful airplanes, they are on the body and fly too

            Yeah, they fly, but no longer than 45 minutes. But wonderful.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 4 2018 11: 36
              +1
              Quote: Snakebyte
              Yeah, they fly, but no longer than 45 minutes.

              Why do you think so?
              1. Snakebyte
                Snakebyte April 4 2018 15: 24
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Why do you think so?

                The limit on take-off weight from the springboard is 28000 kg. An empty Su-33 weighs 19600 kg. With a minimum load of 20440 kg (2 × P-27 + 2 × P-73). In total, 7500 kg remains for fuel (the main refueling option is 5350 kg, but we consider it to the maximum). The minimum fuel reserve allowed by safety rules is 3000 kg. In total, 4500 kg remains for everything from take-off to landing, including manipulations on the deck.
                And if you take more rockets? Accordingly, the fuel supply drops.
                This is confirmed by real flights. During the training campaign in 2012, carrier-based fighter aircraft performed 150 flights, the time spent in the air was more than 120 hours. On average - 45 minutes per flight.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 4 2018 15: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Snakebyte
                  The limit on take-off weight from the springboard is 28000 kg.

                  From the first and second positions. On the third - no.
                  Quote: Snakebyte
                  The minimum fuel reserve allowed by safety rules is 3000 kg.

                  Sorry, but this is some kind of fantasy - there are no such minimum allowable reserves. You are clearly mistaken.
                  1. Snakebyte
                    Snakebyte April 5 2018 09: 26
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    From the first and second positions. On the third - no.

                    From the third position, you can simultaneously raise one side. If you start only with her, the time of lifting the air group will increase significantly.
                    And, if the facts of real application are not satisfied, I recommend looking for shots of the Su-33 take-off from the springboard with all the impressive array of weapons with which it showed off at exhibitions.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Sorry, but this is some kind of fantasy - there are no such minimum allowable reserves. You are clearly mistaken.

                    Navigational fuel supply for decks is always more than "land" 15-20%. In any case, I did not come across another figure.
                    Interestingly, shots of landing the Su-33 on a deck with suspensions are also extremely rare (I met only one with a 2xP-27). I suppose that this is due to the need to fit into the limitations on the strength of the deck.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 4 2018 11: 51
            +2
            Quote: vladimir1155
            The Russian Federation has no lag in carrier-based aviation; there are beautiful airplanes; they are on the body and fly too, but they are few, why not enough? I don’t need it,

            Deck planes are made in small quantities, because there are no decks for them. By the way, the deck cars are so "not needed" by the Russian Federation that in 2016 a second kiap was formed on the new MiG-29KR.

            We will not do deck aircraft, because there are no decks for them. And aircraft carriers do not need to be built. because deck cars don't. An ideal logical chain for opponents of AB. smile
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 April 4 2018 15: 25
              +2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              By the way, the deck cars are so "not needed" by the RF that in 2016 a second kiap was formed on the new MiG-29KR.

              A purely departmental decision aimed at saving the RSK MiG in the post "Poghosyansky" era. To form a second (!) Regiment under one aircraft carrier, while with machines of a completely different manufacturer, with which no one has yet worked with the Navy.
              As always, a complete mess. Have two types of decked aircraft !!! Even in the USA there is one type, and we have two. Plus, more coastal shelves get the Su-30. Class! To me, wretchedly, it occurs to me that in the Navy coastal-based vehicles should essentially be a reserve of carrier-based aircraft and, if necessary, must board AB?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA April 4 2018 19: 18
                +1
                Quote: Alex_59
                As always, a complete mess. Have two types of deck aircraft !!! Even in the USA there is one type, and we have two.

                There are already two in the USA - light and heavy.
                And before, there were generally 5 types of only fighters and attack aircraft.
                Quote: Alex_59
                To me, wretchedly, it occurs to me that in the Navy coastal-based vehicles should essentially be a reserve of carrier-based aircraft and, if necessary, must board AB?

                In the presence of a full AB - yes. And in the presence of a TAVKR with a springboard take-off, it is better not to ruin the coastal aircraft, landing it on machines capable of taking off from such a deck.
                Quote: Alex_59
                A purely departmental decision aimed at saving the RSK MiG in the post "Poghosyansky" era. To form a second (!) Regiment under one aircraft carrier, while with machines of a completely different manufacturer, with which no one has yet worked with the Navy.

                The reason for the decision on the MiG-29KR was different - it was cheaper to order for the fleet already produced mass-produced ship MiG-29, than to make a new ship machine of the Su line or restore the Su-33 production from scratch.
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 April 5 2018 12: 44
                  0
                  And before, there were generally 5 types of only fighters and attack aircraft.
                  We used to have a navy too. You never know what was there. Now there are two types on 10 aviks. We have 3 type on 2 avika. Charming.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And in the presence of a TAVKR with a springboard take-off, it is better not to ruin the coastal aircraft, landing it on machines capable of taking off from such a deck.
                  In the presence of a TAVKR with a springboard take-off, it is better to adopt the exact same aircraft as a carrier-based fighter-bomber, but without a hook and other quickly installed little things. So, if they knock out the entire carrier group of an aircraft carrier, it will be possible to replenish it with the same type of aircraft, already mastered by techies and pilots, with an existing reserve of spare parts. And when we roll out an air regiment on the MiG-29KR, what will we put there? Su-30 which are not intended for this? If you don’t want to live, do not want to be a MiG-29KR, then equip coastal aviation with the same type. Forget about Drying.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  The reason for the decision on the MiG-29KR was different - it was cheaper to order for the fleet already produced mass-produced ship MiG-29, than to make a new ship machine of the Su line or restore the Su-33 production from scratch.

                  And in this, too, but partly in the fact that the MiG was brought to a pen and it must be saved. Plus loomed the prospect of including MiG Indians again. And you need to show - they say we use them ourselves and in delight, fly, buy!
                  As for the Su-33, I think the oversized version of the Su-30, based on the existing backlog and experience on the Su-33, would have been done no longer than the MiG-29, the deck version of which was never in the series at all.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA April 5 2018 16: 37
                    +1
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    We used to have a navy too. You never know what was there. Now there are two types on 10 aviks. We have 3 type on 2 avika. Charming.

                    We have 2 types - Su-33 and MiG-29KR. Moreover, the Su-33 just finish off the resource. And the Su-25UTG is a dove of peace, a purely training machine.
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    In the presence of a TAVKR with a springboard take-off, it is better to adopt the exact same aircraft as a carrier-based fighter-bomber, but without a hook and other quickly installed little things. So, if they knock out the entire carrier group of an aircraft carrier, it will be possible to replenish it with the same type of aircraft, already mastered by techies and pilots, with an existing reserve of spare parts.

                    That is, to replace full-fledged multi-purpose vehicles — heavy Su-30SM with a dedicated weapon operator — in the Navy's MA with a single-seat MiG-29KR?
                    And most importantly - well, there will be the same cars on the coastal shelves to replace the ship ones. And where will we get replacement pilots from? A springboard take-off and landing on the finisher are some of the most difficult elements (even a catapult take-off is easier). And somehow you can’t master them. What - will we build a THREAD for all coastal regiments? wink
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    And in this, too, but partly in the fact that the MiG was brought to a pen and it must be saved. Plus loomed the prospect of including MiG Indians again. And you need to show - they say we use them ourselves and in delight, fly, buy!

                    Ahem ... EMNIP, just the Indians bought the MiG-29K first. And our Ministry of Defense has already "joined" the Indian order by ordering the MiG-29KR and MiG-29KUBR.
                    Why did you order the MiG-29KR? And because there were no alternatives - either already a serial MiG, or R&D + production of a new deck-based vehicle based on Su (and this is 3 years + costs are an order of magnitude higher). Given the venerable age of the Su-33, a replacement was urgently needed.
  9. exo
    exo April 3 2018 18: 16
    +1
    A good start. I look forward to continuing. Russia is not lucky with aircraft carriers. We are running in a vicious circle. And in fact, even with Kuznetsov you can still get a lot if you correctly conduct the modification.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 50
      +1
      I proposed to reduce the modification to VTG, it is still not really needed, but it should be in order, and the money was sent to the submarines (it’s clear to you that they are not enough), cheap and cheerful money on the bergov’s funds, “do not touch me”, let’s tell the enemy from the shore
  10. Old26
    Old26 April 3 2018 18: 46
    +1
    Andrew! A slight inaccuracy, or rather your typo
    A completely different matter is the situation when the domestic TAKR acts together with the RKR of Project 1164 Atlant and a couple of BOD. Together with the RKR, the TAKR could provide a 30-missile salvo, which would not have been to the taste of any AUG, while, when performing tasks PLO The “daggers” and “Daggers” of “Kuznetsov” would be supplemented with S-300F air defense systems, thereby forming a layered air defense. And vice versa, when performing tasks Defense, a pair of BOD with helicopters based on them would supplement the capabilities of the TAKR and could well guarantee the PLO of such a connection.

    Selected must be swapped
    Maybe I'm running ahead of the engine, but the question is about Kuznetsov, I heard that at the beginning of the last decade the launchers were removed due to some kind of accident related to the flooding of this space with fuel. Is it so. And the second question regarding Ulyanovsk (although this does not apply directly to the topic of the article). Somewhere in due time I read that it was planned to build THREE class ship "Ulyanovsk". Is this true or just rumors?

    Quote: Kars
    Attentively. Yaroslavna’s cry for aircraft carriers. The military did not give them all. There was no sense in them for the USSR. Submarines with ICBMs do not have to leave the coastal aviation cover zone to avoid the first nuclear strike.

    You do not take into account one important detail. During the R&D "Order", the Soviet nuclear submarines were equipped with the 2nd generation D-5 missile systems with the R-27 missile and a range of 3000 km and D-9 complexes with R-29 missiles and a range of 7800 km began to enter service. To be the first to block at least half of America, it was necessary to approach a distance of about 1000 km from the west coast of the United States. To achieve the same effect with the D-9 complexes, the boat had to approach approximately 2500 km to Hawaii? And you can find out how at a distance of 5,5-7 thousand kilometers in the first case and at a distance of 2,5-4 thousand kilometers in the second, you were going to cover it all with coastal aviation ???
    This is only later, with the entry into service of complexes of the 2nd and 4th generation it became possible to shoot either from the pier or near their waters ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 3 2018 19: 05
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Selected must be swapped

      yes, thanks, this is a typo. But changing is not easy - it is necessary to ask the moderators, I myself can’t. I will ask, of course
      Quote: Old26
      I heard that at the beginning of the last decade, launchers were removed due to some accident related to the flooding of this space with fuel. Is it so.

      Yes and no. In the sense that the launchers have remained in their place, but the possibility of launching the Granites has been lost, and most likely forever - in theory, everything can be repaired, but who will allocate money for this? request
      Quote: Old26
      Somewhere at one time I read that it was planned to build three Ulyanovsk-class ships. Is this true or just rumors?

      Hard to tell. Personally, I came across the number 4 :)
  11. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 19: 28
    +7
    Firstly, it’s good that Andrei continued the topic, thanks. Thank you for the detailed article and most importantly for the fact that the author tried to give alternative points of view. ….But,
    Firstly, as a man of science who published five thick monographs and three dozen scientific articles, I will immediately destroy Andrei’s main argument, a link to some kind of scientific research, an order that supposedly proved something there, to analyze this research, you should first know the assumptions and the reasons for it , evidence ... but they are not there, I know a little admiralty relations in the field of science, and my mother worked just 50 years ago in the science of the Navy and created military secrets, complained about squabbles and intrigues. Do I not know how to push anything with scientific sauce? The study of the Order could well be opportunistic, and was done for the pleasure of Gorshkov, and what can we say about 50 years ago, because we did not read it, and all this has long been outdated.
    Now about the high cost of coastal aviation .... well, when compared with the AB and its warrant .... it is very cheap. In addition, coastal aviation is universal and can operate on land and is not enough there.
    By the way, aviation since the Second World War began to lose to missile weapons, a living example of the Donbass where ALL aviation was completely destroyed by militias, and no longer crashes. Helicopters and helicopter carriers are all the more vulnerable. Comparing the effectiveness of AB, it is necessary to consider not only coastal Aviation as an alternative, but also coast-based missiles and submarines.
    Now, about the respected Amelko, who allegedly did not provide data. I personally question everything and try not to be a parrot reteller of other people's opinions, as a rule, inaccurate and subjective, but I'm used to thinking myself. And so I will post this data. It is clear that AB and any large NK is a slow and big target, and in the conditions of modern warfare with its precise target designation and advanced missile technology, it is very vulnerable. Its vulnerability is limited only by the number of missiles that the enemy does not feel sorry for her.
    The large ship is also limited by draft, Kuzya has only one berth in the entire Russian Navy.
    Finally, about the catapults and the AB in general, it is an extremely unreliable engineering system that is vicious, and there are problems with it everywhere, the American AVs have half the repair period, the French have already called the ship a catastrophe, and our Kuzya also created problems by its primacy. Wing…. constantly on all ABs it burns the deck, falls when landing in the sea, and it’s all calm, because they do not fly when agitated .... compare with all-weather coastal airfields. And this catapult is another problem, for the solution of which R&D, experiments, and production in a single copy, and then repair, are needed.
    Finally, you still need to go down from heaven to earth, in order to fully cover the AB ships, the Russian Federation simply does not have financial capabilities, why have an AB if there is no escort? And never will be. Yes, and l / s is not for them, yet the motorized infantry is more important than the NK.
    The Russian Federation is a land power, along the oceans of the taiga, and the seas are small sweep through from the coast, the Navy should consist of submarines, minesweepers, coastal assets, have several small peacetime frigates to solve local problems.
    Without any warrant, it is clear that enemy NKs can be destroyed efficiently by coastal means. AB is a weapon of aggression on foreign shores, costly, vulnerable, and unnecessary in the Russian Federation.
    Kuzyu, as a ship of prestige, can be kept in the Navy for another 25 years, and in case of war it can be used within the Barents Sea, and preferably the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, because the Sea of ​​Okhotsk can be closed to enemy submarines, and coastal airfields are not enough there.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 4 2018 00: 33
      +2
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Firstly, as a man of science who published five thick monographs and three dozen scientific articles, I will immediately destroy Andrei’s main argument

      Wow:)))
      Quote: vladimir1155
      I know a little admiralty relations in the field of science, and my mother worked just 50 years ago in the science of the Navy and created military secrets, complained about squabbles and intrigues. Do I not know how to push anything with scientific sauce? Research Order could well be market

      Vladimir, you have surpassed yourself. That is, the person who allegedly wrote "five thick monographs" refutes the results of the existing study on the basis that it "may be conjunctural"? laughing And this, in your refutation? :)))) Based on what mom said (in secret - intrigue and squabble is an integral part of any team, here science does not stand out)
      Vladimir, what other monographs? You have no idea about scientific methods :))))
      It’s just like that. The second - let’s say, the Order was conjunctural. But later researchers, over whom Gorshkov’s authority did not prevail, didn’t they notice this? Well, take the same Cousin with Nikolsky?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 10: 52
        0
        Kuzin didn’t read with Nikolsky, and laziness, because you draw conclusions from these writers, loaded your brain with other people's thoughts, (according to Ronald Bart read = load yourself with other people's errors), I judge by your views, because you deny the obvious, you did not bring any arguments, that means argumentation and they don’t have emotions, emotions, either .... who are Kuzin and Nikolsky to read them to me?
        1. Rakovor
          Rakovor April 4 2018 11: 22
          +4
          And who are you to listen to us here?))
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 4 2018 11: 25
            +6
            The author of five weighty monographs and many scientific articles, but you did not know? laughing Where so Kuzin and Nikolsky before him!
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 17: 24
            +1
            but I don’t make you obey me, what did you get?
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 4 2018 11: 42
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          ... who are Cousin and Nikolsky to read them to me?

          It’s just that graduates of the Dzerzhinsky VVMIOLU who defended their dissertations at the Grechko Naval Academy and worked at the 1st Central Research Institute of Defense laughing Well, think of it, also awarded government awards laughing Where are they up to such a thick troll ... that is, the author of five thick monographs like you laughing
        3. bugagich
          bugagich 9 May 2018 14: 50
          0
          and you read. amusing, I assure you ...
          http://bookre.org/reader?file=539633&pg=1
    2. Nehist
      Nehist April 4 2018 02: 39
      +2
      Dear land power has 60 thousand kilometers of the border, and 40 thousand of them if you have written (as many as 5 scientific papers) are not known to be sea. Regarding coastal airfields. Most of the maritime borders are located in hard-to-reach areas where the construction and maintenance of airdromes was not built too expensive for this, even in the USSR (which was able to orders of magnitude larger than today's Russia), but these borders were covered by ship groupings which now unfortunately do not exist. And those groups really lacked air cover. And yet, since the end of WWII, the effectiveness of aircraft carrier connections has not yet been refuted
      1. common man
        common man April 4 2018 07: 32
        +6
        Quote: Nehist
        and 40 thousand of them if you have written (as many as 5 scientific papers) it is not known are marine.

        This is all fine, but let's look at where are these sea borders? Baltic, Black and Caspian seas are sweeping. There the aircraft carrier has nothing to do. Borders along the NSR. How many discussions I discussed on the Avar Aviation Topwar, I did not meet the rationale for the possibility of using an aircraft carrier with steam catapults in the conditions of the Arctic. I would like to hear competent opinions. From the respected "Andrei from Chelyabinsk" in the first place. By the way, I did not hear something about Kuznetsov’s campaigns in the areas of the Kara Sea and the Northern Earth. More and more to the Mediterranean Sea, where in the case of a large sheer he will surely have a quick end. Far East. Air cover of the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka. There, the use of AUG seems to be something logical and justified. For some reason, only Kuznetsov is not there.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 11: 03
          0
          Kuzi has a problem that was not discussed here, it is not designed for a cold climate, so even in Murmansk the L / C is not comfortable, and of course the Sea of ​​Okhotsk would be more suitable for combat missions, I agree, but there is no berth and repair base there
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 4 2018 11: 48
          +1
          Quote: man in the street
          How many discussions I discussed on the Avar Aviation Topwar, I did not meet the rationale for the possibility of using an aircraft carrier with steam catapults in the conditions of the Arctic.

          Under the USSR, Americans were going to deploy their AB off the coast of Norway. That is, it looked like this - the AUS, clogged with planes, goes to the Norwegians, part of the planes flies and disperses to the Norwegian airfields, from there they work and the ABs themselves act as repair workshops, covered in three layers of air defense and air defense. If the Federation Council is trying to break into the Atlantic - AUS goes to the main battle.
          In these areas, the catapults operated without problems, then I don’t know. But the Americans did not plan to climb further.
          Quote: man in the street
          More and more to the Mediterranean Sea, where in the case of a large sheer he will surely have a quick end.

          Yes, but the meaning of our 5OPESK in the days of the USSR is not a victory, but the exchange of oneself for the 6th US fleet, and from this perspective it made a lot of sense.
          1. common man
            common man April 4 2018 15: 17
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            and the ABs themselves act as remaster workshops, covered in three layers of PLO and air defense.

            That says it all? It recalled how Kuzya approached Syria, the planes drove to Khmeimim ... It wouldn’t be easier for the Amers to simply fly planes to Norway, even from the states, even from Germany, etc. and work from there in our North? And this is next to warm Norway and in the summer most likely. And let them try in the Salekhard area, and on Polar Night. Then we'll see.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 4 2018 16: 28
              +1
              Quote: man in the street
              It wouldn’t be easier for amers to simply fly planes to Norway, even from the states, even from Germany, etc. and work from there in our North?

              not easier. The most unpretentious Hornet requires 25 man-hours of service for one hour of flight. An aircraft carrier - this is ammunition, and fuel, and thousands of personnel, and equipment, and materials ... and all this is so easy not to throw it on the continent. Especially in times of conflict, when all transport aircraft and ships are involved in the transportation of ground forces from the United States to Europe
              In addition, the AUS can go to sea and give battle to the SF breaking through to the Atlantic, but land aviation is unlikely.
              Quote: man in the street
              And this is next to warm Norway and in the summer most likely.

              In any season. Sorry, the problems with icing the catapult are so far-fetched ....
              Quote: man in the street
              And let them try in the Salekhard area, and on Polar Night. Then we'll see.

              You see, the enemy must be killed where he came. Where he is not there, he cannot be killed, even if you really want him to be there :)))))
              1. common man
                common man April 4 2018 17: 00
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                An aircraft carrier - this is ammunition, and fuel, and thousands of personnel, and equipment, and materials ... and all this is so easy not to throw on the continent

                There are at least 7 air force bases in Norway. And they will not replace a pair of AB (in the role of repair shops)?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 4 2018 18: 34
                  0
                  Quote: man in the street
                  There are at least 7 air force bases in Norway.

                  On which land-based aircraft are deployed, and some of which will be destroyed with the outbreak of conflict
                  1. common man
                    common man April 4 2018 19: 17
                    0
                    Sorry, it's hard to discuss with you, you are stubborn. In your opinion, all the land will be destroyed quickly and categorically. Only AB are immortal.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 4 2018 20: 50
                      +3
                      Quote: man in the street
                      Sorry, it's hard to discuss with you, you are stubborn.

                      Nah, it's hard to discuss with me, because I am well arguing my position.
                      Quote: man in the street
                      In your opinion, all the land will be destroyed quickly and categorically.

