National Interest called "the worst aircraft carrier in history"

The top five aircraft carriers ever launched all over the world is headed by the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, according to The National Interest magazine.

“The aircraft carrier laid in 1983 in the USSR was put into operation only in 1995 and already in Russia. After the accident in 1996, the ship was under repair until the 1998 year. After that, "Admiral Kuznetsov" periodically went into the Mediterranean Sea, usually with great fanfare, and only in November 2016 took part in his first combat operation (in Syria), having lost two aircraft: MiG-29K and Su-33 ", - lead article Lenta.ru report.

According to the author, the cause of the cruiser's failures is “the poor quality of construction and poor support”, and bringing it into proper condition will require “more investment than Russia is currently ready to make for its flagship.”

The publication also included the five “worst” British Eagle (launched in 1918 year), French Bearn (1920), Japanese Kaga (1921) and American Ranger (1934).

The magazine notes that all these ships in the future "served as the basis for the new aircraft carriers of their countries, whose military received sufficient experience in their operation." The only exception is “Admiral Kuznetsov,” who “remains in some kind of ministry, but does not yet produce offspring (at least in the Russian naval navy). "

Recall that in June last year, the representative of the Ministry of Defense Igor Konashenkov called boastful the words of British Defense Minister Michael Fallon “about the beauty of the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth and the decay of the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov”. He noted that Fallon shows ignorance of naval science and does not see the differences between the two ships, the first of which is the aircraft carrier and the second is the aircraft carrying cruiser.

Comments

[Vend]

Yes, we have the worst. And Armata, and missiles, and Solntsepek, and aircraft. That's just the way the United States can compete with Russia in the military market.

[SPACE]

I repeat ...

TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" PERFECT Aircraft Carrier! There were smart people in the USSR. Pros: 1. Boiler turbine! only stupid followers of Ilona Mask laugh here, and TAVKR and where you need it a couple of times in your life on wood! 2. Self-flying aircraft! Puff not puff, but This is the future! what for then Americans F-35V? 3. Missile, this is not your guarded floating workshop Nimitz))), it’s also the Missile Cruiser! And also own air defense, PLO! In general, and without co-justification, he wants to be whipped up. This is the best aircraft carrier in America, but Kuznetsov is the best and undisputed! Cons: Yes, they simply do not! Russia doesn’t need “aircraft-carrying troughs” like Ford, no atomic ones, this is the lot of Peter-1 cruisers, no 90 planes, as the Americans say, “if 6 is not enough, then 36 is also not enough! And you don’t need any atomic steam and electric catapult carriers))) three more, exactly the same!

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: SPACE

1. The boiler turbine! only stupid followers of Ilon Mask laugh here, and TAVKR and where you need it a couple of times in your life on wood!

Only this fuck is not necessary because it takes up a lot of useful space, it requires water purification, if it is not cleaned, it requires constant expensive repairs (it is not possible to clean it at 100% because it is expensive and energy-intensive). Well, the MOST IMPORTANT THESIS the fuck you aircraft carrier capable of sailing on wood if for aviation you still need to deliver fuel?

Quote: SPACE

2. Self-flying aircraft! Puff not puff, but This is the future!

Yes, the future, who argues, only this future will come then, AND ONLY THEN, when: there will be heavy AWACS aircraft and tankers capable of taking off without a catapult. Where are they? no? Well, why the heck then AB if he is blind and deaf?

Quote: SPACE

Puff not puff, but This is the future! what for then Americans F-35V?

For one reason only, harriers are outdated both morally and physically.

Quote: SPACE

3. Missile, this is not a guarded floating workshop Nimitz for you))), it’s also a Missile Cruiser! And also own air defense, PLO! In general, and without co-justification, he wants to be whipped up.

“Can bend” and “bend” are two big differences. So it’s fun to yell about “one AV in a warrior’s field” only in practice, one blacksmith doesn’t go, he also needs a group. And it is needed for a completely prosaic reason, the guard ships allow for maximum concentration and alienation of the "front."
I don’t even want to disassemble the rest.

[SPACE]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Only this fuck is not necessary because it takes up a lot of useful space, it requires water purification, if it is not cleaned, it requires constant expensive repairs (cleaning with 100% is not possible at all because it is expensive and energy-consuming)

And for a nuclear reactor do not need to purify water? and there is nothing to repair there? Tell me how often amezki aircraft carriers trough the waves swim? And at the joke the vigorous boiler is also extinguished?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Well, the MOST IMPORTANT THESIS the fuck you aircraft carrier capable of sailing on wood if for aviation you still need to deliver fuel?

It was an allegory, but are you really talking about firewood?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

ONLY THEN when: heavy AWACS aircraft and tankers capable of taking off without a catapult will appear. Where are they? no? Well, why the heck then AB if he is blind and deaf?