                      Firstly, it’s not about being “quick and peremptory,” but about the fact that the staff in Norway is sufficient to support Norwegian aviation, as well as the NATO air forces deployed there. In general, maintenance services are not rubber, in my opinion it is easy to understand. Secondly, yes, stationary targets with known coordinates in advance, such as the air force base, are much easier to destroy than a mobile one like AB. This is actually an axiom why it causes you to burn a stool - I do not understand.
                      Quote: man in the street
                      Only AB are immortal.

                      ABs are not immortal, but in order to kill them in the XNUMXth century, it is highly desirable to have your own ABs. Just the case when against scrap ...
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 07: 48
                        +1
                        nonsense, even direct hits at ground bases do not always lead to failure, and they are well protected, can be relatively easily restored, air defense is still there, most of the coastal equipment is mobile and its location in the forest is almost impossible to determine .... it’s just drowning, and it’s moving slowly, it can’t be hidden at all
                      2. bugagich
                        bugagich 9 May 2018 15: 11
                        0
                        I remember that I read at Polmar that the construction of the SuperAV states (future Germans) was preceded by a storm of disputes, including in Congress at a cost. they conducted research and it turned out that the equivalent coastal base costs exactly the same penny as the controversial “superAW”. this is subject to all costs.
                        but unlike ground bases, AB was also mobile. which meant, among other things, that in theory he could replace more than one ground base.
                        which, among other things, prompted the states to build such monsters ...
                  2. alstr
                    alstr April 5 2018 07: 30
                    +2
                    In fact, in this case, most of the SF will be destroyed with this logic, because all berths are located in the area of ​​the Kyrgyz Republic and Aviation missiles.
                    But what's there - part of the berths is stupidly located within the range of the long-range MLRS. Just look how many kilometers are from the border to Murmansk.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 5 2018 12: 23
                      +2
                      Quote: alstr
                      In fact, in this case, most of the SF will be destroyed with this logic, because all berths are located in the area of ​​the Kyrgyz Republic and Aviation missiles.

                      That is why, with the threat of war, both ships and planes were withdrawn from their base. Aircraft dispersed over jump airfields, ships at sea
                      1. alstr
                        alstr April 5 2018 12: 57
                        0
                        Then why do you think that the Opponent will not do this (this is about planes destroyed at the bases)?
                      2. Town Hall
                        Town Hall April 5 2018 13: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That is why, with the threat of war, both ships and planes were withdrawn from their base. Aircraft dispersed over jump airfields, ships at sea


                        How many "main" aerodromes for military aviation are there on the SF and how many "jump" aerodromes are really equipped for maintaining a database? And what prevents the enemy from smashing them with missiles in the same first strike along with the main
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 5 2018 14: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: alstr
                        Then why do you think that the Opponent will not do this (this is about planes destroyed at the bases)?

                        ??? This is where it is? :))) Do you remember the beginning of the dispute :))) You talked about the presence of 7 Air Force bases as an INFRASTRUCTURE, on which it is possible to service US and NATO aircraft. I say that part of this INFRASTRUCTURE will be destroyed. What does the aircraft have to do with it?
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 10: 55
        0
        Yes, because the sea borders are taiga, gundra, ice silence and polar bears and several ports, why drop there? points of the Navy, Ports are dropped and all that is needed, but kilometers of the tundra do not impress me
        1. Nehist
          Nehist April 4 2018 13: 16
          +1
          Yes, how can I tell you that ... It is from there that they are expected to be the least covered areas, and they still notice that they are waiting for the arrival of all nishtyaks with special warheads. And given a bunch of moose from the Kyrgyz Republic who go pretty well for polds and oh my God even know how to float ... Draw your own conclusions
      3. alstr
        alstr April 4 2018 21: 36
        +1
        Can I ask? And how many of these 40 thousand km of sea borders are available for enemy fleets (except for submarines) and how long does this availability last a year?

        This I transparently hint at the Arctic Ocean.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist April 4 2018 23: 08
          +1
          I don’t know how for the enemy’s fleets, but for the USSR Navy all 12 months of the year were available.
          1. alstr
            alstr April 5 2018 07: 24
            +1
            Well, given that the NSR is available only 2-4 months without an icebreaker and about 6-8 with it.
            And we must take into account that the NSR passes near the shore.

            AUG will look fun in the ice with an icebreaker and will move at a speed of no more than 10 knots.

            So really, we need the fleet to defend the line Murmansk - Franz Josef Land - this is about 1300 km. Moreover, part of this line is under the ice.
            And the Pacific Ocean - there is an ass for 5 thousand km. At the same time, part of our bases freezes, but the ocean does not freeze further from the coast.

            We’ll be silent about the Baltic and Black Sea, as everything is shot through from the coast and the air.
  12. Old26
    Old26 April 3 2018 19: 44
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yes and no. In the sense that the launchers have remained in their place, but the possibility of launching the Granites has been lost, and most likely forever - in theory, everything can be repaired, but who will allocate money for this?

    And now I clumsily put it. I meant that it’s impossible to launch Kr, and not that the launchers themselves seized

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Hard to tell. Personally, I came across the number 4 :)

    Well, then at least not one was planned, and then nothing
    1. bugagich
      bugagich 9 May 2018 15: 24
      0
      Well, then at least not one was planned, and then nothing

      not one for sure. I came across an ambiguous figure, 2-4.
      Pavlov has a reference to the fact that at ChSZ, when 11437 was being built, equipment for the second building was already partially supplied. in particular, it seems that the BZhVZ is mentioned ... or the power unit ... I don’t remember.
      project figures are not indicated, it can be assumed that by tradition it would become 1143.8 ...
  13. Old26
    Old26 April 3 2018 20: 41
    +1
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Its vulnerability is limited only by the number of missiles that the enemy does not feel sorry for her.

    Actually, not the number of missiles, which is not a pity, but the number of missiles needed to solve a particular problem. To destroy the AUG in the USSR, a bomber division was allocated, and the number of missiles necessary for the sinking of the same aircraft carrier was estimated at a dozen X-22 missiles
    If you want to sink, use as many rockets as you need to make a dozen break through to the aircraft carrier. If you use your “not a pity” - you can do nothing at all
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 21: 29
      +2
      Thanks for the info, it means we’ll write down for the destruction of AB you need 12 missiles ..... by the way, this is real
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 April 3 2018 22: 41
        +3
        to destroy AB you need 12 missiles ..... by the way, this is real

        AUG air defense begins to make mistakes after the 15 missile, that is, for its defeat, at least 15 + 12 = 27 missiles are necessary.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 22: 46
          +1
          let it be 27, everything is early to see how much AV suicide bomber and target
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 4 2018 00: 35
        +3
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Thanks for the info, it means we’ll write down for the destruction of AB you need 12 missiles .....

        Yeah. And in order to bring these 12 missiles into an aircraft carrier - 2 Tu-22M3 regiments under cover of a minimum of fighter regiment + RTR and EW aircraft. In this case, probable losses can reach 80% of the specified composition
        write so :)
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 10: 58
          0
          missiles fly very far, so TUs can launch them unaccompanied, and you can also use just one diesel-electric submarine against AB, and it’s very successful, and even more so a couple of nuclear submarines
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 4 2018 11: 51
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            missiles fly very far, so TUs can launch them unaccompanied

            laughing fool
            March to learn materiel. X-22 CANNOT be launched from afar, due to the great capriciousness of the GOS. To reliably hit a target, it was required that the GOS missile capture the target before launch, i.e. being under the wing of an airplane. And this is, at best, a few tens of kilometers from the order, perhaps, really, even closer. And turn around, leaving the attack, our Tu would have almost over the decks of US ships
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 4 2018 12: 15
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yeah. And in order to bring these 12 missiles into an aircraft carrier - 2 Tu-22M3 regiments under cover of a minimum of fighter regiment + RTR and EW aircraft. In this case, probable losses can reach 80% of the specified composition
          write so :)

          At VIF2-NE in ancient times, uv. Exeter cited the following design order of forces for guaranteed destruction of the AUG at the beginning of the 80s of the last century: 2 pr. 949, 1-2 pr. 670M and 2 mraps. We considered this case, EMNIP, in the Federation Council.
  14. Taoist
    Taoist April 3 2018 20: 49
    +3
    How is it not clear that in the end the author wanted to say something? Well, the reasons why the Soviet Navy did not receive "normal aircraft carriers" are generally known, as well as doubts about this.
    How TAKR differs from an aircraft carrier and, in general, the difference in their combat employment is also quite understandable - and it stems from organizational and tactical differences. TAKR is a more versatile ship with all the advantages and disadvantages of "universalism".
    By the way, the author made one mistake in the question ...
    Yes, refueling in the hangar is forbidden - but here cars are stored in the hangar refueling. After-flight preparation of the machine includes the preparation and refueling of the machine in such a way that it would be enough just to suspend the BK (which was done even directly on the sites) and into the air for combat alert ... So the "conveyor support modes" were completely worked out and Air defense and anti-aircraft missile defense tasks are provided in parallel ... (By the way, vertical lines in this regard were even faster - they took off directly from the technical position in case of need)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 4 2018 00: 37
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      So the "conveyor support modes" were completely worked out for themselves; it was possible to provide both air defense and anti-aircraft missile defense tasks in parallel ..

      Nope. Therefore, there was a proposal after the first trips - to remove the PLO group in general
  15. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan April 3 2018 21: 27
    0
    It's like that.
    But, which is typical, in the 60s and 70s in the United States and Great Britain the topic of light aircraft carrier carriers for VTOL aircraft was also very popular (recall the notorious "harrier carriers"), and much smaller than the completed project.



    PS: and by the way ...
  16. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 21: 56
    +2
    I didn’t wait for the figures, I found it myself, the cost of the 13 aircraft carrier is $ 1 billion, alternative C400s cost 50 $ million per piece on the world market, total ..... instead of AB, you can make about 260 C400 complexes, the whole country has about 368 p C 400, if Do not do it ABM You can almost double the amount of 400 in the country! .....! ......! Why do we need this your AB?
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 3 2018 22: 02
      +1
      now back to the ocean, the Northwind submarine costs 404 million dollars, instead of AB we get 32 pcs !!! Submarine Borey, ..... still have questions?
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 April 3 2018 22: 47
        +3
        now back to the ocean, the Northwind submarine costs 404 million dollars, instead of AB we get 32 pcs !!! Submarine Borey, ..... still have questions?

        In principle, they thought so under the USSR. A nuclear submarine to solve the problems of nuclear deterrence, a surface fleet to cover ground forces from an enemy fleet strike.
        As a result, we could not operate offshore, and did not have weapons for coastal operations.
        When this understanding came, they began to do TAVKR. Weapons for work on the shore have only now received (calibers).
        Therefore, when a decision is made to keep surface groups away from the coast, a decision will be made on the construction of aircraft carriers.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 11: 04
          0
          and doesn’t the submarines work along the shore and away from the base, explain to me a misunderstanding?
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 4 2018 11: 17
            +1
            What do they work with? Maybe virulent bats? Or cruise missiles, which are designed to work on ships and to sweep along the shore are simply too expensive due to too "smart" GOS? Or let a torpedo go?
          2. Glory1974
            Glory1974 April 4 2018 12: 29
            +1
            and doesn’t the submarines work along the shore and away from the base, explain to me a misunderstanding?

            Until recently, besides ballistic missiles, there was nothing on the submarine to work along the coast. Now, "calibers" have appeared.
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 April 3 2018 22: 54
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        aircraft carrier cost $ 13 billion

        In fact, they are different, there are options much cheaper.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Submarine Borey costs $ 404 million, instead of AB we get 32 ​​pieces !!! Submarine Borey, ..... still have questions?

        During the time it will take for the construction of 32 Boreev, at least one, but rather two, generation of nuclear submarines will succeed. But the life of the aircraft carrier is 50-60 years. Still have questions?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 11: 10
          0
          If you have money, then you can find at least five shipyards in the Russian Federation for in-line construction, make 35 pcs in 5 years ..... the service life of AB and nuclear submarines is about the same, because these are similar technical systems, Extending the life of AB expensive and should be taken into account in the price, but also consider the exploitation, so that Kuzy needs to paint as much paint as the rest of the fleet, and even l / s, almost 10000 all receive a salary, a pension, an apartment, ... as if people need it, but maybe perhaps they would benefit the country on land or on a submarine, on a minesweeper
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 April 4 2018 19: 47
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            you can find at least five shipyards in Russia for stream construction

            And while not building anything else, because the shipyards will be busy.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            the service life of AB and nuclear submarines is approximately the same, because these are similar technical systems

            During the service of the Nimitz aircraft carrier, 3 generations of nuclear submarines were replaced. Is the value of nuclear submarines obsolete for a generation to explain?
            Quote: vladimir1155
            yes also consider exploitation to

            That is, the fact that you need a crew on any ships is unknown to you? As well as indispensable associated costs?
            Quote: vladimir1155
            moreover, almost 10000 l / s everyone receives a salary, a long service pension, an apartment ... as if people need it

            The Kuzi crew is only about 2000 people. Not tired of lying?
            1. alstr
              alstr April 5 2018 14: 14
              +1
              Well, considering that there are 107 people on Borea, it just turns out that 16 Boreev will be equal in value and crew to an aircraft carrier.

              By the way, on American aircraft carriers, the crew is from 4000 to 6000 people (we want the same as the Americans have AB).
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 April 5 2018 19: 21
                +1
                Quote: alstr
                we want the same as the Americans AB

                Not necessary. strength should be sufficient for his service. And by the way, the team there is a little 3000, and the rest are pilots, technicians for aircraft, etc.
                1. alstr
                  alstr April 5 2018 20: 19
                  +1
                  Yes. They are not included in the command, but it is required that the main function of AB be performed. If you remove them, then AB is just a big trough
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 April 6 2018 17: 26
                    +1
                    Quote: alstr
                    but it is required that the main function of AB

                    That is, if these same aircraft are based on conventional airfields, then they will not be needed?
                    1. alstr
                      alstr April 6 2018 22: 02
                      0
                      There are 100-150 pilots there, the other two thousand are serviced. Will they also travel together with airplanes?
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 April 6 2018 23: 20
                        +1
                        Quote: alstr
                        the remaining two thousand - service

                        Are planes not served at ordinary airfields? What is there, what is needed there is an auxiliary composition.
      3. sabotage
        sabotage April 3 2018 23: 27
        +3
        Quote: vladimir1155
        now back to the ocean, the Northwind submarine costs 404 million dollars, instead of AB we get 32 pcs !!! Submarine Borey, ..... still have questions?

        Backfill question: How will Borey support the actions of ground forces in any Syria?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 11: 12
          0
          And why do you need Syria, five frigates are enough for Syria, and Northwind can exclude the possibility of any aggressor to sink these frigates
          1. sabotage
            sabotage April 4 2018 20: 41
            +2
            Quote: vladimir1155
            And why do you need Syria, five frigates are enough for Syria, and Northwind can exclude the possibility of any aggressor to sink these frigates

            What about frigates? Can they provide operational support to ground forces? No. They have only a few cruise missiles that can only help against stationary previously reconnoitered targets, and then you need to go to your native coast for charging. And if any Turkey or Israel hits the anti-ship missiles against the frigates, then Borey will not help. Borea will not shoot at non-nuclear countries.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 22: 15
              +1
              Borey will shoot at non-nuclear countries such is the military doctrine of the Russian Federation, support for land operations in Syria can be carried out by land and coastal forces, the movement of dry cargo ships is covered from the sea.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 April 4 2018 23: 25
                +2
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Northwind will shoot at non-nuclear countries

                After that, all carriers of nuclear weapons will begin to shoot.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                support for land operations in Syria can be carried out by land and coastal forces

                This is when there is an airfield for the protection of which a strong group is needed.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 14: 39
                  0
                  but the land group costs less than the warrant aug and it is more tenacious
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 April 5 2018 19: 22
                    +1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    but the land group costs less than the warrant aug and it is more tenacious

                    Have you seen the estimate?
              2. sabotage
                sabotage April 5 2018 06: 21
                +2
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Borey will shoot at non-nuclear countries such is the military doctrine of the Russian Federation, support for land operations in Syria can be carried out by land and coastal forces, the movement of dry cargo ships is covered from the sea.

                Even after the SU-24 no one shot at Turkey. After artillery hit the territory of the Rostov Region, no one shot at Ukraine with ICBMs. We did not launch a nuclear bombardment of Vietnam or Iraq, despite significant casualties.
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 4 2018 00: 38
        +2
        Quote: vladimir1155
        I didn’t wait for the numbers, I found it myself, the cost of an aircraft carrier is 13 billion dollars

        American supercarrier, and - the first in a series. Subsequent cheaper
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Submarine Borey costs $ 404 million

        wassat Actually worth a billion
      5. Per se.
        Per se. April 4 2018 14: 23
        +3
        Quote: vladimir1155
        still have questions?
        And in pollitrovka and sausage loaves, how much will it be? ... So tell Uncle Vova, you don’t need a "violinist", they say, he eats too much fuel. In general, you have an interesting logic, that way you can always calculate how much you can make grenade launchers instead of one tank. Seriously, by denying aircraft carriers, as carriers of carrier-based aviation, you deny the aircraft itself, its role at sea. Carriers are not a whim, they are a regular evolution of naval armaments, and while aviation is one of the most efficient weapons, aircraft carriers and other aircraft carriers will also be needed.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 17: 31
          +3
          seriously, denying AB, I did not deny, do not deny, and I won’t deny the coast-based naval aviation .... aircraft carriers are a whim, not a natural evolution, planes have long been not the most effective type of weaponry, missiles are more effective ... well and the planes are very needed, but not the AB
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 April 4 2018 07: 43
      +3
      Quote: vladimir1155
      I didn’t wait for the figures, I found it myself, the cost of the 13 aircraft carrier is $ 1 billion, alternative C400s cost 50 $ million per piece on the world market, total ..... instead of AB, you can make about 260 C400 complexes, the whole country has about 368 p C 400, if Do not do it ABM You can almost double the amount of 400 in the country! .....! ......! Why do we need this your AB?

      You need to write a little less scientific monographs and a little more embedded in engineering and technical details. For:
      C-400 in "pieces" to consider - it is enchanting. And in launchers too. This is nonsense. It is necessary to consider divisions as the minimum set of capable autonomous means. Duck, the price of the S-400 division is 400-500 million dollars. Thus, instead of one American non-serial (!) Aircraft carrier, in theory, you can buy 26 C-400 divisions. But here everything is sad, because objects are not covered by separate divisions. The object of cover is usually a city with a million population, i.e. not a point on the map, but a square with a side of kilometers 50x50. Therefore, to block the dangerous directions of approach and create the necessary channel for the target, as a rule, one city covers several divisions of the regiment. Usually 3-5 divisions. In general, 26 divisions are 6-7 regiments. And cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg hide behind 5 to 10 shelves.
      If we consider that the serial American aircraft carrier delivered to the stream costs not 13, but about 5-6 of billions of dollars ...
      In general, it is not worth comparing warm to green. AIR from C-400 basmach bombs in Syria does not throw. The author of many monographs should be aware of this, I think.
      PS I am opposed to the construction of aircraft carriers.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 11: 20
        +1
        I didn’t offer to replace the AB only with the C400, I just wanted to show the catastrophic cost of the AB for the military budget, and it can and should be replaced with a spectrum of diverse weapons, Well, the AB will not have a serial one, and the Wishlist of Andrei and his minions are off scale, so 13 billion for AV is a reality, no matter how it turns out, given the lack of such experience, shipyards and equipment as in the USA
  17. Yura Ehlakov
    Yura Ehlakov April 3 2018 22: 28
    +5
    Stupid with nothing non-binding article, I watch this scribble not calm down. Something the fleet does not give him peace, it seems that he has a paronoy. He would have remembered what happened under the king of peas. A comrade who had read about the fleet, now decided to throw out his associations, that's all. Explain that I may not allow something that worries him so much. I myself served in the Navy and also in the Pacific, in my years there were some ships now others and what next. We are moving in front, and he is fixated. Everyone already knows that these large troughs have not been effective for a long time, they have long exhausted their resources, they were created a very long time ago when there were no such technologies. Now, they are not needed by Kama and hardly anyone will invest such money in them. Let the mattress covers invest further it will be easier to sink, a good target will not miss. And the guy from Chelyabinsk should go to the doctor to check that he has something wrong and that he is hammering everything about the ships. Better about a meteorite wrote would be better for him.
    1. Grim Reaper
      Grim Reaper April 3 2018 23: 50
      +3
      Ohoho ..... You know, I didn’t serve in the Navy, and I absolutely can’t imagine, but after reading your comment, I am tormented by the question: who did you serve? Kokom?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 4 2018 12: 31
        +2
        Quote: Ecilop
        Ohoho ..... You know, I didn’t serve in the Navy, and I absolutely can’t imagine, but after reading your comment, I am tormented by the question: who did you serve? Kokom?

        Projectionist, clerk and bread maker! © smile
  18. Old26
    Old26 April 4 2018 00: 05
    +3
    Quote: vladimir1155
    let it be 27, everything is early to see how much AV suicide bomber and target

    You forget about the warrant. Destroying the Ticonderoga-class cruiser, like the destroyer, also requires a certain number of missiles. Smaller than an aircraft carrier, but nonetheless. But at the same time, we just take a quantitative indicator. Do not forget that in addition to this, the AUG will try to destroy the carriers of these CDs themselves. And the tactics of using X-22 missiles from bombers was such that the Tupolev radar was detected by an aircraft carrier at a distance of about 400-460 km. That is, almost already in the zone of responsibility of the order. If we consider that the AWACS aircraft cut the G300 about 400-600 km from the aircraft carrier, and the range of radars on the latest modifications of AWACS is about XNUMX km, then he will see these bombers long before the bombers themselves see the aircraft carrier
    There is no impenetrable air defense, like there are no indestructible aircraft. But to say that the aircraft carrier is an easy target and a suicide bomber, but he would not. Put a division to hit this goal - the exchange was not in favor of our Air Force
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall April 4 2018 01: 42
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      There is no impenetrable air defense, like there are no indestructible aircraft. But to say that the aircraft carrier is an easy target and a suicide bomber, but he would not. Put a division to hit this goal - the exchange was not in favor of our Air Force




      I read somewhere calculations with numbers: how much it costs to build all these dozens of suicide bombers, their maintenance, the construction and maintenance of airports for them, the development of missiles, etc., etc., it turned out much more expensive than the cost of an aircraft carrier that they had to destroy. And without any guarantees.
  19. Comrade
    Comrade April 4 2018 02: 31
    +2
    Dear Andrew,
    the article is very informative and interesting, thanks +! One can only regret that at one time they did not bother to tow the unfinished Varyag to Russia.
    As they write V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky:

    “Foreign publications of those years, concerning the development of aircraft carriers,“ almost simultaneously ”accompanied our studies, as if pushing us away from the general course, which they followed. So, with the advent of VTOL VTL magazines in our country, the West almost immediately “choked with enthusiasm” about the exciting prospects for the development of this area, which almost all military aviation should supposedly follow. We began to increase the displacement of aircraft carriers - they immediately receive publications and the inexpediency of developing such supergiants as Nimitz, and it is preferable to build smaller aircraft carriers, and besides not nuclear, but conventional energy. We took up the catapult - they began to praise the jumps.

    Dear colleague, for the sake of objectivity, I note that in England, and in Spain, and in Italy, aircraft carriers were built with jumps and conventional energy, on which VTOL were based. And they were all smaller than Kiev.


    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 4 2018 10: 21
      +2
      Greetings, dear Comrade!
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear colleague, for the sake of objectivity, I note that in England, and in Spain, and in Italy, aircraft carriers were built with jumps and conventional energy, on which VTOL were based.

      It's right. But if you look at the history of the creation of the British “Invincibles,” we will see that the sailors were simply forced to them, because the question was so - or the fleet will be left without aircraft carriers at all, or .... this. In general, the situation is quite similar with us, only we had opponents at the highest level, and the British had a banal budget savings.
      As for other countries, they, in the framework of NATO, have never been set more serious tasks than communication PLO. A small helicopter carrier is good for these purposes, and having seated on it a Harrier squadron, you feel like a superpower bully
      In general, small ABs were built, but under the specific tasks of the fleets, which did not imply any serious mess
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall April 5 2018 01: 29
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Comrade
        Dear colleague, for the sake of objectivity, I note that in England, and in Spain, and in Italy, aircraft carriers were built with jumps and conventional energy, on which VTOL were based.
        It's right. But if you look at the history of the creation of the British “Invincibles,” we will see that the sailors were simply forced to them, because the question was so - or the fleet will remain without aircraft carriers at all, or .... it



        You are not confused by the fact that after operating the “unsuccessful” and built on the principle “there was at least something,” Invisibles, in your opinion, the Britons decided to build a new series of the same small, non-nuclear, springboard and VTOL? .... maybe the reasons are still different?
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 April 5 2018 05: 29
          +2
          The cost of the catapult is 280 million pounds, the cost of remaking AB under the catapult is 900 million pounds, the final cost of AB is 2 billion pounds. Labor in the 60s already "drowned" the CVA-01 right on the slipway, if the price for the AV was large, they could drown again. That's all.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall April 5 2018 08: 47
            +1
            Quote: strannik1985
            The cost of the catapult is 280 million pounds, the cost of remaking AB under the catapult is 900 million pounds, the final cost of AB is 2 billion pounds. Labor in the 60s already "drowned" the CVA-01 right on the slipway, if the price for the AV was large, they could drown again. That's all.



            and what is 280 million pounds in the scale of the English economy?. It's not even seeds.


            And what about the wishes of the Laborites 50 years ago? I doubt that one of them is alive at all. Or just their own theory why the British are building such aircraft carriers in the 21st century and there is nothing else to justify with another type?)
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 April 5 2018 10: 23
              +2
              They need two for each AB, i.e. only catapults of 560 million pounds, and completely all 900 million work on one ship.

              In the sense? The party is in place, they have a reduction in the military budget, a constant slogan.
              If you have the habit of not taking arguments, this is your problem, not mine
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 5 2018 12: 22
              +2
              Quote: Town Hall
              and what is 280 million pounds in the scale of the English economy?. It's not even seeds.

              Which they could not find in their fleet.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 5 2018 16: 59
          +1
          Quote: Town Hall
          You are not confused by the fact that after exploiting the “unsuccessful” and built on the principle “there was at least something”, in your opinion, the Invisibles, did the Britons decide to build a new series of the same small, non-nuclear, springboard and VTOL?

          Absolutely. Because initially the British wanted to build CATAPULT aircraft carriers. And, sorry, a ship of 70 thousand tons of total displacement called "as small" - this must be possible :)))
          Alas, later the budget of the Foggy Albion did not pull the catapult, at first they thought to equip them with only one AB, then they waved a hand.
      2. Comrade
        Comrade April 5 2018 02: 26
        0
        Dear Andrey!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        if you look at the history of the creation of the British "Invincibles", we will see that the sailors were simply forced to them, because the question was so - or the fleet will be left without aircraft carriers at all, or .... this.

        Dear colleague, you better know. Your obedient servant abandoned the modern fleet a quarter of a century ago, and then information could be obtained only from a few official sources :-)
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        small ABs were built, but under the specific tasks of the fleets, which did not imply any serious mess

        Dear colleague, is it really different with us? For that matter, much could the Yak-38 vs F-14 do if something serious happened?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 5 2018 11: 09
          +1
          Quote: Comrade
          Dear colleague, you better know. Your obedient servant abandoned the modern fleet a quarter of a century ago, and then information could be obtained only from a few official sources :-)

          There was a whole story about how the KVMF tried to advance the construction of full-fledged ABs, got it on hand, had to agree to Sea Harrieres (which the fleet did not want, but ... unification, s), and somehow got at least the Invincibles ... brrrr ....
          Quote: Comrade
          Dear colleague, is it really different with us? For that matter, much could the Yak-38 vs F-14 do if something serious happened?

          The whole question is that the Yak-38 was considered as a temporary and transitional phenomenon. Yakovlev threatened a supersonic interceptor of the VTOL aircraft, so on December 28, 1967, the USSR Council of Ministers adopted a decision on the creation of the Yak-36M light carrier-based attack aircraft and the more advanced Yak-36MF, which was to become a fleet fighter-interceptor and a front-line fighter Air Force
          In general, Ustinov, who moved the TAKR with the VTOL aircraft, fell victim to the illusion that the VTOL aircraft were about to catch up with conventional aircraft in terms of their TTX. If he knew in advance that everything would be limited to the Yak-38 ... In general, I can’t speak for Ustinov, but it is possible that normal AVs would be laid
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 4 2018 12: 37
      +3
      Quote: Comrade
      Dear colleague, for the sake of objectivity, I note that in England, and in Spain, and in Italy, aircraft carriers were built with jumps and conventional energy, on which VTOL were based. And they were all smaller than Kiev.

      In fairness, it should be noted that all of these “harrieronosy” were designed on the basis of the budget - “stretch your legs for clothes”. And for Britain, domestic political factors also played a role - it was necessary to push the AB through the Labor Parliament (for which he was initially called the "full-deck control cruiser" and mainly showed side projections). The laborers of those times had a deep personal hostility towards the AB - so much so that they destroyed the first British nuclear AB right on the slipway. smile
      Those who were able to accumulate enough money built small but full-fledged ABs - such as Clemenceau and ShdG.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall April 5 2018 01: 05
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And for Britain, domestic political factors also played a role - it was necessary to push the AB through the Labor Parliament (for which he was initially called the "full-deck control cruiser" and mainly showed side projections).




        Do you seriously think that billions of dollars worth of “unwanted” AB can be pushed through the parliament and its commissions using such tricks of the kindergarten level as calling it differently and a couple of pictures from the side projections? .... then you have very vague ideas about the construction of a normal parliamentary countries. do not read Soviet stories at night
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 07: 53
          +1
          you have idealistic ideas about democracy, .... it doesn’t happen, and the pictures were not for parliament, but for citizens like those who read old books and firmly believe candidates of military sciences
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall April 5 2018 08: 34
            0
            I have normal ideas about democracy and how its institutions function. And so I can safely say that this is complete nonsense
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 13: 57
              0
              Well, you have confirmed that democracy is nonsense, as a specialist
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 14: 03
                0
                Are you a specialist, of course, and do you know how the USA defeated the USSR? because you read the book of the man who invented the Cold War, who prevented the thermonuclear third world war, and whose soviet Soviet Union was destroyed, His book is just about democracy, and it’s called “Public Change,” and read that book based on which it was written "General Opinion", This is the "Moscow collection" of K P Pobedonostsev, only then you will begin to understand something in democracy and palamericism
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 5 2018 11: 12
          +1
          Quote: Town Hall
          Do you seriously think that billions of dollars worth of “unwanted” AB can be pushed through parliament and its commissions?

          What billions are there? This is Invincible, in fact - a small helicopter carrier, 16 tons of standard displacement
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall April 5 2018 11: 51
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: Town Hall
            Do you seriously think that billions of dollars worth of “unwanted” AB can be pushed through parliament and its commissions?

            What billions are there? This is Invincible, in fact - a small helicopter carrier, 16 tons of standard displacement



            And how much, in your opinion, is the program for the construction of 3 AB, their equipping with staff, all kinds of
            sistams, air group, escort ships, exercises, maintenance and modernization for 30 years? Is it about pennies or tens of billions?


            Do you seriously think that such projects can be promoted in such anecdotal ways?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 5 2018 12: 20
              +2
              Quote: Town Hall
              And how much, in your opinion, is the program for the construction of 3 AB, their equipping with staff, all kinds of
              sistams, air group, escort ships, exercises, maintenance and modernization for 30 years? Is it about pennies or tens of billions?

              Are you talking about invincible? If yes, then at the time of its development the cost of a full-fledged aircraft carrier (without an air group) was estimated at about 40 tons with a maximum of 000 million f.st. (fleet requested less). If you take today, then Queen Elizabeth, who alone is more than three Invincibles, costs, ultimately, 100 billion euros.
              Well, about
              Quote: Town Hall
              air group, escort ships

              This, sorry, is ridiculous, because only Internet debaters in the Russian Federation evaluate the cost of AB in this way.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall April 5 2018 12: 42
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                because in this way only Internet debaters in Russia evaluate the cost of AB.



                Internet debaters in the Russian Federation believe that a 30-year program for the construction and operation of 3 AB can be pushed through parliament using some pictures of side projections. And this is sad.



                But in real life, this is a long process in which thousands of professionals from all fields (sailors, aviation, industry, finance, etc., etc.) take part at all stages of the concept development and its practical implementation. And no one in their right mind will develop and evaluate the cost of only the "hull" of the aircraft carrier in isolation from all other components.


                The creation of just this type of AB is the result of a deliberate decision by Britain, after a long analysis of its role in the world, the tasks of the fleet and finances. And not tricks with names and photos.


                The experience of 30 years of operation of the Invisibles showed the correctness of their then decision and they build a new generation of ABs with the same conceptual characteristics.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 5 2018 14: 50
                  +2
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  The creation of just this type of AB is the result of a deliberate decision by Britain, after a long analysis of its role in the world, the tasks of the fleet and finances. And not tricks with names and photos.

                  You just learn how the decision was made to build the "Invincibles", and not fantasize about it. I absolutely do not mind if you do it according to foreign sources
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  But in real life, this is a long process in which thousands of professionals from all fields (sailors, aviation, industry, finance, etc., etc.) take part at all stages of concept development and its practical implementation.

                  In a fantasy world, it’s possible. But not in England, definitely.
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  and no one in their right mind will develop and evaluate the cost of only the “hull” of an aircraft carrier in isolation from all other components.

                  Even as they will. Generally speaking, the only correct option for correctly assessing the cost of an arms system is a comparative analysis of various weapons systems in the context of the tasks they solve on a cost-effectiveness scale. Primitively and exaggerating: we are faced with the task of preventing the breakthrough of Russian submarines into the Atlantic with the support of long-range missile-carrying aircraft of the Northern Fleet. An approximate number of submarines (all figures are conditional) is 30. This problem is solved with the help of
                  1) 100 PLO aircraft, 100 land-based fighters, 40 frigates 20 nuclear submarines
                  2) deployment of SOSUS 50 PLO planes 100 land fighter aircraft 30 frigates 15 nuclear submarines
                  3) SOSUS, 30 PLO aircraft, 30 land-based fighters, 2 aircraft carriers + 30 deck aircraft + 20 deck helicopters, 15 frigates 12 nuclear submarines
                  then, we consider the cost of the life cycle of all of the above and the final cost of the solution. And so - for all tasks. From there, the optimal composition of the fleet is already determined. And to consider - "here is the cost of AB, here is its life cycle, here are its planes, here are the support ships ... OH!" - generally pointless. Well, counted, and then what?
                  Well, in England this process (if it was, by the way) was violated by politicians who considered aircraft carriers too expensive. For no reason
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall April 5 2018 20: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You just learn how the decision was made to build the "Invincibles", and not fantasize about it. I absolutely do not mind if you do it according to foreign sources
                  2. Town Hall
                    Town Hall April 5 2018 20: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You just learn how the decision was made to build the "Invincibles", and not fantasize about it. I absolutely do not mind if you do it according to foreign sources



                    Before entering into discussions, I study the topic, including in foreign languages. And I do not rely on Internet stories about side projections.


                    The decision to build this AB series in the form in which they were built was made not as a result of adventure-detective parliamentary improvisation, but on the basis of a serious program document called the White Book of the Development of the British Armed Forces from 1966.


                    This program document, which has been discussed for more than one year, identified the dangers in the then world, the role of Britain and the tasks facing the army and navy within NATO and the best solutions. In conjunction with the finances of the state, naturally.


                    In particular, the main objective of these ABs was determined by a PLO against the then rapidly developing nuclear submarines of the USSR in the North Atlantic. Providing ways to supply England in other words. Actually, this task was always paramount among the Britons and did not come up with anything new this time.
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall April 5 2018 20: 57
                      +1
                      This determined the appearance of these AV programs. By the way, the program was recognized as successful, it developed for 40 years, moreover under various labor governments until the 79th, conservatives until the mid-90s (Thatcher, Major), and again Labor (Blair). So it was not momentary improvisation of the "evil and stupid" Laborites of the 60s. This project was followed by other countries (Italy, Spain). It was continued in the current Elizabeth project. At a new technological level, it is natural and in new geopolitical realities compared to the 60-70s
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 5 2018 23: 00
                        +2
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        The decision to build this AB series in the form in which they were built was made not as a result of adventure-detective parliamentary improvisation, but on the basis of a serious program document called the White Book of the Development of the British Armed Forces from 1966.

                        You know, Town Hall, I’m surprised - we have already exchanged a few comments, but haven’t reached rudeness yet :)))) This is good, chesslovo. Let's try to stay the same further.
                        The white paper is a bit out of that opera, I’ll try to explain it, and you try to hear my point, okay? The White Book of the Armed Forces of England is something like our GPV, only it also indicates the main directions of the country's military course. Roughly speaking, this is a document that explains in an accessible form what threats England sees before itself, what tasks it poses for its armed forces and how it is going to equip the armed forces so that they solve these problems, well, budgetary issues, of course.
                        But the fact is that not the most effective solutions are prescribed in it, but those for which there is enough budget. Let me give you an example - we affirm the GPV, according to which different types of airplanes go to the troops - Su-30, Su-35, MiG-35 and even PAK FA. This is not optimal in military terms, such a different type is completely useless to us, but the problem is that a plant that can make a Su-30 will not pull a Su-35, and we will either produce a Su-30 on it or nothing, and we choose Su -thirty. Just like the supply of the MiG-30 with PFAR is far from optimal, militarily we should wait for the AFAR, but we go for it because we need to support the manufacturer, and the AFAR is late. It is weatherproof and cost-effective on a scale, because in essence we are not creating the most modern aircraft now, but will it serve in 35-30 years and what will it be in 40 years? The same in tanks - we need Armats, or at least the latest versions T-15 (AM for example), and instead in the GPV - the modernization of the T-90, which, generally speaking, will not make the “Leopard A72 out of 6.” But there is money to upgrade the T-72, but not to the T-72AM. In and stretch the legs on the clothes.
                        So the White Paper of England is the same. It does not include those solutions that would be optimal for solving the tasks of the British Armed Forces, but those for which they managed to knock money out of the budget.
                        Therefore, the fact that certain weapons were included in the White Paper does not mean at all that it is optimal, just as getting equipment into our GPV also does not guarantee its optimality. The White Paper and our GPV are a compromise between real need and the country's capabilities.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        This program document, which has been discussed for more than one year, identified the dangers in the then world, the role of Britain and the tasks facing the army and navy within NATO and the best solutions. In conjunction with the finances of the state, naturally.

                        The fact of the matter is that no - we can say that these were the best decisions for which England had enough money, and even that is in question.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        In particular, the main objective of these ABs was determined by anti-aircraft missile systems against the then rapidly developing nuclear submarines of the USSR in the North Atlantic

                        The fact of the matter is that England did not develop any anti-submarine helicopter carriers
                        In 1966 - 1967, the Naval Staff issued requirements for the development of a “Command Cruiser” with a displacement of 12 tons with a crew of about 500 people, which could carry six Sea King helicopters. The project was later revised - the number of helicopters increased to nine, and the displacement - up to 1000 tons. Since at that moment the government would not have financed anything that even remotely resembled an aircraft carrier, they came up with a special new designation for new ships in the fleet - Through Deck Command Cruisers (which can be translated roughly as a “full-deck control cruiser”), but to the side projections of the drawings submitted for approval, the ship had the usual silhouette with a traditional superstructure.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA April 5 2018 18: 13
                  +2
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  The creation of just this type of AB is the result of a deliberate decision by Britain, after a long analysis of its role in the world, the tasks of the fleet and finances. And not tricks with names and photos.

                  The creation of the "Invincibles" is the result of the struggle of the fleet and the budget committee of the parliament. The same budget committee, which wanted to cancel the construction of the “Prince of Wales” (as a result, the fleet would remain without AB for a third of the Queen’s life) - and they were stopped only because the penalty for breaking the contract was more than the cost of AB.
                  And the result of a conscious decision by Britain, after a long analysis of its role in the world, the tasks of the fleet and finance is CVA-01. The very first English nuclear carrier to be designed, funded, and killed on a slipway by Labor. The funny thing is that the money they first wanted to send to purchase an alternative to the aircraft carrier - IB F-111. But as a result, this money simply disappeared - the British armed forces did not receive either an aircraft carrier or an F-111.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall April 5 2018 21: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And the result of a deliberate decision by Britain, after a long analysis of its role in the world, the tasks of the fleet and finances, is CVA-01. The very first English nuclear carrier,



                    Listen. The real course of history showed the correctness of the decision of the Labor Party of that time. Britain, and after 50 years, confirmed in the new
                    Project AB that she doesn’t need huge nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with catapults. America needs it, but England doesn’t. America has its place in the world, its own Wishlist and its own capabilities. And England has its own. Military Wishlist is their Wishlist. But the country's policy , including the military, determined by politicians and not by the military. The business of the military is to fulfill the tasks that politicians set for them.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 5 2018 23: 02
                      +2
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      The real course of history showed the correctness of the then Labor decision

                      Just the same, no - the British without full AB washed their blood in the Falklands
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall April 6 2018 00: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Just the same, no - the British without full AB washed their blood in the Falklands



                        But the British themselves do not think so. Argentines are also welcome.
                      2. Town Hall
                        Town Hall April 6 2018 01: 03
                        0
                        I will answer Wat here and to the previous post. There the branch is over.


                        I did not get into this discussion in order to prove that the Invisible series are the best ABs of all time. This is naturally far from the case. I simply challenged the point about how these decisions were made.


                        Not that stupid or controversial decisions are never made in democracies. But the system is designed so that such serious decisions are the result of a long debate between disputes and "debates" between interested parties. Therefore, it cannot be that the parliament makes a decision based on some tricks or fraud. I’m more aware of the reality of Italy, where I live. A few years ago the same White Book was also developed. The draft was submitted by the ruling party at that time, but the discussion and the final version are the results agreed by all parties, including tea opposition.


                        It is so that it would not happen that in the next election a couple of years later the other party wins and "bares" everything. These are long-term programs that should not depend on the "political moment" every day. Some corrections are introduced later, that something gets priority, which it goes into a longer box, but nobody touches the main points.