Special AWACS and tankers will not be needed in the future. And today there are enough satellites, RTR and the own capabilities of military aircraft and missiles.

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Can bend "and" bend "are two big differences.

And what do you have examples? Well, who bent whom?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

I don’t even want to disassemble the rest.

What a sober child

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: SPACE

And for a nuclear reactor do not need to purify water? and there is nothing to repair there? Tell me how often amezki aircraft carriers trough the waves swim? And at the joke the vigorous boiler is also extinguished?

and for nuclear it is necessary, but firstly it takes up less space because it does not need fuel tanks, secondly it has an excess of heat and this heat is additionally used for steam generators in steam catapults. The boiler cannot give out enough heat for steam generators, or rather it can give out, it only costs a bunch of resources and internal volume for fuel. It is because of the steam catapults on Amer AB that use nuclear reactors. Other AVs use diesel electric SU.

Quote: SPACE

Special AWACS and tankers will not be needed in the future. And today there are enough satellites, RTR and the own capabilities of military aircraft and missiles.

Wooo, another dreamer, but the General Staff does not agree with you and, among other things, builds AWACS planes.

Quote: SPACE

And what do you have examples? Well, who bent whom?

Of course there are examples, one trip to Syria is worth it, there he went alone, launched the planes alone, there the planes took off a hundred a day, and the whole igil was bombed. and all thanks to the kuz. In general, lives well in a parallel universe

In general, our blacksmiths are a Soviet suitcase without a handle, and it's hard to drag and throw it away.

[Kyzmich]

What nonsense is this?
Nuclear installation is many times more than KTU
One biosecurity there is what it costs.
The distillate that is driven in the primary circuit needs to be cleaned an order of magnitude more thoroughly than the distillate for boilers.
Otherwise, get radiation contamination of the ship.
And this requires regenerative plants with a sufficiently short service life and with the problem of disposal of ion-exchange components.
And having a sufficiently large size.
Into the account of "steam generators"
With ordinary KTU (KVG4 boilers), steam 400-500С and a pressure of 50 atmospheres are obtained.
But from a nuclear reactor you will get only 280C steam, which is very bad for turbine operations.
In this case, the pressure in the first circuit is .... 300 atmospheres!
And with a steam generator the same 50 atmospheres.
Is it really nice to have such a "bomb" on a ship?
Let me remind you that the efficiency of a nuclear reactor, even in the future, is barely 30%
KVG4 boiler efficiency of 90%
And please remind what "other" AV diesel electric SU?
I do not know such AB

[Kyzmich]

explanation of the answer ..
In boiler plants, it is not necessary to maintain the coolant (water) in a liquid state, just the steam heats the steam and we get an essentially transparent gas with a temperature of 450-500C (superheated steam) at the outlet, which is very good for the operation of GTZA and turbine generator turbines. And even there at the last stages of the turbine we have saturated steam (200C) That is steam with water. Which is bad for the turbine blades.

In ship reactors, everything is worse.
There, water, in addition to the coolant functions, is also a neutron moderator.
And the reactivity of the reactor is directly tied to in what form this water is (in the form of steam or liquid)
For this reason, it is necessary to keep it under very high pressure (300-320 atmospheres) so that it does not boil and get at least 280C steam in the second-circuit heat exchanger (steam generator).
It is impossible below because cavitation destruction of turbine blades begins.
But the trouble does not end there.
All modern turbines work with expansion, respectively, the pressure and temperature decreases with each stage and at the exit we have almost saturated steam (180C)
That's all the charms of a shipboard nuclear power plant.
Her only "joy" is to give out this bad steam in practically any quantities, which is very buzz for the operation of steam catapults.
Let me remind you that the distillate in the first circuit and the second requires additional purification from fine sludge (corrosion and pollution) and gases, including nitrogen.
Otherwise, we get an unnecessary radiation background.
This is roughly the same in simplified terms.

[Orionvit]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

“Can bend” and “bend” are two big differences.

You are confusing the naval concepts of Russia and the United States. The states need aircraft carriers (which, by definition, are weapons of aggression) for a permanent military presence throughout the world and the maintenance of their “world” order. Tell me at least one case when the Americans used aircraft carriers to protect their shores? Russia does not set itself the task of bombing "uncomfortable" states located on other continents.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Orionvit

You are confusing the naval concepts of Russia and the United States.

I don’t confuse anything, I look sensibly at the concept of using the fleet and at the fleet itself and at the ships themselves. There are countries that fought and are at war on the sea, they have experience and a clear understanding of what for and why the main thing is why it is so and not otherwise. And there are countries like the USSR / RF that only songs can sing about "having no analogues in the world" and about "we have our own development path" "we have our own concept, we ourselves with a mustache." only now when it comes to business with these mustachios they immediately sit down in a puddle, well at least not in the face.
Well, at least in the submarine fleet there is no such mess.