                        P.S.Fame and honor to the British politicians of that time that they did not live by past imperial greatness and were able to soberly assess their desires and real possibilities. And they put in place the military, who still felt they were the mistress of the seas
        3. bugagich
          bugagich 9 May 2018 16: 03
          0
          By the way, I also read such stories. but they, alas, are not Soviet ... Norman Polmar "aircraft carriers" I don’t remember which volume ...
      2. Comrade
        Comrade April 5 2018 02: 36
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        In fairness, it should be noted that all of these “harrieronosy” were designed on the basis of the budget - “stretch your legs for clothes”.

        "Giuseppe Garibaldi" "pulled" a billion dollars, and this is without the cost of an aviation group. Something tells me that this is at least not less than the amount spent by the Soviet Union on Kiev.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Those who were able to accumulate enough money built small but full-fledged ABs - such as Clemenceau and ShdG.

        I'm afraid in the first case the example is unsuccessful. The French had no choice, since aircraft carriers of the Clemenceau type went into operation in 1961 and 1963, and the Harrier made its first flight in 1966.
  20. Crossbill
    Crossbill April 4 2018 03: 59
    +2
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Well, how did they work out the costs? if you never fought, although there were two world wars? One day he left Batumi and shot in Kerch and all, One was written off before the war, Stalin did not give any money for the nonsense (repair of the battleship). The third was bombed right in Kronstadt, then it was considered a floating battery .... where are the spent costs?

    Your knowledge touched me to the core ... In short, learn the hardware before writing nonsense ...
  21. Rakovor
    Rakovor April 4 2018 07: 30
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: vladimir1155
    I didn’t wait for the numbers, I found it myself, the cost of an aircraft carrier is 13 billion dollars

    American supercarrier, and - the first in a series. Subsequent cheaper
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Submarine Borey costs $ 404 million

    wassat Actually worth a billion

    Something I, too, the figure of 400 lyam caused some doubts.))
  22. Rakovor
    Rakovor April 4 2018 07: 33
    +2
    Quote: Ecilop
    Ohoho ..... You know, I didn’t serve in the Navy, and I absolutely can’t imagine, but after reading your comment, I am tormented by the question: who did you serve? Kokom?

    I support.)) If we had such "diplomas" in our fleet, then I wonder how they didn’t roll us into dust.
  23. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 4 2018 10: 01
    +3
    In fact, in the course of R & D “Order”, the experience of the most effective submarine fleet, the German one, was carefully studied. And it was concluded that submarines can be successful in the face of strong opposition from the enemy only if their deployment and actions are supported by aviation.

    1. The US submarine fleet was the most effective in World War II against warships. And no aircraft supported him when he drowned Japanese aircraft carriers (Taiho, Shinano, etc.).
    2. At the end of the 60s there were already atomic submarines - the new main warships of the fleet. The British did not in vain call the Dreadnought not an aircraft carrier but an atomic submarine. No aircraft supported Conkeror when she drowned Belgrano. It was the submarine that then gained dominance at sea and did not allow the Argentinean fleet to the war zone. It’s very interesting that the bi watch looks like a British aircraft carrier, its air group and security ships managed to cope with Belgrano and its security is tacked by Argentinean aviation from the coast.
    3. No Soviet aircraft carrier could help the Soviet submarines against American submarines. At least I could not do it better than aviation from the coast in its radius of action.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 4 2018 10: 23
      +3
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The US submarine fleet was the most effective in World War II against warships. And no aircraft supported him when he drowned Japanese aircraft carriers (Taiho, Shinano, etc.).

      Two mistakes. US submarines were not the most effective means against warships, and it was aviation that ensured its use in conditions when it became able to sink Japanese aircraft carriers
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 4 2018 13: 23
      +3
      Quote: Kostadinov
      1. The US submarine fleet was the most effective in World War II against warships. And no aircraft supported him when he drowned Japanese aircraft carriers (Taiho, Shinano, etc.).

      And what other Japanese ABs were sunk by submarines? Or did the Japanese carrier fleet consist of only 2 ships?
      I will remind you about the effectiveness of submarines - of all the USN submarines deployed in advance around Midway, only one found the Japanese. Moreover, they immediately drove her into the depths, so that she was able to launch an attack only an hour after the Japanese AV was seriously damaged by dive bombers. The result of the attack is one hit, the torpedo did not explode.
      "Taiho" was sunk only because Lockwood knew in advance the possible location of the passage of Japanese AB and deployed there ambush submarines. “Wasp” was sunk in the same way - because of the stereotyped actions of USN, the Japanese opened a square in which American aircraft maneuvered when guiding convoys to Guadalcanal and sent submarines there.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      3. No Soviet aircraft carrier could help the Soviet submarines against American submarines. At least I could not do it better than aviation from the coast in its radius of action.

      Do you propose to break into the Atlantic near your shores? But the work to disrupt the transfer of American troops, equipment and supplies to Europe was considered one of the main for the fleet and justified its existence in the eyes of the "boots".
      And even if you put this task aside, still no one in the leadership of the Navy did not expect to meet the enemy near their shores. “Bastion” was built “around the corner” - almost at Spitsbergen.
  24. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 4 2018 10: 46
    +2
    As the Research and Development Order showed, the provision of air cover for the ship group by land-based aircraft, even at a distance of 200-300 km from the coastline, is significantly more expensive than an aircraft carrier.

    Very interesting statement. I know where my ships will operate and I can’t effectively cover them with aviation from the coast, not only for 300 but also for 200 km? Or do I don’t know where the enemy will attack me from the sea and therefore I need an aircraft carrier because he will come faster and cover the shore than the base and aviation will cover it from land? Or do I need an aircraft carrier to track American AOGs far from the coast, because they cannot be made missile cruisers?
    There are no words the comrades at the Research Institute "Order" did a good job.
    Most likely, land-based aviation “failed” the reaction time — the aircraft carrier accompanying the ship’s group does not have to constantly keep the air group in the air, since it can be limited to one or two patrols and quickly raise the necessary gain into the air. At the same time, airplanes from land airports simply do not have time to take part in repelling an air attack and therefore can only rely on forces that are at the time of its start in the patrol area.

    Let's make a simple calculation. The aircraft carrier is located only 30 km from the patrol zone of our submarines, and the aerodrum from land by 300 km.
    1. We play no more than 5-6 minutes if the interceptor is from land the Mig-31 (it can’t be placed on an aircraft carrier). To successfully intercept aircraft in time, aircraft planes need to be detected only about 100 km further. If the boat is closer, the distance becomes even smaller.
    2. Finding our aircraft carrier shows where our submarine is located with much greater accuracy than the aerodrome.
    3.Where we know our boats well and therefore we can concentrate a large number of better aircraft than on an aircraft carrier.
    4. The main threat to our submarines is the enemy’s submarines, not PLO aircraft. From land you can use our PLO aircraft with a very large radius than from aircraft carriers.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 4 2018 10: 58
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Very interesting statement.

      On which, alas, you did not bother to think
      Quote: Kostadinov
      I know where my ships will operate and I can’t effectively cover them with aviation from the coast, not only for 300 but also for 200 km?

      You can. But this is bad luck - enemy aviation will not wait an hour until you find its planes, request support, the air regiment will fly into the air and arrive at the right place. That is, in the event of a raid, you can only rely on the aircraft that DIRECTLY covers the KUG. Would you like it to be an Aviation Regiment? Considering 2 sorties per day on an airplane and a patrol time of 2 hours, one air regiment will provide 4 hours a day, so please prepare 6 air regiments for round-the-clock patrolling.
      And an aircraft carrier is capable of lifting the same regiment from the deck in a quarter of an hour, so its planes manage to intercept the enemy in the air and his air group does not need to be constantly on duty in the air. So this is 1 air regiment on the deck of an aircraft carrier = 6 regiments on the shore.
      The rest of the "simple" calculations ... You will see the errors themselves, or help?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 4 2018 14: 27
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      2. Finding our aircraft carrier shows where our submarine is located with much greater accuracy than the aerodrome.

      Oh-ho-ho ... well, AV PL does not cover, being directly above it. smile
      AB covers ship groups deployed at the boundary of the cover of the deployment area of ​​the submarine - the "bastion".
      Quote: Kostadinov
      3.Where we know our boats well and therefore we can concentrate a large number of better aircraft than on an aircraft carrier.

      Fine. We take the USSR. Our submarines go to the Atlantic, breaking the Faroese line - to fulfill a strategic task in the interests of the ground forces: disrupting the transfer of forces from America to Europe. Suggest a way to concentrate planes covering up the breakthrough forces. smile
      The second option - KSF goes on the defensive. The boundary line for the deployment of ship groups is the line. starting from Bearish or Svalbard. Suggest a way to concentrate planes covering these groups on the northern flank. smile
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor April 4 2018 14: 48
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Fine. We take the USSR. Our submarines go to the Atlantic, breaking the Faroese line - to fulfill a strategic task in the interests of the ground forces: disrupting the transfer of forces from America to Europe. Suggest a way to concentrate planes covering up the breakthrough forces.
        The second option - KSF goes on the defensive. The boundary line for the deployment of ship groups is the line. starting from Bearish or Svalbard. Suggest a way to concentrate planes covering these groups on the northern flank.

        I’m sorry, I’ll have to chew additionally for those who are dull - airplanes will always have to stay in the air, patrol and fight with the enemy. These should be fighters, i.e. cover aviation. And now a very small surprise - we exclude the time of their approach to the patrol zone from the time the planes were in the air, and exclude the road to airfields. Let’s say, for 3 fuels, aircraft have hours of flight, of which an hour will go to the patrol zone, an hour to the way back. There is only one hour left for patrolling and fighting. It is required at least 12 hours a day to keep the zone under control (while it’s light, it can be 24 hours at certain times of the year), and, say, forces of one aviation regiment. In total, we get 12 air regiments in order to ensure the presence of the 1 regiment in the combat zone. Okay, each air regiment will pull out 2 departure (taking into account the time for maintenance and replenishment) - 6 air regiments for the 12-hour presence of 1 air regiment in the required area. But there are still losses due to battles and malfunctions ...

        Or have an airfield directly in the patrol area. Those. aircraft carrier. Preferably normal, with catapults. We take away time for the approach and the way home - the required number of aircraft is sharply reduced. We remove the need to constantly keep airplanes in the air - due to the presence of AWACS, we can detect the enemy early, and at the slightest squeak we only need to raise the available aircraft in the air, and it will already be in the combat zone, it will not take another hour to wait until it arrives from land . If you still need to keep the planes in the air, it will be 3 hours, not 1 hours ...
        1. common man
          common man April 4 2018 15: 30
          +2
          Quote: arturpraetor
          Or have an airfield directly in the patrol area. Those. aircraft carrier. Preferably normal, with catapults.

          Well, our aircraft carrier will not live there for more than a day. Three Amerov’s Nimitsa or Bush will come up to attack our “Ulyanovsk for example” and he will be caput. And then it will be like in the first part of your post.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 4 2018 15: 39
            +3
            Quote: man in the street
            Well, our aircraft carrier will not live there for more than a day. Three Amerian Nimitz or Bush will do

            Where will they come from? Two is the maximum. This time. The second - the AB has a combat mission - to bring the nuclear submarines to the Atlantic. Managed at the cost of his own life? Well done.
            1. common man
              common man April 4 2018 16: 36
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Managed at the cost of his own life? Well done.

              Do not understand. Withdraw the submarine into the Atlantic, so that it could be sunk a couple of supply transports, at the cost of losing a single aircraft carrier? That's cool.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Where will they come from?

              Having a dozen AB will want and four will drive. And shaving with the French will help.
              Quote: arturpraetor
              that our SSBNs and heavy missile carriers from the shore will have time to come in a day,

              Well, that’s how their Los Angeles will not sunbathe on the beaches of Miami. Harnessed too. And they have them at more than 0 than ours. And fighter aircraft from Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Britain will catch up. And God knows the strategists from where, even from Sicily harnessed. In a mess, roll. At the same time, a couple of theirs AV will be drowned (as much as the most scared from their own impudence), they will have 8 more. And our one will sink and then what?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 4 2018 18: 32
                +2
                Quote: man in the street
                Having a dozen AB will want and four will drive. And shaving with the French will help.

                Could not. The Americans had everything planned - 2 AB and a point were supposed to go to Norway.
                Quote: man in the street
                And shaving with the French will help.

                The British during the USSR did not have aircraft carriers as such, the French were not attracted to the north - they had enough of their own worries in the middle-earth
                Quote: man in the street
                Do not understand. Withdraw the submarine into the Atlantic, so that it could be sunk a couple of supply transports, at the cost of losing a single aircraft carrier? That's cool.

                This is because you consider the operations of the fleet as a kind of spherical horse in a vacuum, in isolation from the rest of the fighting. And the realities were such that, at the sudden onset of the conflict, the ATS countries had approximately a double advantage in the ground forces and maintained it at the current pace of the transfer of NATO European divisions to the battlefield. Somehow to change (or, at least, not worsen) this ratio could only mass transfer of personnel and equipment from the United States. Transport aviation for this half did not solve. Therefore, roughly speaking, everything was determined by sea transportation in the first month and a half after the outbreak of war. If we were able to seriously complicate them, then by the end of one and a half months the Soviet tanks washed the tracks in the English Channel, and for this the war’s goals were completely fulfilled - we were not going to climb across the ocean to the United States under any layouts.
                Quote: man in the street
                At the same time, a couple of theirs AV will be drowned (as much as the most scared from their own impudence), they will have 8 more. And our one will sink and then what?

                Sorry, but we seem to be talking about the USSR? :))) About today - it’s a little pointless, today we are even with the AB, even without it we can’t do anything at sea
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 20: 39
                  0
                  and in the USSR how many full-fledged AVs were? hlt one was it? The Russian Federation has more than 1000 percent of them than in the USSR, but it’s not possible for the FIS to consider airplanes guarding the mast of the ship
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 17: 42
              +2
              a very controversial remark, for the sake of a very controversial task, to lose AB, half the fleet’s displacement in a day, and 2000 people ... you are completely out of your mind ... well, at least you agreed that AB is a suicide bomber (unless of course he leaves the Barents or the Sea of ​​Okhotsk) .... is it not better to work on the secrecy of nuclear submarines?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 4 2018 18: 32
                +2
                Quote: vladimir1155
                are you out of your mind ...

                Unlike you, yes.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 20: 39
                  0
                  and this is your only argument ..... weak
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    April 4 2018 20: 52
                    +3
                    The rest are listed in the comments above and below. Waiting for an answer, like a nightingale of summer :)
          2. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 4 2018 15: 51
            +2
            The only problem is that our SSBNs and heavy missile carriers from the coast, and the aircraft carrier, playing the role of illumination (AWACS) and cover (carrier-based fighter planes), will connect the Americans with battle and allow the submarines and coastal aviation to come off in full in a day. SSGNs will not have to gnaw at the borders of the PLO, missile carriers will not have to rake all the way from the American decks. Here, the OR-OR layout does not work well: only together, with a combined strike it will be possible to open the decks of 1, 2, and even the entire three of the American aircraft carriers. Forcing one thing is certainly cheaper and simpler, but it will be stupid - and coastal aviation alone will be torn off even before reaching the launch distance of the anti-ship missiles (if this is still the target designation), and one naked aircraft carrier will be cut in two accounts, and even SSGNs target designations will be at great risk of being drunk if American AUGs can focus on them ONLY. It’s like the interaction of the military branches on land - individually, of course, they are strong, but throwing the enemy with just the number of infantry, tanks, guns or planes is a waste of resources, but if you use everything together and how it should (let it be difficult) - it will be possible beat the enemy with even less force than he will have.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 17: 43
              0
              how many fantasies, even galleys will help, connect the forces of the adversary
              1. Per se.
                Per se. April 4 2018 20: 38
                +2
                Quote: vladimir1155
                how much fantasy
                In the case under discussion, the battle at sea itself is considered not so much as a pre-launch state before a possible world war. Here it must be emphasized prelaunch condition, and possible world war. You stubbornly deny aircraft carriers, but they, like nuclear weapons, play a key role. And you do not deny the need for nuclear weapons, which for decades has been idle. For reference, -
                In terms of “nuclear” expenses, it looks like this (2010 — 2011): US - 61,3 billion dollars, Russia - 14,8, China - 7,6, France - 6, Great Britain - 5,5, India - 4,9, Israel - 1,9, Pakistan - 2,2 , North Korea - 0,7 billion dollars. The total amount of “nuclear” budgets for only the two years indicated makes 104,9 billion. Speech in this case, experts say, is not about all costs.
                As many here point out, the aircraft carrier is not only a ship in itself, its presence implies a grouping, and the ship group, the fleet itself. Fleet, the most active component of the armed forces. Namely, the presence of the fleet, allows you to create pressure points, to stop problems in a timely manner, seeking to uphold national interests, national security. Not in the least, it is precisely this that prevents the use of nuclear weapons, as a last argument, in a possible world war, or serves as a pre-launch state allowing the deployment of strategic forces at sea. And, it is not necessary here to be cunning, the role of the fleet is enormous, therefore a full-fledged fleet is needed, capable of solving all the tasks at sea, and not the ersatz of the solution, in attempts to "play chess with pawns alone". Only having received access to the seas, having built a fleet, Russia became under Peter I an empire, a country with world possibilities. A full-fledged fleet is unthinkable without aircraft, and, therefore, without its deck component, that is, without aircraft carriers. And here it’s not an end in itself to have them as many as the USA and NATO, we will not have more corvettes than they do, but, I repeat, we must have a full-fledged fleet. Denying aircraft carriers, deny the full fleet, and hence the role of the fleet. I do not presume to judge where the fools and traitors are, where the agents of the Anglo-Saxons, but those who want “the best”, tearfully saving the people's penny, are hardly better than the above-mentioned “partners” and “colleagues”.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 14: 46
                  +1
                  why do you deny aviation? it is very good even without a deck component, just as a fleet without an AB is very full, everything else is your slogan
                  1. bugagich
                    bugagich 9 May 2018 16: 54
                    0
                    no one denies aviation. even the opposite.
                    they all chewed you, the colleague above described perfectly what is called a "balanced" fleet.
                    so a fleet without AB, by definition, cannot be balanced. coastal aviation cannot reach wherever it may be needed. You have already been given examples of campaigns around the corner, the anti-submarine line of Iceland-Faroe ...

                    colleagues discussed the disastrous "white paper" for 1966 above. and mentioned how the British lost cva-01. It was supposed to replace it with f-111.
                    but be that as it may, even having received f-111 shaving would have lost many of their interests in SEA and other areas. what, sobs-but happened. cva-01 solved this problem. but alas ... in fact, they run on the same rake as the USSR, though for various reasons.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 17: 37
          +1
          you are torn away from reality, but the galley is not visible and it will be destroyed before the planes take off, you come out of their vicious postulate of the need to cover the submarine aircraft, fished by Andrei from an ancient mousy book, and then begin to reason on the basis of their false premises, and rejecting the reality of the guaranteed defeat of AB itself in the Atlantic
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 4 2018 17: 41
            +2
            Quote: vladimir1155
            av not a galley you can see him

            Fuck not get up! Seen from what? Are you sure that this flare on the radar is an aircraft carrier? Or are you going to deal only with visual detection?)) You are not at all aware of how the detection and target designation is carried out at sea, you are not aware of the tactics of using AUGs and that its detection is a pain in the ass of a potential enemy even now, but I have come off reality. Indeed, your ignorance, coupled with self-confidence - is a great force!
            1. common man
              common man April 4 2018 19: 39
              +1
              Quote: arturpraetor
              Fuck not get up! Seen from what?

              How from what?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The Americans had everything planned - 2 AB and a point were supposed to go to Norway.

              And these are AWACS aircraft, and duty units, as well as at least 2 Ticonderogs, 4 Burke and 2 Los Angeles.
              And pay attention, Against no one Soviet AV, we are talking about the times of the USSR, and then there was no AB, the amers had two AUGs painted. The question is, how many Americans would contrast AUG to Our AB, if it were?
              In my opinion, our argument begins to resemble a conversation between the deaf and the blind. Excuse me.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 4 2018 20: 57
                +2
                Quote: man in the street
                And pay attention, Against no Soviet AV, we are talking about the times of the USSR, but then there was no AB, the AUMs had two AUGs.

                Wrong. ABs are not measured in small letters against each other, but fulfill the tasks assigned to them. To accomplish these tasks, the United States was extremely desirable to have at least 2 AB in the 6th fleet (Middle-earth) and at least 2-4 AB in the Far. For Norway, 2 AB remained, and more quickly just did not deploy.
                Quote: man in the street
                In my opinion, our argument begins to resemble a conversation between the deaf and the blind.

                It’s just that I studied this question a little while, but you don’t
                1. common man
                  common man April 4 2018 22: 00
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  ABs are not immortal, but in order to kill them in the XNUMXth century, it is highly desirable to have your own ABs. Just the case when against scrap ...

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Wrong. ABs are not measured in pipettes against each other, but fulfill their tasks
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    April 5 2018 00: 25
                    +1
                    And what confused you this time? :))) You still could not understand that the destruction of AB was a priority for the USSR, but not for the United States? What is the main task of AUG USA - shock, i.e. providing air support to the land explorers, who lost a lot in the number of ATS? :)
                    You prefer to tear out two quotes from the comments, one of which relates to American AB, the second to Soviet. And you probably seem so smart to yourself ...
                    Seem
                    1. Good neighbor
                      Good neighbor April 12 2018 15: 59
                      +1
                      And someone “Andrei from Chelyabinsk” recently claimed that “the main task of the AUG of the USA is the shock” is far from the main one. Slept, a fan of aircraft carriers))
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 20: 31
              0
              I’m sure that AB is difficult to confuse with a seiner and even a dry cargo ship, there’s not a lot of super tankers going around, in general I’m sure that detecting AB is real
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA April 5 2018 18: 42
                0
                Quote: vladimir1155
                I’m sure that AB is difficult to confuse with a seiner and even a dry cargo ship, there’s not a lot of super tankers going around, in general I’m sure that detecting AB is real

                There are really not many supertankers. But KKS and high-speed tankers have each AUG - and the size and displacement of these vessels are approaching AB.
                And cunning American admirals used this: on the radar screen of a reconnaissance aircraft, it seems that a standard order is shining, there is a bold mark AB ... and when approaching, it turns out that a fast tanker follows in place of AB in the order. And AB, accordingly, goes to the place of the tanker. smile
  25. midshipman
    midshipman April 4 2018 11: 03
    +6
    I had to participate in the creation of control systems, navigation and landing aircraft on all aircraft carriers. VNIIRA JSC and POLLET software (NIIT) were engaged in solving these problems in our country. It was the scientists and specialists of these enterprises who created all the ship and onboard equipment. Then equipped the simulator in Saki. It all started with the creation of a system for our first nuclear-powered icebreaker. There, scientists installed the RSBN lighthouse, and the MI-2 helicopter was equipped with equipment, it seems Iskra. The icebreaker walked perfectly in the Arctic, and the helicopter worked from it. Currently, the task has become extremely urgent. UAV must be controlled, and aircraft-carrying ships and vessels are necessary for our country.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 17: 38
      0
      for a UAV and a helicopter, the frigate will not work?
  26. Rakovor
    Rakovor April 4 2018 11: 31
    +5
    Quote: arturpraetor
    The author of five weighty monographs and many scientific articles, but you did not know? laughing Where so Kuzin and Nikolsky before him!

    Damn, Nitsche, what am I to him on the "you"?))
    1. arturpraetor
      arturpraetor April 4 2018 11: 36
      +2
      You object to him and doubt his absolutely truthful and objective words, this is generally a mortal sin! The appeal to "you" is already trifles yes
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 4 2018 11: 54
      +2
      Quote: Rakovor
      Damn, Nitsche, what am I to him on the "you"?))

      No respect for authorities laughing
  27. Taoist
    Taoist April 4 2018 15: 59
    +1
    By the way, another reason is that in this topic we just "shake the air."
    1) Today, a generational change of aircraft is clearly outlined - i.e. most likely, unmanned aerial vehicles will most likely be used, that is to say so the concept of a “strike aircraft carrier” somewhat changes by itself.
    2) From the point of view of our naval doctrine, we still don’t need classical aircraft carriers in principle - we don’t have and most likely will not have enough surface components and tasks for such ships.
    3) Ensuring the tasks that the Soviet Navy solved the TAKR for the most part they are optimally solved. Separate problems, such as the lack of AWACS aircraft, are most likely to be solved today in a completely different way (see paragraph 1).

    Thus, the same TAKR will become the optimal ship with an aviation component of armaments only in the version of the carrier of unmanned arms with a universal under-deck container system of vertical launch and carrying the same group of helicopters of anti-aircraft defense.
    Such a ship will be able to provide combat stability of naval formations in the far sea zone, air defense and anti-aircraft group, as well as provide cover for deployment areas of SSBNs. Using modern technologies, the displacement of such a ship is unlikely to exceed 20 thousand tons and, accordingly, it will not experience problems with basing and the cost of such a ship will allow it to have 2-3 units in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 17: 45
      0
      there will be two of them, and there will be no new ones
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 4 2018 22: 26
        +1
        at the billionth value of Borea, here are the official data of 23 billion rubles each unit https://lenta.ru/news/2011/11/02/price/,
        at the Central Bank rate 58 rubles,
        in dollars 0.4 billion for one nuclear submarine
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 5 2018 09: 02
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Here are the official data of 23 billion rubles each unit https://lenta.ru/news/2011/11/02/price/,

          good fool
          The official data on the tape ....
          And even such an alternatively gifted person by nature, like you, could have guessed that if we take prices in 2011, then we need to convert to dollars at the rate of 2011. Schoolchildren, they are such schoolchildren ...
          And I don’t know who you need to be in order to at least not get into Wikipedia and see WHEN Dolgoruky and Nevsky were laid. - that is, the contract value of 23 billion assumed payment, including materials that were purchased by the manufacturer since 1996! And about the fact that the backlog of other nuclear submarines was used in the construction of the long-armed and Nevsky submarines, which, of course, is not reflected in the cost of the final contract, only those who do not know anything about the fleet do not know.
          So, in October 2011 - 31 rubles / dollar, 23,2 billion = 748 million dollars, but this is NOT the full price of the SSBN
  28. Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko April 5 2018 00: 43
    +4
    The article itself and almost the entire discussion resembles an action called "To crush water in a mortar." The author’s sense of manicity, fixated on the exclusive role of large surface ships, especially aircraft carriers, does not leave. Even the obvious main fact does not convince him: the task of military parity with the USA in the USSR was solved. Resolved, despite the absence of aircraft carriers. Now to prove that the solved problem was solved incorrectly is already a clinic. At the same time, the author himself builds the "evidence" mainly on the plagiarism of the work of the USSR Navy 1945-1991 by Kuzin and Nikolsky, a work full of biased estimates (written in 1996, when blackening everything Soviet was normal for many). Therefore, it is not clear what is new in this article. It is a pity for people who are "enlightened" by reading the opuses of a "theoretician" from Chelyabinsk, a man who is clearly notorious because of his amateur status in the Navy.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 07: 55
      0
      I wanted to put three likes, but only one could
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 09: 07
      +2
      Quote: Yuri Malyshko
      Even the obvious main fact does not convince him: the task of military parity with the USA in the USSR was solved. Resolved, despite the absence of aircraft carriers.

      (yawn) Yeah, it was. Due to our land advantage and parity in the strategic nuclear forces, while at sea we were weaker.
      Quote: Yuri Malyshko
      Now to prove that the solved problem was solved incorrectly is already a clinic

      As for me, the clinic is to distort the obvious things, interfering with the balance of forces at sea with the general parity of the aircraft. However, I can’t make any diagnoses - I’m not your doctor.
      However, spring is in full swing as I look
  29. Rakovor
    Rakovor April 5 2018 06: 58
    +3
    Quote: Yuri Malyshko
    The article itself and almost the entire discussion resembles an action called "To crush water in a mortar." The author’s sense of manicity, fixated on the exclusive role of large surface ships, especially aircraft carriers, does not leave. Even the obvious main fact does not convince him: the task of military parity with the USA in the USSR was solved. Resolved, despite the absence of aircraft carriers. Now to prove that the solved problem was solved incorrectly is already a clinic. At the same time, the author himself builds the "evidence" mainly on the plagiarism of the work of the USSR Navy 1945-1991 by Kuzin and Nikolsky, a work full of biased estimates (written in 1996, when blackening everything Soviet was normal for many). Therefore, it is not clear what is new in this article. It is a pity for people who are "enlightened" by reading the opuses of a "theoretician" from Chelyabinsk, a man who is clearly notorious because of his amateur status in the Navy.

    This is in what place "parity" was achieved - is it in your sick imagination?)) Even based on the tasks that our Navy faced, it is clear that there was no "parity" at all. Something like this: weaken the 6th fleet as much as possible at the cost of the death of the 5th OPESK; slow down the delivery of troops to the European theater of war (struggle on communications) ;, coastal defense; cover of the SSBN deployment areas. Yes, any person familiar with the history of naval history will tell you that these are the tasks of the "weakest" fleet against the "strongest". If we had, as you put it here, “parity”, and the tasks would be completely different - something like a general battle followed by a landing somewhere in Florida, or at worst to the British Isles.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 07: 57
      0
      there was parity, and even remained, but not with the means of the Navy, but with the Strategic Missile Forces, so we don’t need Av, better more Strategic Missile Forces
      1. Sander113
        Sander113 April 5 2018 09: 05
        +1
        Based on your logic, SV and VKS we also do not really need. Leave a couple of special forces brigades and a couple of counterguerrilla squadrons for fussing with baramae, and for the rest there is a Strategic Missile Forces ... So what?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 14: 08
          0
          based on my logic, all military forces and assets have a limited amount based on the plans of the General Staff and the country's capabilities, except for Strategic Missile Forces with global parity
          1. Sander113
            Sander113 April 5 2018 14: 25
            +2
            Strategic missile forces having a global priority is just fine. But what about the SSBNs on which a significant portion of nuclear warheads are located? They do not need to be protected?
            In general, strategic nuclear forces are great for ensuring the security of the state, but they are not very suitable for solving everyday worries and sorrows. Armed conflicts have occurred, are happening and will continue to occur, and the presence of nuclear weapons does not stop the participants. A balanced fleet is a good tool (not cheap) to defend your interests. And aircraft carriers for a balanced fleet are needed, at least for the moment.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 09: 56
      +2
      Quote: Rakovor
      This is where “parity” was achieved - in your sick imagination or what?))

      Here, rather offended pride hurts - I smashed the argument a little along the wall in the topic of missile cruisers, now it runs from article to article, sprinkles poison, is rude. Terrible revenge in the execution of an officer of the Navy (as he introduced himself to me). Uniform honor and all that laughing
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 14: 11
        +1
        I will intercede for the honor of an officer, as the officer himself, although for a long time already a reserve, did not see him spraying poison, rude, and running, not just reading books to insult a Russian officer
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 5 2018 14: 53
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          didn't see him sprinkling poison

          Open your eyes, O daughter of an officer. She wrote five thick monographs, huh. However, apparently, in your "officer" environment this is the norm, so I will probably continue to write to you in the same tone, as Malyshko writes to me.
  30. sevtrash
    sevtrash April 5 2018 08: 30
    +1
    During World War II, the role of aircraft carriers in supremacy at sea became undeniable, therefore, the justification for their need for a state claiming global roles was late for at least a century. And now there is no replacement for aircraft carriers, for now. The fact that in the USSR they could not / did not want to do ejection aircraft carriers is apparently due to economic reasons, well, and especially to decision-making in a society with an insufficient level of discussion / analysis of the development prospects of the fleet.
    And if the classification is simplified, that is, “real” aircraft carriers, catapult, for 90-100 aircraft, as part of the AOG - American - which were tested in military operations. And there are surrogates of aircraft carriers - from Narubet, Kavur, Vikramadye, Kuznetsov to Queen Elizabeth and even de Gaulle - whose capabilities, like their AUGs, did not lie next to the classics. Almost.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 14: 13
      0
      Did you invent the classification yourself for yourself? .... but experts classify them differently
  31. alstr
    alstr April 5 2018 10: 29
    +1
    Vladimir1155,
    we add that in order to disable AB, you must either get the PRK into the deck in the area of ​​the finishers or a torpedo in the area of ​​the propellers.
    And again, we recall that we had a nuclear torpedo with unlimited range, plus a crowd of various drones - air, surface, and underwater - enter the arena.
    Therefore, the concept of warfare will change.

    No need to prepare for the last war (and then even the year before last)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 11: 48
      +1
      Quote: alstr
      we add that in order to disable AB, you must either get the PRK into the deck in the area of ​​the finishers or a torpedo in the area of ​​the propellers.

      Yeah. And to destroy a 4 ++ or 5th generation fighter, all that is needed is to get into it with an anti-aircraft missile. How stupid we are that we are creating the Su-35 and the PAK FA, preparing for the war before last, thank you for opening you eyes!
      1. alstr
        alstr April 5 2018 13: 37
        +1
        I’m not talking about airplanes, but about the AUG concept. Now the whole concept of the ACG comes from the analysis of the Second World War, with minor amendments to the appearance of first-generation missile weapons.
        But it does not take into account that missile weapons developed (and is still developing) and from a distance of 50-100 km it stepped at a distance of 500-1000 km, and taking into account the appearance of nuclear missile defense, even more.
        The weak point is target designation, but here again, great progress in the field of UAVs solves this problem (even if you lose UAVs, this is a good change).
        And if we take into account the appearance of submarine drones / torpedoes with unlimited range, the concept of combined simultaneous attack of torpedoes and anti-ship missiles suggests itself.
        And this is only the most obvious change in tactics for strikes on the ACG.

        As for the aircraft, there is also a change coming.
        Because for example, the management of the new SU-57 (with new engines) will not be available to some of the current pilots due to new health requirements (these are the words of one of the developers).
        Those. the limit will soon be reached when a person cannot fully control the aircraft due to health restrictions. At the same time, there is significant progress in drones and communication systems. And there is also some progress on AI.
        For example, I suppose that in the near future a transition to the concept of a controlled swarm of UAVs is possible. Those. there is a control aircraft under human control (well, let's take the MIG-31 for simplicity) and several drones. Then the operator - the person gives commands like: destroy the goal - to return. After that, he forgets about him.
        Or vice versa, it will issue an order to guard its AWACS aircraft and then the UAV will shoot down everything that approaches a couple of tens of kilometers.

        And this, again, is just what lies on the surface, and if you dig it?
        1. Sander113
          Sander113 April 5 2018 13: 56
          +1
          The AUG concept is time-tested. And all these flocks of drones are nothing more than advertising promises and beautiful commercials at the moment. And in a real conflict, all this good will begin to fail with terrible force.
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 5 2018 14: 16
            +2
            Not to mention that the sane drone capable of replacing deck aircraft should have the same functions, i.e. carry the same combat load, and this entails a size slightly smaller than that of existing decks. Suddenly, it turns out that the flight deck with catapults still steers - even with pilots, even with drones, if we want to get the same exhaust ...
          2. alstr
            alstr April 5 2018 16: 22
            +1
            The concept of armadillos has also been tested by time, but after the appearance of Drendnout, for some reason, it became sharply outdated.
            And the concept of battleships and art ships was also tested by time, but for some reason it became outdated with the advent of first carrier-based aviation, and then guided missile weapons.
            Don't see the analogies?

            There is no doubt that the USSR needed aircraft carriers, because they would give greater stability to the forces to ensure access to a given area of ​​the submarine, but now with the development in different areas, the presence of AB is not very obvious. Especially when you consider that AB will serve after the construction of 50 years and it will be built only after another 10 years.

            As for drones, they are actually needed only for target designation for submarines with anti-ship missiles. moreover, absolutely exact coordinates are not needed - additional exploration will still be by the forces of the GOS anti-ship missiles or nuclear torpedoes.
            I see that such a concept is already realizable at the current level of technology and can mitigate the threat of AB.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 5 2018 16: 53
              +1
              Quote: alstr
              Don't see the analogies?

              I see :))) But alas, these analogies are not yet relevant
              Quote: alstr
              but now with the development in different areas, the presence of AB is not very obvious.

              I can agree with that. The need for AB is not as obvious as before.
              Quote: alstr
              As for drones, they are actually needed only for target designation for submarines with anti-ship missiles. moreover, absolutely exact coordinates are not needed - additional exploration will still be by the forces of the GOS anti-ship missiles or nuclear torpedoes.

              Let's clarify. You need to identify the location of the aircraft carrier - frankly, for an UAV not covered by fighter aircraft, the task is unsolvable, but okay. Then you need to somehow transfer the control center to a submarine, which, in fact, is underwater and not for radio communications :))) Then you need to put this control center into missiles and fire a salvo - which takes time, as well as the approach missiles to the target. The question is - where will the goal be by then? :)))
              1. alstr
                alstr April 5 2018 17: 42
                +1
                Why? Analogies are always useful, and in this case, you just need to calculate the various development options, taking into account what is in the storeroom of the development (we don’t have a complete picture in this area).

                Therefore, the appearance of AB can be quite justified if it is calculated that AB will be relevant somewhere in 2050-2060.
                If there is any doubt about this, then perhaps it makes sense to transfer money to other areas.

                About communication with the submarine, then everything is simple - the submarine produces a towed antenna (maybe even in the form of a robot). Those. The UAV drops a packet with data on the target. Entering the data on the target itself is not particularly difficult (the same air defense systems receive missiles from the control unit in real time).
                So we float and launch missiles. If we take Onyx, then it will pass a distance of 500 km (at a speed of 750 m / s) in about 11 minutes.
                At full speed (approximately 30 knots) AB will pass a little more than 8 km.
                This, of course, is all rude. There will actually be a flight time of about 15 minutes, but it is still very dangerous for AUG
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 5 2018 18: 15
                  +2
                  Quote: alstr
                  Why? Analogies are always useful, and in this case, you just need to calculate the various development options, taking into account what is in the storeroom of the development (we don’t have a complete picture in this area).

                  I absolutely agree with you, but the fact is that aviation landed on the decks of ships in the First World War, but only a quarter of a century later became a real fighting force. But the appearance of aircraft carriers, in general, did not depreciate battleships right away - let's remember who shot the Japanese in the Surigao Strait with the complete domination of the American aircraft carrier fleet :)))) In general, battleships remained useful, although they lost their dominant role
                  I believe that the future is definitely for the UAV. But I’m also sure that neither today nor in the near future will we have technologies that would bring UAVs closer in efficiency to manned aviation. That is, taking the battleships against airplanes as an analogy, we must understand that we have “airplanes” while not far from the eroplanes of the Wright brothers. Walking will overpower the road, yes, but ... not yet soon.
                  Quote: alstr
                  About communication with the submarine, then everything is simple - the submarine produces a towed antenna (maybe even in the form of a robot).

                  That is, it extremely limits itself in the depths of immersion, speed, maneuver, and makes itself easy enough for enemy PLO.
                  In the USSR, such things were solved by communication sessions - at the scheduled time, but with the UAV this number is unlikely to work
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 23: 13
                0
                What nonsense, do you really think that missiles are not able to hit a moving target? .... well done Malyshko that brought you to clean water ... and now it dawned on me that you do not understand anything in anything
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 5 2018 15: 01
          0
          Quote: alstr
          I'm not talking about airplanes, but about the concept of AUG

          And I just applied your logic to airplanes in order to show its fallacy. Because it’s possible to say so about any weapons system - it’s enough to get the anti-ship missiles into the aircraft carrier’s aerofinishes, it’s enough to hit the missile launcher on the plane, it’s enough to hit the tank in the right place, it’s enough to get the ATGM into the armored personnel carrier - and now, is all this out of date?
          It’s really enough to hit, and you try to hit :)
          Quote: alstr
          But it does not take into account that missile weapons developed (and is still developing) and from a distance of 50-100 km it stepped at a distance of 500-1000 km, and taking into account the appearance of nuclear missile defense, even more.

          it does not take into account that for an aircraft carrier these 500-1000 km will always be 500-1000 km PLUS the combat radius of the aircraft.
          Quote: alstr
          The weak point is target designation, but here again, great progress in the field of UAVs solves this problem.

          Given the fact that the Americans, who have the most experience in UAVs, recognize that these UAVs without fighter cover can act only in conflicts of miserable intensity (that is, against partisans), it does not solve it.
          Quote: alstr
          And given the appearance of underwater drones / torpedoes with unlimited range

          The question is not in range, the question is to get into an aircraft carrier, i.e. TSU And not be destroyed on the way to AB
          Quote: alstr
          Those. the limit will soon be reached when a person cannot fully control the aircraft due to health restrictions

          laughing I’ll tell you a secret - it was reached already at least 50 years ago.
          Quote: alstr
          Or vice versa, it will issue an order to guard its AWACS aircraft and then the UAV will shoot down everything that approaches a couple of tens of kilometers.

          Sorry, but this is a very ... simplified perception of aerial combat.
          1. alstr
            alstr April 5 2018 16: 39
            +1
            The logic is not true. The dimensions and speed of an air defense missile system are quite comparable to airplanes, but the dimensions and speed of an air defense system and an aircraft are different by orders

            Firstly, for submarines, anti-ship missiles are the least frightening, because Submarines have the ability to underwater launch. Secondly, the submarine must still be found in order to start fighting it before the launch of the missiles. And this is problematic.

            The issue of protection against fighter jets can be solved by camouflage and ... using underwater drones, as the underwater object is much more complicated than the air. So there are options, but of course there is enough work.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 5 2018 18: 18
              +1
              Quote: alstr
              The logic is not true. The dimensions and speed of an air defense missile system are quite comparable to airplanes, but the dimensions and speed of an air defense system and an aircraft are different by orders

              The speed of the projectile and the tank also differ by orders of magnitude. And ATGM with an armored personnel carrier. And how much the speed of a bullet and a person differ ... Let's declare the infantry obsolete! laughing
  32. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion April 5 2018 11: 47
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Damm
    It’s not funny, but drowning them with hypersonic daggers is much cheaper and more effective than any AV fleet

    Try to sink the "Daggers" the largest carrier SLCM - SSGN type "Ohio" with 154 "tomahawks" on board. smile


    Do not exaggerate. There are only 4 such submarines in the USA, one in the Atlantic. Regarding 154 tomahawks. Their simultaneous start-up takes at least an hour, by the way, tests to launch a full ammunition have never been carried out. Even if it does not fall apart when launched, nobody will let it launch for an hour, it will find itself the first missile and will be destroyed in the near future. By the way, the only submarine that is loaded with all 154 tomahawks is in the Pacific Ocean. On the Atlantic there is a submarine on which 2 mines host a minisubmar are different for combat swimmers. Moreover, these submarines block 6 more mines with Tomahawks. In reality, there are 16 mines of 7 missiles. That is 112 tomahawks that can be used in one volley, and which will take about 40 minutes to fly. Which also guarantees destruction Submarine during this time.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 12: 05
      +2
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Their simultaneous start in time takes at least an hour.

      Let me clarify where it came from at least an hour? not that I really wanted to argue about this, but interestingly simple.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      no one will let her rocket for an hour, she will find herself the first rocket and will be destroyed in the near future.

      I wonder what. Theoretically, this could be done by aviation (but in an hour? Hmm ...) the Americans are practically not crazy, and the area of ​​firing like a thread from the air will be covered. For an hour :)
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 14: 33
        0
        Yes, Andrei, you don’t even know eclonomics, why did you decide that you need to recalculate the cost of nuclear submarines in 2011 ruble prices at the dollar exchange rate in 2011, what naivety! don’t you know that the dollar exchange rate does not reflect the purchasing power parity of currencies and almost never depreciated ..... yes, my friend, here in Washington, it costs $ 10 to go by bus, I don’t remember the metro stop for three dollars, the ice cream is the same and so much one-liter de-expired milk, and what do you think with an increase in the dollar exchange rate, ice cream prices in America rose, or they fell from this in Russia, so your calculations are wrong
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 5 2018 15: 51
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Yes, you Andrei also don’t know eclonomics, why did you decide that you need to recalculate the cost of nuclear submarines in 2011 ruble prices at the 2011 dollar exchange rate,

          Indeed :)))) First of all, you say this to a person with the highest economic, financial director :))))) Vladimir, if you are not able to realize such elementary things, then I generally wonder how you manage to put on your pants in the morning without any help. Or ... help you? laughing
          Quote: vladimir1155
          don’t you know that the dollar exchange rate does not reflect the purchasing power parities of currencies and almost never lost

          My dear, why did you just start talking about it now, and not when you started comparing the cost of creating an aircraft carrier in the USA with US prices and the cost of building an SSBN Borey converting the 2011 price into dollars at today's rate? What, suddenly he regained his sight, and finally realized what nonsense you wrote about AV - 13 billion Boreas -0,4 billion? Or in your universe purchasing power parity applies to my comments, but not to yours? wassat
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 23: 25
            0
            oh saw through me! how long it took you an economist and a gender ... yes that’s how it is, since ABs are built in the USA, then we take their price, and Boreas are built in Russia then we take our prices if there was infa about the real cost of the AV built at our shipyards , then I would take it, and so we have only those 13 billion dollars that I mentioned for av and $ 400 million for Borey, by the way I honestly quoted exactly the contractual international prices on the C400, and not domestic, and still it turned out that AB cost almost total air defense of the country! so I inform you, there’s also restoration and market and cost, and I’m right again, as always, and I’ve broken your conclusions as a Swede in Poltava
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 6 2018 12: 31
              +2
              Quote: vladimir1155
              and I am right again as always and broke your conclusions as a Swede near Poltava

              good laughing
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 5 2018 18: 46
      +1
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Even if it doesn’t fall apart at launch, nobody will let it launch within an hour, it will find itself the first missile and will be destroyed in the near future.

      Who will destroy?
      Surface ships without AB from coastal airfields will not depart further 300-400 km.
      Basic patrol aircraft for these 300-400 km will turn up only if they cover the whole IAP.
      ICAPL? Without cover, in the area of ​​operation of the base and ship vehicles of the enemy’s PLO (which just have a fighter cover), they will be occupied with their own survival, and not with hunting.
  33. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 5 2018 12: 22
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    You can. But this is bad luck - enemy aviation will not wait an hour until you find its planes, request support, the air regiment will fly into the air and arrive at the right place. That is, in the event of a raid, you can only rely on the aircraft that DIRECTLY covers the KUG. Would you like it to be an Aviation Regiment? Considering 2 sorties per day on an airplane and a patrol time of 2 hours, one air regiment will provide 4 hours a day, so please prepare 6 air regiments for round-the-clock patrolling. And an aircraft carrier is capable of lifting the same regiment from the deck in a quarter of an hour, so its planes manage to intercept the enemy in the air and his air group does not need to be constantly on duty in the air. So this is 1 air regiment on the deck of an aircraft carrier = 6 regiments on the shore. The rest are "simple" calculations ... Will you see the errors yourself, or help?

    Let's work on my mistakes. My aerodrome on land is 300 km away. and there they are based MiG-31 which cannot be stuck in an aircraft carrier. Planes on an aircraft carrier and on shore are equally prepared.
    1. A distance of 300 km will require approximately 7 minutes for supersonic aircraft from land. The entire regiment will be able to take off in 2-3 minutes from the coastal aerodrome.
    2. With the carrier only the entire air regiment raised into the air will take at least 10 minutes.
    3. When flying, the aircraft carrier must be literally above or very close to the guarded submarine. And when the excitement of more than 5 points, the aircraft carrier aircraft group cannot be raised.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 15: 07
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      A distance of 300 km will require approximately 7 minutes for supersonic aircraft from land. The entire regiment will be able to take off in 2-3 minutes from the coastal aerodrome.

      laughing Yes, you are fantastic! :))))))
      You look at the air base - how many runways are there? :))))) What are 2-3 minutes? :)))))
      Quote: Kostadinov
      300 km distance will require

      At the same time, count the number of airdromes needed to ensure that any point 200-300 km from the coastline had within reach the airdrome at a distance of 300 km :)))
      I suggest - you need an air base on the coast every 100 km laughing
      Quote: Kostadinov
      It will take at least 10 minutes from the aircraft carrier to lift the entire air regiment into the air.

      A regiment will rise from a carrier (normal) at least 4 times faster than from a standard aerodrome with one runway or twice as fast as an aerodrome with two runways; this, incidentally, does not take into account the fact that launch from a catapult is faster than takeoff from a runway.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      When flying, the aircraft carrier should be literally above or very close to the guarded submarine. And when the excitement of more than 5 points, the aircraft carrier aircraft group cannot be raised.

      Should not. 7 points, not 5. And yes, after 7 points, the rockets do not fly according to weather conditions :)
  34. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion April 5 2018 12: 47
    +2
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Its vulnerability is limited only by the number of missiles that the enemy does not feel sorry for her.

    Actually, not the number of missiles, which is not a pity, but the number of missiles needed to solve a particular problem. To destroy the AUG in the USSR, a bomber division was allocated, and the number of missiles necessary for the sinking of the same aircraft carrier was estimated at a dozen X-22 missiles
    If you want to sink, use as many rockets as you need to make a dozen break through to the aircraft carrier. If you use your “not a pity” - you can do nothing at all


    The Kh-22N required 9 missiles to guarantee destruction. According to the data from the late 70s, 60 Tu-22K and 370 Tu-22M were built for it, and 45 Tu-95K-22A were converted for the purpose of incapacitating a cruiser or aircraft carrier was enough to hit one rocket.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Thanks for the info, it means we’ll write down for the destruction of AB you need 12 missiles .....

    Yeah. And in order to bring these 12 missiles into an aircraft carrier - 2 Tu-22M3 regiments under cover of a minimum of fighter regiment + RTR and EW aircraft. In this case, probable losses can reach 80% of the specified composition
    write so :)


    Such a number of aircraft was necessary for the saturation of air defense means of the AUG, an average of 80 aircraft should have been used, some of them to distract the enemy's attention. In case of loss, this is nonsense, sucked from the finger, or rather a misunderstanding of the issue. The task (destruction of the AUG) was considered successfully completed, if the loss of aircraft was not higher than 70 percent of the number involved in the attack. This does not mean that they will be destroyed.


    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: vladimir1155
    missiles fly very far, so TUs can launch them unaccompanied

    laughing fool
    March to learn materiel. X-22 CANNOT be launched from afar, due to the great capriciousness of the GOS. To reliably hit a target, it was required that the GOS missile capture the target before launch, i.e. being under the wing of an airplane. And this is, at best, a few tens of kilometers from the order, perhaps, really, even closer. And turn around, leaving the attack, our Tu would have almost over the decks of US ships



    What kind of rocket modification do you mean? The very first? The Kh-22N missile had an inertial guidance system. And the GOS turned on close to the target and captured the largest target, that is, an aircraft carrier. The missiles were launched from a distance of 300-400 km. There can be no talk of which Tu span over the decks of ships .So how do you like to talk, march to learn materiel winked
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 15: 11
      +2
      Quote: Xscorpion
      The task (destruction of the ACG) was considered successfully completed if the losses of the aircraft were not higher than 70 percent of the number of those participating in the attack. This does not mean that they will be destroyed.

      Read one more time
      Quote: Xscorpion
      In this case, probable losses can reach 80% of the specified composition

      Where is the contradiction? I'm waiting for an apology for "nonsense"
      Quote: Xscorpion
      What kind of rocket modification do you mean? The very first?

      Все.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      The Kh-22N missile had an inertial guidance system. And the GOS turned on near the target and captured the largest target, that is, an aircraft carrier

      In theory, yes. But in practice, it was very susceptible to EW, and therefore only an incorrigible optimist could capture it in the hope that it would capture something there.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      so what do you like to say, march to learn materiel

      Alas, the fakir was drunk and the trick failed ... March to learn the materiel! laughing
  35. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion April 5 2018 12: 52
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Xscorpion
    Their simultaneous start in time takes at least an hour.

    Let me clarify where it came from at least an hour? not that I really wanted to argue about this, but interestingly simple.
    Quote: Xscorpion
    no one will let her rocket for an hour, she will find herself the first rocket and will be destroyed in the near future.

    I wonder what. Theoretically, this could be done by aviation (but in an hour? Hmm ...) the Americans are practically not crazy, and the area of ​​firing like a thread from the air will be covered. For an hour :)


    The interval between missile launches is 15-20 seconds. This is ideal. In real life it can be much longer.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 15: 11
      +1
      Quote: Xscorpion
      The interval between missile launches 15-20 seconds

      Yeah thanks!
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 22: 01
        0
        MRA used two options for releasing products. Start from abroad or simultaneous release. In any case, the volley of the volley could reach 240 seconds
  36. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion April 5 2018 13: 12
    0
    Quote: man in the street
    Quote: arturpraetor
    Fuck not get up! Seen from what?

    How from what?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The Americans had everything planned - 2 AB and a point were supposed to go to Norway.

    And these are AWACS aircraft, and duty units, as well as at least 2 Ticonderogs, 4 Burke and 2 Los Angeles.
    And pay attention, Against no one Soviet AV, we are talking about the times of the USSR, and then there was no AB, the amers had two AUGs painted. The question is, how many Americans would contrast AUG to Our AB, if it were?
    In my opinion, our argument begins to resemble a conversation between the deaf and the blind. Excuse me.


    It is unlikely that more than 2 will be allocated. For the war with the banana republic in one place and 4 will be able to collect. But in the war with Russia there will not be. There will be other fronts, the Mediterranean Sea, the Pacific Ocean, etc. Minimum 1-2 AUG will be in Indian Ocean, the same amount will be in the Central Pacific. In addition to the Russian Federation there are other powers with nuclear weapons that do not know how to behave in the event of a war between the United States and the Russian Federation. A certain amount of AUGs will be used to defend large American bases. For example there is no guarantee that Eun will not launch his missiles on the American ba am, since this will pyanka.Amerikantsy understand that perfectly.
  37. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    April 5 2018 14: 33
    +3
    Town Hall,
    Quote: Town Hall
    How many "main" aerodromes for military aviation are there on the SF and how many "jump" aerodromes are really equipped for maintaining a database? And what prevents the enemy from smashing them with missiles in the same first strike along with the main

    Town Hall, you do not confuse what was in the USSR with what is now. What was in the USSR you are tormented to smuggle all 5 KR
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 22: 03
      -1
      Those bases that are now you are still tormented to carry 5000 KR
  38. alstr
    alstr April 5 2018 15: 12
    0
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
    We look at Wiki (not to show, but at least something) and we see such a 9M96E2 / 9M96M missile with a range of up to 120 km.
    Those. this is clearly beyond the horizon.
    And there are even more recent missiles - 40N6E (400 km), 48N6E3 / 48N6-2 / 48N6DM (250 km).
    So we can. Only an external management center is needed, but it is definitely on the shore, because the air defense systems of the country's air defense systems work only on the command center of higher command centers. Working independently is a backup option, and even then, each radar division or control unit can be given several radar options, which allows it to work in the CP mode of an air defense system.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 5 2018 15: 40
      +3
      Quote: alstr
      We look at Wiki (not to show, but at least something) and we see such a 9M96E2 / 9M96M missile with a range of up to 120 km.
      Those. this is clearly beyond the horizon.

      120 km is the missile’s flight range; it has nothing to do with the radio horizon.
      That is, if you have a missile with a range of 450 km, you can hit it from the ground with an air target that is 450 km away from you and located at an altitude of 10 km. If the target is lower, then you don’t see it and you cannot aim a missile at it.
      Purely theoretically, if you have an observer who is able to issue a central missile and a missile with AGSN - yes, you can. In practice, this is a circus number.
      1. alstr
        alstr April 5 2018 16: 44
        +1
        Alas, but not right, because these missiles have an active seeker and try to capture it as they approach the target. And the height here does not matter.
        Moreover, it is possible to launch rockets in a given area, and then the GOS will turn on and make an additional search for the target. At the same time, modern versions of our over-the-horizon radars make it possible to issue TsU with accuracy, which allows the rocket to perform an additional search. At the same time, from such radars there is a real-time correction of the command center for the S-300/400 division.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 5 2018 18: 26
          +3
          Quote: alstr
          Alas, but not right, because these missiles have an active seeker and try to capture it as they approach the target. And the height here does not matter.

          When approaching 15-20 km - yes, it will. But how to get her out there?
          Quote: alstr
          Moreover, it is possible to launch rockets in a given area, and then the GOS will turn on and search for the target

          And you can just crack a rocket with a sledgehammer - there will be just as much sense. Even more, because a damaged rocket can be turned into scrap metal, but to understand it from the bottom of the sea ....
          You imagine it in dynamics. Here are the planes flying, they see the air defense radar. Missiles are released, they follow the inertial and are given radio commands, they are not seen by radar, until the rocket "by the handle" was brought to the plane. In the worst case, the pilot will detect infrared radiation and begin maneuvering, but even then the air defense radar will correct the flight of the missiles.
          And you propose launching missiles “somewhere in that direction” when they arrive in the area they cut the AGSN - the enemy catches their radiation even before the AGSN detects the target, the anti-ballistic maneuver and missile systems go into milk - there is no one to bring them.
          Over-the-horizon radars didn’t have such capabilities either. We won, the defeat of surface targets in the last exercises went only after additional exploration
          1. alstr
            alstr April 5 2018 20: 47
            +1
            Yes, it is easy to withdraw. The rocket escort locator simply displays the rocket at a specific point. Something like this is carried out, for example, firing at ground targets in the S-300/400.
            Those. Yes, the rocket launches "somewhere in that direction" and then the AGSN turns on.

            Moreover, in the S-300 (I don’t know about the rest) there was a shooting mode for the jammer - this is when instead of 2 missiles, 3 are launched towards the greatest interference. The first rocket works as a scout, the rest according to its data are induced.

            As for the over-the-horizon radars, here is a quote from VIKI (it is clear that with certainty it’s bad but still):
            "However, only older versions of Sky Sky radar are unable to control missile guidance or over-the-horizon radars like Sunflower-E, while Opponent-GE, Gamma-DE are designed to detect targets with an EPR of about 0,1 m2 at a distance of 240 km with the necessary accuracy for launching [41] New versions of the Sky-M system (55ZH6M) also allow the use of three integrated radars at once in the meter range (modification Sky-VCA), decimeter (modification Opponent-G) and centimeter Gamma-C1. By combining and superimposing on each other even the very weak are reflected signals the computer system produces a comprehensive signature stealth objects of effectively filtering out the natural and man-made noise. "

            And there is also a Sunflower with a range of 200 to 500 km exported at an altitude of 3 m.

            so not everything is as bad as it seems.
            1. Operator
              Operator April 5 2018 20: 52
              +2
              The detection range with all these "Heavens", "Opponents" and "Gammas" is limited by the radio horizon (30-40 km) - all of a sudden laughing
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 5 2018 23: 08
              +2
              Quote: alstr
              Yes, it is easy to withdraw. The rocket escort locator simply displays the rocket at a specific point.

              And who will prompt a certain point? :))) ZGRLS?
              Quote: alstr
              And there is also a Sunflower with a range of 200 to 500 km exported at an altitude of 3 m.

              Right. I repeat - in recent exercises, the Sunflower revealed surface targets and the Caspians hit them AFTER EXPLORATION OF TARGETS :))) That is, we can’t even hit targets on the TsU Sunflower even during exercises, and this is not about an airborne target, but about an overwater target (and still not stationary)
              And Wikipedia .. There, after all, the Operator can easily write, but you yourself understand this
              Quote: alstr
              Those. Yes, the rocket launches "somewhere in that direction" and then the AGSN turns on.

              And then everything goes according to the scenario I described crying
            3. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 23: 29
              0
              you do not write in such detail, spies do not sleep, ...
  39. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse April 5 2018 15: 15
    0
    "The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is among the five worst in its class in the history of the world fleet according to The National Interest." :)

    His companions in the competition for the title of worst: British Eagle, French Bearn, Japanese Kaga and American Ranger.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 5 2018 23: 31
      0
      do not repeat nonsense, dumb Americans
  40. serg2108
    serg2108 April 6 2018 00: 24
    +2
    Normally painted ... Andrei is waiting for the continuation! shorter aircraft carriers to be .... drinks
  41. bone1
    bone1 April 8 2018 11: 22
    +3
    The great great naval minds, after much deliberation, by 1972 came to the conclusion that any child is obvious from the beginning of the 40s — ships cannot operate in the coverage area of ​​enemy aircraft without air cover. laughing But how were they going to use, to hell built, ships of the ocean zone? Well, we decided that we needed AB, so build AB, and not this shit, of unknown purpose and name. laughing (which at the first opportunity was written off for cutting).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 8 2018 12: 37
      +1
      Quote: Bone1
      But how were they going to use, to hell built, ships of the ocean zone?

      Well, by 72 they weren’t too damn good :)))
      1. bone1
        bone1 April 8 2018 16: 15
        0
        Why only by 72? —To the end of 90x that the situation had changed and several Soviet pre-aircraft carriers could cover NK in the ocean zone? —They would not be able to cover themselves.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 8 2018 17: 01
          +1
          Quote: Bone1
          Why only by 72? —To the end of 90x that the situation had changed and several Soviet pre-aircraft carriers could cover NK in the ocean zone? —They would not be able to cover themselves.

          In the ocean - yes, but on its shores it would be easier to smash AUS in the presence of at least one TARK
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 8 2018 13: 02
      0
      Gorshkoa was not a great mind, his task was bureaucratic, the more ships the more personal sotava, the more his vanity, the ocean ships were built for this, and then they decided to set up the ABs too, and thereby ruined the country because appetites grew. Wise Amelko was for the nuclear submarines, for the submarines, for the minesweepers, for the IPC, RTOs, Watchdogs 1135 (quite by the way, the ocean, if you really rely on Cuba), that is, for what really creates the country's security ... but the pots were too experienced on the floor, and these freaks came up with a veterinary take-off, about the essence of Kuzya, the only AB that can not be called a shipbuilding mistake.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 9 2018 14: 13
        +4
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Wise Amelko was for the nuclear submarines, for the submarines, for minesweepers, for the IPC, RTOs

        Yeah ... only by the mid-80s, an independent breakthrough of the nuclear submarines into the Atlantic was extremely difficult. If the fleet developed according to the Amelko program, it would have been necessary to drive the nuclear submarines to the borders of the enemy’s PLO for slaughter, as in the Gulf of Finland in 1943.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        but the pots turned out to be too experienced on the floor, and these freaks came up with a veterinary take-off

        Mwa ha ha ... freaks of vertical take-off are the brainchild of Ustinov, not Gorshkov! Gorshkov demanded full pr. 1160 and 1153.
        By the way, it was through the efforts of Amelko that 11435 was transformed from the larva of a normal aircraft carrier (with a catapult) into a TAVKR exclusively with a springboard take-off. And it was Amelko who closed all work on the ship catapult.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 9 2018 14: 40
          +3
          Alex, welcome!
          With Vladimir 1155, there’s no point in engaging in a discussion - alas, the opponent is clearly not adequate
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 9 2018 18: 44
          0
          Well, the Atlantic is somewhat wider and deeper than the Gulf of Finland ....... and explain to me the mechanics, maybe I don’t understand something, why is it a difficult catapult, if everything works out with a springboard? so Amelko did well, three of the four world powers chose a springboard!
    3. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 22: 05
      +1
      The concept of using the "Gorshkov's Original Fleet" is a very difficult and neglected case
  42. bone1
    bone1 April 8 2018 17: 02
    +1
    And where is Gorshkov’s mind? The post-war Navy did not have any clear idea of ​​what kind of fleet is needed and for what tasks. Look at the idea of ​​the post-war development of the US Navy. The Air Force has nuclear weapons, the army is on the way, ICBMs, and the fleet will have nothing to triad. , they’ll subordinate some army and cut off funding — that they just didn’t try and the hyper-carriers designed and super-heavy aircraft on the AB planted — they found a way out in the creation of Palaris, but he had a range of 1400 and he needed a carrier — they chose a nuclear submarine. Ours, as always, was torn-up, but already in the 70s intercontinental BRs appeared on the submarine — why do you need a submarine carrier if you can hit any target from the base? Put it on the pontoon and drag it from place to place (marine analogue of the Topol) - why then the submarine carrier with tremendous value? And the creation of our fleet of ships in the ocean zone — generally beyond the reasonable — how do you imagine maintaining constant contact between the NK and the nuclear submarines? (it will come off from him at any second giving full speed) -not to mention that our NK with non-nuclear EU. Even according to the 2MV experience, the anti-submarine warfare, even near its bases, is extremely difficult to organize and costly in terms of resources and means, and then the BOD came and made a rustle on the floor of the Atlantic and ran home sobbing underwater Yankee missile carriers. Even if, well, in a very big fantasy that the Soviet BOD provided year-round and minute-by-minute control of each APR, then who would allow him to attack it at the time of the launch of the missiles?
    1. pacific
      pacific April 13 2018 04: 45
      +1
      Quote: Bone1
      ..... how do you imagine maintaining constant contact between the NK and the nuclear submarines? (it will come off from him at any second giving full speed) -not to mention that our NK with non-nuclear EU. ....

      Even as they supported - they kept in contact with single boats for days. Those. enough to guarantee her drown. Could have been longer, but "big uncles" appeared - the same aircraft carriers with a group of ships and the "fun" ended.
      Actually for this, aircraft carriers are needed. But already to secure our boats.
  43. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion April 8 2018 20: 00
    +1
    Where is the contradiction? I'm waiting for an apology for "nonsense"


    Well, you are clearly hinting that 80 percent of the planes will be guaranteed destroyed. 80 percent and up to 80 percent are two different things. Up to 80 percent can mean 0, and 80 percent mean 80 percent. So try to make proposals correctly. And then demand apologies.

    In theory, yes. But in practice, it was very susceptible to EW, and therefore only an incorrigible optimist could capture it in the hope that it would capture something there.


    Well, that is, you are confused by the inertial guidance system? And the fact that at present it is present in one form or another on almost all modern missiles of all types does not bother you? I may surprise you, but even anti-aircraft missiles, even from the S-400, have a similar guidance system. I’m still interested in what practice and what kind of impact it was exposed to electronic warfare. Especially in the 70s for example. Just the adoption of this missile, forced the US to urgently develop new means of electronic countermeasures. The problems were of course, but these were just large targets like Cruiser or vianosets captured without problems, even in the presence of interference, plus a rocket that goes off to the GOS has serious stealth and can go up to the closest distance to the target nezamechennoy.Da if you use an active seeker from the very beginning, the range of the target capture is also good:

    The effectiveness of hitting point targets is confirmed by tests. If a naval target was hit by a normal, non-nuclear charge, a missile entering the target ship caused damage that could damage the aircraft carrier or cruiser
    When firing at point targets, the homing head monitors the target in two planes and issues control signals to the autopilot. When accompanied by the angle of the antenna in the vertical plane reaches a predetermined value, a signal is issued to transfer the rocket into a dive towards the target at an angle of 30 ° to the horizontal. On the dive site, control is carried out in the vertical and horizontal planes according to signals from the homing system equipment. Undermining the charge H is carried out upon contact with the target, and the charge M - on the signal from the equipment of the homing system. The detection range of a cruiser type carrier aircraft is up to 340 km, the range of capture and tracking is 250-270 km. The explosive-cumulative warhead (charge N) weighs about 900 kg, of which about 600 kg is the weight of an explosive. When undermining, the axis of the cumulative jet is directed downward (at an angle with the axis of the rocket).
    So, Andrey, I’m afraid you again read some book with the approximate title “Memoirs and Revelations of a Drunk Pilot in the Cold War Years” and took it for truth.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 8 2018 20: 56
      +2
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Well, you are clearly hinting that 80 percent of the aircraft will be guaranteed destroyed. 80 percent and up to 80 percent are two different things

      Let's still read what is written :))) And I wrote clearly - up to 80%. But yes, the losses would be colossal.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      So try to make sentences correctly, and then ask for an apology.

      And you, my sir, are impudent and impudent. I wrote
      Probable losses can reach 80% of the specified composition

      It seems to you that I meant something else, and you, on the basis of what you have tried, tell me to correctly draw up sentences ?!
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Well, that is, you are confused by the inertial guidance system? And the fact that at present it is present in one form or another on almost all modern missiles of all types does not bother you?

      Nothing bothers me. Did I write to you?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But in practice, it was very susceptible to EW, and therefore only an incorrigible optimist could capture it in the hope that it would capture something there.

      So you yourself think - how can electronic warfare affect the inertia of a Soviet missile?
      AGSN was weak, its noise immunity was very low, therefore it was impossible to launch it inertia in the hope that it would capture something. It was necessary to wait until the active seeker captures the target before launching the rocket.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      So, Andrei, I’m afraid you again read some book with the approximate title “Memoirs and Revelations of a Drunk Pilot during the Cold War”

      No, I talked with those who flew the Tu-22M3
  44. pacific
    pacific April 13 2018 04: 30
    +1
    Vladimir1155,
    You will be surprised, but AUG can be "hidden". This was faced by Americans and Japanese in WWII in the Pacific Ocean. And now there is also electronic warfare.
    Just imagine: it takes off from the deck of the sml AWAC and flies off to patrol about 300-400 km. Really? Really. Then he begins to work at a distance of 300-400 km from the AUG - in fact, for this they are created.
    Question: where will you look for AUG?
    Answer: the area of ​​the circle at 300 km will be = 282 square kilometers (Pi x R x R). Plus, during the flight of the AWACS in the patrol zone, the AUG will depart from the take-off point for another 740 miles (15 km). Thus, one will have to search already on the area of ​​27,8 337 sq.km.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 13 2018 14: 25
      -1
      it's all your fantasies, you can see it from the satellite visually, and narrow the search circle to a minimum, fogs aren't always like yours, they are rare in the southern seas, and drone aircraft can also be destroyed
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 16 2018 14: 36
      +1
      Quote: pacific
      You will be surprised, but AUG can be "hidden". This was faced by Americans and Japanese in WWII in the Pacific Ocean.

      So they came up with this much later :)) In the 80's and 90's, there were cases when AUG went out of control - not only ours, but also American, when they trained in the “blue versus red” style
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 18 May 2018 15: 37
        0
        rare cases this is not the rule, as a rule the AUG is accurately determined
        1. bugagich
          bugagich 20 May 2018 09: 18
          0
          determined when they need to shake the muscles or in LAN, in Syria where is the thread.
          but in sowing. on the Atlantic or on the Pacific, on the contrary, they do not want to - you will find AUG rather by accident.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 20 May 2018 09: 23
            0
            you write with slander, the submarines are indeed detected by chance in the oceans, but the AUGs are guaranteed and quickly detected
            1. bugagich
              bugagich 20 May 2018 12: 56
              0
              but AUG is guaranteed and quickly detected

              what is the guarantee? how is this guaranteed? can you describe the process at all?
              I'm not saying that AUG is invisible, no. but discovering its task is not at all trivial.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 20 May 2018 21: 16
                0
                in comparison with the search for submarines in the ocean, the task of detecting an AOG is trivial and simple 1 var satellite image, determining coordinates, target designation 2 var radar, determining coordinates, launch 3 var noises, approach aug, launch from underwater position
                1. bugagich
                  bugagich 22 May 2018 11: 58
                  0
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  compared to the search for submarines in the ocean

                  Why oppose to each other that should complement each other, act in combination? After all, you don’t think that the success of tanks does not depend on the actions of infantry or vice versa?
                  For example, in an AUG, usually 1-2 moose should follow (if it is not a fast AUG). Which, naturally, strengthens the PLO warrant. Also, if you cover the boats with aviation, then trawling them becomes a very difficult task. And vice versa, without air cover, they can only rely on their own GAS, the range of which is much less than the range of PLO aircraft. For the same reason, they cannot use the main advantage of our missiles - range, i.e. they are forced to climb into the PLO AUG ...
                  It turns out, unfortunately, I don’t remember who said it, it seems Cap 1rana Bagryantsev that "our boat can open the AUG only by accident."
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  1 var satellite picture

                  Visually, you will get tired of viewing the ocean. For this, they came up with RTR and radar. To work on ACG, satellites that provide real-time data are needed. Such a system in the days of the USSR was the ICRC Legend, which included passive RTR satellites and active with a radar. The experience of the ICRC legend was not entirely successful. She could shine through 1 district every 2 days and for only a minute and a half. Due to mass limitations, the ICRC’s active satellites were equipped with meter-range radars, which meant that they could only see large targets at a range of about 400 km. But this aircraft carrier or tanker could not recognize it. It was usual when our MPA flew to a given area, and instead of an aircraft carrier, it found the same tanker. Additional reconnaissance by aviation was required.
                  Perhaps the future lies with satellites. Only time will tell. But at that time it was expensive, impractical and ineffective. And now the cost of space programs is more expensive than any other.
                  In addition, you need to understand that this does not take such a short time.
                  Yes, and the radar will work after the discovery of something suspicious RTR, where these satellites from the radar will already be redirected. And for this, you may need to adjust the trajectory ...
                  Yes, and RTR is not a fact that they will spot something. AUG uses emcon operating modes. Those. limits radiation. The main modes A - full radio silence, B - works at civil frequencies and C - when it is fully active. For example, emcon a mode can be used during bad weather to get completely lost. Emcon b mode allows you to hide near active civilian traffic ...
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  approach aug, launch from underwater position

                  As I wrote above, the boat is unlikely to be able to come close to the AUG, and even detect it - the range of the PLO aircraft is much greater than the range of the GAS boat. Those. someone needs to give her eyes. These eyes can be AWACS aircraft. And if you are in the ocean and from the coast, they will either take a long time to reach or not reach at all, who then will point to the main adversary?
                  Or they reached, flew in, did not have time to scout anything, but they were already being met by interceptions, what should they do?
                  The answer is obvious - you need your own AWACS with a fighter cover. Again - where? - Yes, only with your own AB ...
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 22 May 2018 16: 29
                    0
                    Thanks for the detailed answer, pattern recognition is now very developed, so you do not need to visually see the entire water area, the program itself indicates suspicious objects and the operator only checks. The development of satellite grouping is important and necessary, the programs and technologies are updated and they are all cheaper than AB! All that you write refers to autocatories remote from your territory. Near their shores there are drill aircraft, fighter jets and long-range aviation. And the mosquito fleet and frigates, BOD are still there. Trite, but AB is needed not to defend its shores, but to attack objects far away, ego no one has denied, Does the Russian Federation have such a task, and how important is it in comparison with the security of its territory that is still insufficiently reliably implemented?
                    1. bugagich
                      bugagich 25 May 2018 18: 33
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      pattern recognition is currently very developed, so you do not need to visually see the entire water area, the program itself indicates suspicious objects and the operator only checks

                      you don’t seem to have a clue how everything works. I didn’t mean at all that any certain person should sit 24 hours a day without sleep and rest. Well, it doesn’t work like that. moreover, the atmosphere also interferes with the optics ... weather conditions.
                      optics are already aimed at a specific target.
                      if you are interested. then at the moment a liana system has been launched to replace the legend. there is already a higher orbit, so while opponents do not have the means to destroy these satellites. although, as history / practice has shown, this is not solved very long. besides they "choke".
                      So the liana actually works on the same principle. those. satellites with RTR and radar. as far as I know, it is still at the stage of fine-tuning and testing. and it’s not clear how many satellites will be in total. it’s clear that it will not be able to completely replace aviation in this matter. to speak, of course, about her anyway, it’s the same as discussing a sphero-horse ... but nevertheless no one has canceled physics. and they don’t say at the cost, but somehow information about the cost of some objects on earth, not the satellites themselves, leaked for this system. and the cost of only one was called at 0,9 lard ... in general, you do not take into account what I wrote above - the cost of space programs has always been the highest. and so far it remains.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      The development of satellite grouping is important and necessary

                      absolutely agree. but one cannot be considered in isolation from the other. you are trying to prove that castling without pawns will be just as effective as castling with pawns, but without a rook ... but the point is that you need rooks and pawns.
                      you do not deny that on land you can’t do without aviation in spite of any air defense systems ... so why isn’t it at sea? exactly. you cited the missile carriers as an example. so Gorshkov, at one time he was well aware of this. and in view of this, he developed MPA. although she was actually a suicide bomber, but it was actually the only effective tool against AUG (well, at least somehow).
                      only now, as such, it is not there, all the remaining aircraft are transferred to YES. and if you read Deneets, then you’ll understand what it’s about when the fleet does not have its own aviation (in this case, its component). and the MRA function can be effectively performed by the decks, which the Yankees have long practiced. just not with such terrifying losses as we have in the MPA, according to the calculations of 24 Central Research Institute of the Navy.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      All that you write refers to autocatories remote from your territory. Near their shores there are drills, fighters and long-range aviation.

                      once we were all perplexed in the absence of a clear naval doctrine. now it is - read it. it is clear that it is not yet feasible. but still she is. and according to her, we should not just sit near our shores. I also advise you to read the basics of the policy in the field of naval activities of the Russian Federation until the age of 30. the document was released at the end of July last year, I don’t remember the exact date. it will be very informative for you.
                      you also need to understand that it is very important to make the frontiers of defense as far as possible from their shores, why everything is written there.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      Near their shores there are drills, fighters and long-range aviation.

                      there is, but so far not enough. the cost of AWACS is very considerable. and if you use it with AB, their number is reduced. I think it’s clear that I do not compare the cost of an airplane with the cost of AB ...
                      but this also eliminates the cost of airfields, of which we lost with the collapse of the USSR.
                      in the 60s, when in America the issue of building a "superAW" was considered (after the interpraise), a big noise rose in Congress - everything rested on the cost. since they conducted research, it turned out that a comparable airbase costs exactly the same penny as this "superAV", which the nimits became. only ABs also had advantages in terms of mobility, which in the long term meant that they would be equivalent to more than the 1st air base ...
                      YES - this is the videoconferencing. and we need aircraft in the subordination of the Navy. I wrote it above - refer to the experience of Denec. Yes, and now they are extremely insufficient.
                      as a result, AB actually comes out cheaper than building the infrastructure of "anti-aircraft aviation" ...
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      And the mosquito fleet and frigates, the BOD is still there

                      what is our mosquito fleet? How will you confront the AUG with a mosquito fleet? this, excuse me, Utopia, the real one. ships of the ocean zone, however, are extremely few. Well, again, despite the creeper, you will need additional reconnaissance by aviation.
                      plus such an argument as the time of approaching YES (say) to AUG. those. it is necessary to detect AUG, raise the necessary (this is important) number of aircraft and fly to it. where these planes will wait for decks in the air, and there is no guarantee of defeat of the AUG. there is also no guarantee that the AUG will not complete its mission during this time. because the main thing is not to let her complete the task!
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      Trite, but AB is not needed to defend its shores

                      we have a large length of sea borders, but under each bush you will not come across an airfield ...
                      in view of the foregoing, and in the defense of AB there is a place, some more.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      and to attack objects in the distance, no one denied it

                      I deny it. and not just me. sorry, but it's ridiculous to say that. here you can feel the old, populist cliches that originated in the USSR with Khrushchev’s handout - "weapons of aggression" ... but these are nothing more than stupid cliches. AB is a component of a "balanced" fleet. the fleet cannot be “offensive” or “defensive”. it may be coastal, after all, or oceanic. but not "for attack." you do not consider tanks as "offensive" or "defensive" weapons? But, for example, Peter the Great, is it an “offensive” or defensive ship? it’s absurdity to say so. the actions of the fleet are inseparable from the actions of the ground forces. Kuznetsov also wrote that the fleet is obliged to support the flanks of the ground forces from the sea. although there are other tasks. when there is a war you can’t only sit on the defensive, you have to advance. and a balanced fleet means "versatility." those. you need at least "cut off the enemy’s communications and so on ... this is what Nikolay Gerasimovich dreamed of and what he was striving for with all his might and his follower Gorshkov ...
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      The question is whether the Russian Federation has such a task, and how important is it in comparison with the security of its territory that is not yet sufficiently reliably implemented?

                      read above, answered.

                      Threat by the way, but MRA in the USSR acted on the principle of search and strike groups, i.e. as well as US carrier-based aviation ... it only cost much more ...
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 27 May 2018 21: 15
                        0
                        Thanks for the detailed answer. Berg airbases are cheaper than AB, and most importantly unsinkable, up to underground bunker hangars. Spare airfields are not airbases; they are generally cheaper. The transfer of aviation is faster than the AB, (by the way about extended borders). You agreed that there are not enough AWACS aircraft, airplanes at coastal airfields .... that’s precisely AB can destroy its most important programs, air force, submarines, air defense and other aircraft with its exorbitant cost. It’s an attack weapon for aggression against the Papuans and is necessary only for countries with aggressive external politics in the spirit of neocolonialism. By itself, AB is very vulnerable in a conflict with powerful countries. Kuzya will serve for at least 20 years, let's forget about the AB program for at least 20 years.
                      2. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 22: 14
                        0
                        when the fleet does not have its own aviation (in this case, its component).


                        And because the Luftwaffe in no way maritime showed outstanding results in the war at sea. And Deniz's whining, most likely due to a lack of understanding how to use this very aircraft, is not a secret that the same KG40 was under operational control of Kriegsmarine
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        4 May 2020 23: 09
                        +2
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        And because the Luftwaffe in no way maritime showed outstanding results in the war at sea.

                        Just the Luftwaffe showed extremely outstanding results at sea. One battle for Crete is worth it, about the northern convoys - generally I am silent
                      4. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 23: 20
                        0
                        Do not want to compare with the Soviet sea by aviation? Normally, the backlash showed itself, the number of sorties was not enough.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        4 May 2020 23: 26
                        +2
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Do not want to compare with Soviet naval aviation?

                        No, I do not wish. And since when did Soviet naval aviation from the time of WWII suddenly become a benchmark for the quality of naval aviation?
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Normal backlash showed itself

                        Oh yeah. 85 Japanese planes jokingly flunked Welsh and Ripals in just over 2 hours, and 430 German attack planes (there were 180 more fighters) could only scratch the British at Crete in a week.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. bugagich
                    bugagich 10 May 2020 05: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    And because the Luftwaffe in no way maritime showed outstanding results in the war at sea

                    ? this is interesting. I will listen to you with pleasure. without sarcasm. I am not an expert on aviation.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    And Deniz's whining, most likely due to a lack of understanding how to use this very aircraft, is not a secret that the same KG40 was under operational control of Kriegsmarine

                    about KG40. I, of course, confess that I have not read any sources about them. not an aviation expert, sorry. but about how first Raeder, then Denets begged fv200 read. so I can only judge what Denets wrote. namely, the fact that he simply "got bored" to beg them. and gave them to him only in a personal confrontation in the presence of the short-moustoy, while even Raeder refused to fight for it ... Goering was simply forced to promise "to cooperate with all his might" (well, or something like that). but as always (according to the same Denez) it was just a bluff. Perhaps here we are talking about KG40, I don't know. but, in the presence of these fv200s, the flexibility and efficiency of the kriegsmarines increased significantly, as Denets said. But they were always sorely missed. as Denets hinted (and he had a falling out then, he didn’t shake his hand, EMNIP), on the part of Gereng it was just a bluff, well, a general reply.
                  4. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 10 May 2020 12: 13
                    0
                    So it’s clear that the Germans were fighting on a pile of fronts, of which the Soviet-German front was the most resource-consuming front. And it is clear that the burned and caterpillar-crushed tanks on the FV-200 Nursery could not then work to find and detect KOH.

                    On the anti-ship operations list, I’m directly not straightforward to you. This is not my topic to look for, but I can note that the battleships, cruisers and dozens of destroyers fell victims of the Luftes. For comparison, our naval air forces sank 2 naval destroyers (T-18 and T-36) and seriously damaged 2 German destroyers and a Romanian one.
                  5. The comment was deleted.
                  6. bugagich
                    bugagich 10 May 2020 15: 05
                    0
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    of which the most resource-consuming front was Soviet-German. And it is clear that the burned and caterpillar-crushed tanks on the FV-200 Nursery could not then work to find and detect KOH.

                    disputes about this went even before the war with the USSR. so the kriegsmarine didn’t have enough aircraft all WWII.
  • Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 16 2018 07: 49
    0
    Kyzmich,
    Well, answer, where to put this "full load"?

    And why put it somewhere?
    Option 1: Take-off from the deck, landing ashore.
    Option 2: Take off without load.
    Most photos of take-off from the deck show just the second option. However, the first is also most likely used when AB is on its shores.
    I came across infa that we seriously considered the concept of combat use: A link takes off from the coast at full load, spends a BC to cover AB, it is replaced by the next link, the first one lands on AB, refueling and flies ashore to reload. The second link sits under the cover of the third, etc. However, the credibility of this can not be guaranteed.
  • bugagich
    bugagich 2 June 2018 12: 56
    0
    Vladimir1155,
    I apologize for not taking so long to answer. Sorry, work and stuff. I saw your answer for a long time, but there was no time to answer ...
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Thanks for the detailed answer.

    not at all. I’m not at all averse to helping to figure it out, but if you only want to figure it out, and not just blindly deny it, in principle, there are obvious things ... the answer was absolutely not detailed, I answered as popular as possible. and it was so much easier for himself, because you would have to remember a lot and raise a lot of sources and so on ... and this, honestly, I would not have found laziness and time either.
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Berg airbases cheaper than AB

    no way. This has been investigated and proven the opposite.
    Quote: vladimir1155
    and most importantly unsinkable

    great. But they are not mobile, and therefore extremely limited in comparison with AB ... and even less flexible. Infrastructure for aviation is not always universal. This was shown by our own experience. And accordingly, it is necessary to change / modernize the infrastructure. The same AB, although it can’t carry the Tu-22m3, is a thread, but due to mobility it not only eliminates flaws, but also surpasses coastal bases in pluses. This does not mean that one needs to be replaced by another! Need the complex !
    For example, coastal bases for early-warning aircraft (because they are needed regardless of whether there is an AB or not), and, say, areas where we cannot cover them with fighters, there are AB ... there are many variations.
    The number of airfields was reduced not just (the times of the 90s, of course, were not the best), but for reasons of economy.
    And finally, it’s ridiculous to call someone an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” if you’re practically unable to sink an ordinary one ...
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Aviation transfer faster than AB

    to a certain range (by the way, about extended borders). And there is. If we consider the Soviet MRA, it was one of its small advantages ... i.e. under certain conditions, we could count on the transfer of mra from the north to the Far East and vice versa ... but that's all ... but AB can also deliver it anywhere in the world. you don’t just have to repeat utopias - like, we are peace-loving and we don’t need anywhere - we need, even like that! This shows the long-tense situation in geopolitics and other nuances. And again, my own naval doctrine! You, as I understand it, still did not read it ...
    А зря.
    Quote: vladimir1155
    You agreed that there are not enough AWACS aircraft, airplanes at coastal airfields .... that’s exactly AB can destroy its most important programs, VKS, PL, air defense, etc.
    I'm sorry, but judging this is the top ... to put it mildly - oddities ...
    Above you, I threw off a link to what your colleagues hinted at. Read those whom you, I'm sorry I don’t remember how they called, but people are not just authorities, but those who cooked in this soup all their conscious lives and spent it studying this issue from the inside.
    It would be rash to neglect their opinions. And since you yourself do not read, I will take off the screen from the electronic version. There are just reflections on the Soviet "asymmetry", for example

    Quote: vladimir1155
    AV weapons of attack for aggression against the Papuans and is necessary only for countries with aggressive foreign policy in the spirit of neocolonialism

    stop repeating stupid things like a mantra ... well, the truth is, it looks that way.
    Quote: vladimir1155
    By itself, AB is very vulnerable in a conflict with powerful countries.

    well ... the same answer as the line above. I have refuted these your statements above. to which you again groundlessly repeat the old stamps. just understand that these stamps were not born for the Navy or the General Staff of the USSR, but specifically for the layman. and the General Staff and the Navy itself were always well aware of the absurdity of those.
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Kuzya will serve for at least 20 years, let's forget about the AB program for at least 20 years.

    it is in order to get at least something in 20 years that you need to work today. AB is not a momentary problem of our fleet - it is fundamental, rather. and such issues are not being resolved at the level of building one ship - we are facing a complete restructuring of the fleet.
    according to some signs, it is already going, as it seems to me ...
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 4 May 2020 22: 17
      0
      This has been investigated and proven the opposite.

      Oh how. And do you have a link to the proof?
      1. bugagich
        bugagich 10 May 2020 04: 27
        0
        it was about the book of Polmar. I am sure there is a network ... google.
  • bugagich
    bugagich 2 June 2018 13: 23
    0
    Vladimir1155,
    I apologize; the second picture is not loading ... I will try to repeat
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 9 June 2018 20: 37
      0
      Thanks for the detailed answer, in fact, you just added arguments to me, here the authors from your picture themselves do not understand what they wrote .... they counted note the Navy, along with the most important security component of Russia and the USSR, that is, apl, and it turned out that instead of the entire fleet, you can build 10 dubious vessels ..... I’m for nuclear submarines, submarines, they are more important than the ability to bomb the Papuans. As for geopolitics, I will explain as a specialist of the highest level. America rules the whole world and gains profit through uncontrolled printing of the world currency and ensuring global control by transnational financial and industrial corporations, including America controls the Russian economy at its discretion. The US Air Force and US Air Force are not intended for control or control, but for intimidation and public punishment of perpetrators. And Russia is not able to receive dividends from other countries and therefore it is pointless to frighten them. Even in Syria, the Russian Federation plays the role of a backstage of the world behind the scenes planning to destabilize and pull in third countries there for raking in coal with the wrong hands. In addition to increasing arms sales and blocking the gas transit route from Qatar to the EU, Russia has no interests there. Russia does not need ABs.
      1. bugagich
        bugagich 10 June 2018 08: 22
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        essentially you just added me arguments

        unfortunately, while your arguments are very weak, or rather, fundamentally wrong.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        they considered note the VKS fleet, together with the most important security component of Russia and the USSR, that is, apl, and it turned out that instead of the entire fleet, 10 dubious vessels could be built

        read carefully. it is written there:
        "instead of ship component of anti-aircraft forces", and not the whole fleet ...
        and yet not 10, but 20:
        "more than 20 such AB with 1 aircraft on board "
        Quote: vladimir1155
        I'm for the nuclear submarines, submarines, they are more important than the ability to bomb the Papuans

        so they explain to you that AB is not only for "opportunities to bomb the Papuans". these submarines are suicide bombers without AB.
        I’m trying to explain to you that if we refuse from AB, then we will need to look for other alternative means to ensure the fulfillment of tasks traditionally assigned to AB.
        in our country this is called the "asymmetric answer" ... but the above example shows that such an asymmetry turned out to be much more expensive than AB and much less effective. or rather not even commensurate.
        and other costs have not yet been taken, such as the same satellites, MRA, and so on. and all this just to replace one class of ships ... well, isn’t this absurdity?

        try to step aside from the cliches and reason sensibly. I've already asked you - why do you recognize the absolute need for aviation on land, in spite of any air defense systems, but deny it at sea?
        Quote: vladimir1155
        But Russia is not able to receive dividends from other countries and therefore it is pointless to frighten them

        perhaps it would be worthwhile not to intimidate, but to show that we can protect ...
        I said - read the naval doctrine. and then you won’t say that.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Even in Syria, the Russian Federation plays the role of a backstage of the world behind the scenes planning destabilization and pulling there

        Well, in general, we are not discussing politics ...
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Russia does not need AB.

        I don’t remember whose words - "the rejection of capital ships, there is a rejection of the fleet in principle"
        Do you think we need a fleet? if so, then AB is needed.
        Can you imagine a fleet without a nuclear submarine? no. but without EM? no. but without TFR? also no. so why such an outcast AB?

        of Russia indulges work on AB. that, sobs-but already done. confuse only "felting".
      2. bugagich
        bugagich 10 June 2018 09: 37
        0
        Quote: bugagich
        to replace one class of ships

        here I’ll correct myself. in the end, even the USSR came to the need to build an AB. let peculiar at first. since the 70th slipway "0" ChSZ has been busy constantly. the next aircraft carrier ship was laid on the day of launch.
        and as a result, look at 11437. and the project also included its next sistership, for the construction of which deliveries to ChSZ have already begun. a whole series of up to 4 ships was planned, provided that before they were put into operation the fleet would have been made up of 2 other sysherships 11435 and 11436 - Kuznetsov and Varyag ... it is noteworthy that 11438 would have already lost RCC, which meant that he would be a complete analogue of the Yankees Nimits.
        and this is after almost 20 years ... you must agree, the USSR suffered this path.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 10 June 2018 20: 43
          0
          I don’t trust the calculations where it turns out that coastal assets and ships are more expensive than 20 AB, by the way I haven’t seen the calculations themselves, these are all words, and I think that the fleet can and should refuse large surface units as they are written off. It’s quite enough to have several frigates of small displacement and a certain number of surface ships of the third rank. The main forces of the fleet are submarines.
          1. bugagich
            bugagich 10 June 2018 22: 33
            0
            Your right to have an opinion. But it is not based on the fact that “these are all words”, but on the fact that you do not want to read ...
          2. bugagich
            bugagich 13 June 2018 18: 36
            0
            Again, I apologize for not really responding ... Time, life)
            Quote: vladimir1155
            by the way, I didn’t see the calculations themselves, these are all words, and I think that the fleet can and should refuse large surface ones as they are written off

            This is interesting you wrote ...
            Honestly, it’s awful ... As far as I understand, reading your comments, you imagine projects, at least ours. But you can’t imagine why they were created and how they should work.

            Your statement about "the fleet can and should abandon the large surface" is an old utopia. And here I don’t think, I’m not trying to somehow ... Poke something or pull it up.
            Simply, this has been said over the past hundred years more than once, but it has invariably been refuted. You do not want to turn to the experience of history, which refutes your beliefs. Why?

            And those same calculations were suggested to you to read and the link was given, I provided you only pieces of conclusions. But you refused to read, your conclusion is "these are all words".
            That is, these are words, because you do not like it, I will quote you again - "I do not trust the calculations where it turns out that the shore".
            Does this mean that if someone said the opposite, then you would take it as an axiom? Of course. This means that you do not want to think, analyze ...
            You are captivated by cliches ... I’m not telling you to wake up, I understand that this is not real, unfortunately.

            You only decide whether you are a patriot, or "pseudo-patriot".
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 13 June 2018 23: 34
              0
              Regarding the calculations, "it’s important not how to count, but who thinks," honestly it just cannot be, I’ll explain. Av costs $ 13 billion, that is, about 260 C400, in the Russian Federation now about 350 C300. Airbase cannot be more expensive than AB. It does not have engines, there is no steel hull, there is no marine command, it does not need an airbase super pier. Although I am not a pilot, I asked my friends, they laughed and agreed with me that a land base is cheaper than an AB, and that reserve airfields are generally cheaper.
              Your important remark is that my idea is not new, and not at all about the unnecessaryness of large NKs. and their defenselessness against missiles, torpedoes and aircraft. But here you are writing that I'm wrong, but can you prove it? Where the last 100 years large NKs proved to be useful in the war, examples, Tsushima, .. Hood, ... Bismarck, .. Yamato ..... Goslov, ... Tirpitz ... Luisitania
              1. bugagich
                bugagich 14 June 2018 01: 04
                0
                what can I say ... a fairy tale about a white bull.

                But didn’t you try to take and read, delve into the question? But do not want to try?
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Although I am not a pilot, I asked my friends, they laughed and agreed with me that a land base is cheaper than an AB, and that reserve airfields are generally cheaper

                you have strange drugan ... but apparently, with whom you communicate, then ...
                but who is more serious, trying to delve into the question.
                but the most interesting thing is this
                Quote: vladimir1155
                and their defenselessness against missiles, torpedoes and aviation

                whoo ... and think. and she is the carrier of missiles, and torpedoes, and other things. so why is it not needed at sea? she is the main striking force at sea. and you want to deprive the fleet of carriers of this power ...
                Quote: vladimir1155
                you can prove

                proved. and more than once. but for you “all words”, “I won’t read - I don’t trust, because it’s not there as I like,” “the friends say” ...
                you cannot prove it unless you read and think.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Where, over the past 100 years, large NKs have shown themselves to be useful in the war, examples, Tsushima, .. Hood, ... Bismarck, .. Yamato ..... Goslov, ... Tirpitz ... Luisitania

                yes everywhere. capital ships have always been a deterrent this time. all sorts of raiders wanted to oppose them - where's the nests with the hinges?
                remember yutland ... is not this battle decided the outcome of the WWII? - not only, but in many ways, and rather, this is a decisive factor.
                midway battle in the coral sea. the first violin is already AB.
                Leyte Gulf Battle ...
                the death of Yamato - they themselves remembered ...
                tsushima - isn't it a battle of capital ships? at that time it is.
                thin and bismarck too. and who is to blame for the death of Bismarck is not an ancient swordfish from the arch of the piano?
                Tirpitz restrained the significant forces of the metropolis, only by its existence, and its destruction was spent, both a lot of time and not small resources. and we must remember that at that time the battleships lost the palm AB. here and remember the war on the pacific ...
                Well, Gustlov with Lusitania generally do with it ???
                you contradict yourself ...
              2. bugagich
                bugagich 14 June 2018 01: 19
                0
                and by the way,
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Airbase cannot be more expensive than AB

                I gave you an example when studies were conducted and it turned out that not an air base is more expensive than an AB, but that an equivalent air base costs the same money as an AB with the corresponding air group. it was calculated back in the 60s. but at the same time, AB is also mobile, which means that it is more profitable. do not distort my words.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 14 June 2018 08: 53
                  0
                  the problem of any NK is its unmaskedness, in the midst of a smooth sea surface, there are no ravines or greenery there. the more NK the more unmasked. In Tsushima, large NKs were destroyed by destroyers, and Swordfish drowned Bismarck. AV is an attack weapon and does not make sense with a defense doctrine, for coastal means are more mobile, camouflaged. And the mobility of coastal aviation can not be compared with the slow-moving AB. A land base for a lock is more secure than an AB, there you can provide air defense unlimited in terms of ammunition and quantity, there are unlimited reserves of fuel and ammunition. and even aircraft of various types. there is no restriction on excitement,
                  1. bugagich
                    bugagich 26 June 2018 17: 45
                    0
                    I do not have time to read to the end, and really answer.
                    But you confuse a lot. For example, a swordfish did not drown Bismarck, but it got into tiller division. And yes, we can assume that he became one of the main causes of his death, no more.
                    And at the same time you forget that it was an old biplane even for that time. And where did he fly from? Yes, from the aftermath to you, the archrail (!) Is not it?
                    Once again I ask - turn on the logic ...
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 26 June 2018 21: 45
                      0
                      at the beginning of the last century, biplanes flew far, and now airplanes fly so fast and far that the AB does not make sense, for defense, these are weapons attacking remote theater
                      1. bugagich
                        bugagich 6 July 2018 13: 38
                        0
                        Well, in short, stole time.
                        13 billion is the only Ford one and at full cost (including research). the series is always smaller. and much more. even a series of 4 ships reduces the cost of each by almost half. I say this as a shipbuilder. this time. the second is that EM catapult technologies are also going to be sold - these are two.
                        third, you think weirdly - 260 s400 is either a myth or a bluff on your part. these complexes, like the c300 and others, only work by motions and nothing else. there are no 260 of them at all. well range any air defense complex can not be compared with the range of long-range air defense AUG. it's just the alphabet ... sorry.
                      2. bugagich
                        bugagich 6 July 2018 13: 42
                        0
                        and that I haven’t climbed to see the cost of 400 yet ... and doubts are strong. I’m not going to call my colleagues (and we, not with the developers, but the manufacturer, a little, but intersected) - I’m ashamed, somehow ...
                      3. bugagich
                        bugagich 6 July 2018 15: 26
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        and now planes fly so fast and far

                        they fly on, yes. but not limited. and the effectiveness of AB did not decrease in any way. there’s a dispute between armor and shell. AB adds the range (and constantly growing, already beyond the horizon, on the latest versions of hockey ..) of detection, and, accordingly, of interception and the ability to control air, and it also increases (sometimes multiple) the probability of destruction and ground targets - this is understandable, like twice two ...
          3. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 10 May 2020 17: 04
            +1
            You absolutely correctly said .... Where do these so-called calculations come from, I remember. Cousin. Nikolsky. The thing is certainly valuable, no doubt, but when mechanics write about operational issues or the use of weapons, it sometimes becomes uncomfortable .... And you need to understand that there are aircraft carriers there are none, and BVPP and airfields / airports still need to be built across the country. And that means that here a support is knocked out in one fell swoop on the plank pyramid of aircraft-economy cefs.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 6 July 2018 13: 48
    0
    bugagich,
    fine, you are a shipbuilder, do you really think that the new AB will be a copy of Kuzi? it means nir, and all the bells and whistles, and childhood illnesses are provided for him for decades. So, its price is comparable to that of an American, and by the way, where is the shipyard for its construction, you are a shipbuilder, maybe in the dry dock its hull will be built and the portal crane will monitor one sheet at a time? And welding on the street, right? And then we’ll finish the wall? Prices for the C300 are taken from the Turkish contract, so there they were considered installations and apparently other means necessary for them in the kit were also attached. Why did you get that the marine version of the C 400 will be long-range land? And to whom are you going to sell the technology of catapults not yet made? In total, five countries have real ABs in the world ..... That's why there are so many projects that there is a chance of sales and nobody will buy AB, nobody needs it, an expensive and burdensome toy. with doubtful benefit.
    1. bugagich
      bugagich 6 July 2018 14: 00
      0
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Will AB be a copy of Kuzi?

      of course not. definitely.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      baby diseases

      They have been known for a long time. in particular, flight cooling ... the absence of a parking stake and so on ... es-but everything is taken into account even in well-known layouts. weird question.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      So the price of EGT is comparable to the American

      The price was estimated at 4 lard. True, it is clear that it will increase ... but no 13 will be there. In addition, there are research data that says that about 80 kilotons of oil and gas is relevant to us ... we don’t need any 100, but less than 80 kilotons will also cost less efficient and more expensive ...
      therefore, I have reason to believe that they will stop at the option of 80 kilotons.
      but understand, I said that - this is not a momentary problem for our fleet. There are more important tasks in time. AB is fundamentalism ...
      Quote: vladimir1155
      You’re a shipbuilder, maybe in a dry dock we’ll hull our hull and use a gantry crane to monitor one sheet at a time?

      there is already where, oddly enough. only 10 years ago I myself cried everywhere about this. but already there ...
      on Sevmash, albeit in a peculiar way, the modernization of the waterworks is with little blood. by the way, I didn’t look, but approximately, at the final stage. there the point is that the ICD method is already being provided ... also on the DV "star" - see for yourself, the dock is 465 meters ... is it not enough? and even under Murmansk 2-a (!) dock a little more ...
      add Kerch ...
      Well, what's more.
      Rosneft is understandable there - but we weren’t born in a fairy tale, just like Rosneft ...
    2. bugagich
      bugagich 6 July 2018 14: 36
      0
      this is only a small part of the reasons why I think that the restructuring of the fleet is already at the initial stage ...
    3. bugagich
      bugagich 6 July 2018 14: 55
      0
      Quote: vladimir1155
      And to whom are you going to sell the technology of catapults not yet done

      missed in a hurry repent ...
      Yes, because for a very long time there have been negotiations between the Hindus and the Yankees on this matter ...

      PS / In total, five countries have real ABs in the world / well, let's count ... the Yankees, Britons, Farnzuzs, Italians, Chinese, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, we don’t count (?), India and many more want ...
    4. bugagich
      bugagich 6 July 2018 15: 03
      +1
      Quote: vladimir1155
      and nobody will buy AB, nobody needs it

      and nobody will sell AV, not because it’s expensive and not needed ...
      remember the fate of Ulyanovsk and the Varangian ... the story of the Varangian, by the way, read Babich - it is very revealing. America showed how she does not want the dissemination of these technologies outside of her ...
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 6 July 2018 19: 03
        0
        AB will not be able to move offshore, so the shoulder of the aircraft will not grow, because it is a big target and how to protect it? there is nothing ..... so far there is Kuzya, with a service life of up to 2045, and why else AB? ... although I think Kuzya is not particularly needed, but let him do it .... the price of $ 4 billion is a corps building , but in reality all 14 billion dollars for one ship will come out ... a couple of dozen nuclear submarines instead
        1. bugagich
          bugagich 7 July 2018 16: 50
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          AB will not be able to move offshore, so the shoulder of the aircraft will not grow, because

          you understand that in one phrase you put together already a couple of puns?
          Quote: vladimir1155
          because he is a big goal

          I have already explained above that this is only your head, i.e. your Wishlist, no more
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and how to protect it?

          you still don’t understand the task of AB - or maybe you should try to find out?
          Quote: vladimir1155
          there is Kuzya so far, with a service life of up to 2045

          it is still ephemeral. no one gives such data, moreover, there may be adjustments (for various reasons) ...
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and why else AB?

          let's open at least Apalkov ...
          / to give combat stability to ballistic missile submarines, surface ship groups and naval missile-carrying aircraft in all areas of the World Ocean; air superiority in the area of ​​fleet grouping; striking enemy surface ships and submarines. In addition, the aircraft carrier had to provide target designation to the diverse forces of the fleet and the landing of naval assault troops.
          and these are not all the tasks ...
          the fact is that a fleet without a component in the form of AB loses almost 70% of its effectiveness (or even more), no less, maybe more.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          the price of $ 4 billion is a corps building temptation, but in reality all 14 billion dollars for one ship

          but that’s exactly, as you say - “all the words” ... exactly (!). no more. because these are not just numbers, but based on research.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          for one ship

          not for one. do not change as you like.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          ... it’s better to have a couple dozen nuclear submarines instead

          that’s all ... just a couple dozen (although they can’t be - you can’t even imagine that underwater shipbuilding much more expensive than NK) death row boats ... these submarines can escape the fate of suicide bombers, provided they are covered. and most effective in this ... AB