[Orionvit]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

There are countries that fought and are at war on the sea, they have experience and a clear understanding of what for and why the main thing is why it is so and not otherwise.

The only sober statement from the stream of your "ingenious" statements on the "concept of the use of the fleet" and "angry" accusatory words addressed to the Russian Navy.

[already a Muscovite]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

I don’t confuse anything, I look sensibly at the concept of using the fleet and at the fleet itself

So we always ..., always, and the horses are worse, and the guns are crooked, and the gunpowder is not the same ... But you, cockroaches, are not translated ...

[SPACE]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

There are countries that fought and are at war on the sea, they have experience and a clear understanding of what for and why the main thing is why it is so and not otherwise. And there are countries like the USSR / RF that only songs can sing about "having no analogues in the world" and about "we have our own development path" "we have our own concept, we ourselves with a mustache."

Stupid and funny. Are you not talking about those countries that flew into space on the shuttle apollo to a dead end with a trampoline? Which uranium cannot normally be enriched, those with both tanks and airplanes and air defense, etc., according to objective performance characteristics, the cost is much worse than Russian ones. Is this their clear understanding?

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

In general, our blacksmiths are a Soviet suitcase without a handle, and it's hard to drag and throw it away.

Yeah, and the stupid Chinese have already built a second.
Soon you will also become an eyewitness of the revision of the American concept of aircraft carriers and their large-scale decommissioning. Witness another American impasse.

[meandr51]

Well, and who with what mustache sits in a puddle? Not Hitler, by the hour? Not a nasty army in Korea and Vietnam?

[Kyzmich]

Nonsense too.
No country in the world builds aircraft carriers like the US aircraft carriers.
Everyone builds, as we do.
The latest series "Vikrant" - light aircraft carrier with a springboard launch LA
The latest “Queen Elizabeth” springboard.
The newest Chinese springboard.
It was true that the French attempted to build an atomic aircraft carrier. Like the hegemon.
Result, the ship is smaller than the Kuzi
Cost. Like Nimitz
What do you tell us all the tales?
And about diesel aircraft carriers please in more detail.
Waiting for.
Mr. lied.

[Kyzmich]

Actually, there are tankers on Kuznetsovo and their role is played by MiG29 fighters with additional tanks, in fact, like the American F-18 aircraft carriers
Pretty ancient practice.
Aircraft AWACS?
I honestly don’t understand why Kuznetsov shouldn’t be at TAKR, considering that more than the Hokai states take off planes from him from a springboard
Most likely the matter is in the customers.
And putting a catapult for the sake of one AWACS is simply ridiculous.

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Well, the MOST IMPORTANT THESIS the fuck you aircraft carrier capable of sailing on wood if for aviation you still need to deliver fuel?

That is, atomic AB does not need this?
Given the range of modern air defense systems, these eyes will not have to fly so close, this Hokai will simply be knocked down. For information, it does not even have passive defense means.
And at an altitude of 9km it glows like a Christmas tree on New Year's and risks getting some S500F thread in the forehead at a distance of 400-500km.

[Loess]

Apparently, no more significant news was found. We live in a boring world, probably)

[jjj]

And thank God!

[Dormidont]

Good hutspa. Spicy

[Grandfather]

all relic carriers and a huge waste of money ... I already expressed my opinion. with the advent of hypersonic missiles these are targets.

[annodomene]

And without hypersonic missiles "Granites" in the "Shooting 2 submarines" mode will also work out quite well.

[Kyzmich]

Considering that modern nuclear submarines hear only 2 km (!), Then a volley of torpedoes makes this galosh very vulnerable.

[dvina71]

Because it’s not an aircraft carrier .. An aircraft carrier cruiser having on board offensive strike weapons, anti-aircraft defense and air defense .., except for an air wing .. Does it mean to shove it into their rating?

[bouncyhunter]

Quote: dvina71

Sense him in their rating shove?

The point is to shit Russia. And the fact that the “Admiral Kuznetsov” has never been an aircraft carrier for mattresses is inconsequential. The main thing is to fart your "authoritative" opinion around the world.

[AlexVas44]

Quote: dvina71

Sense him in their rating shove?

Quote: bouncyhunter

The main thing is to fart your "authoritative" opinion around the world.

Straight from the rating !!!!

[bouncyhunter]

Quote: AlexVas44

Straight from the rating !!!!

Everything on the mattresses is not like on people: the exhaust pipe was called a “rating” for some reason ...

[hrych]

Hi Don Pablo! Firstly, his story is not over yet and a heroic, victorious fate is yet to come. Secondly, an Indian aircraft carrier and two Chinese made on this project and expression

but not yet producing offspring

Although they made a reservation, they say

(at least in the Russian Navy)

turns into a blizzard. However, Liaoning was simply unfinished, and Gorshkov still served before becoming Vikrandity. And in fact, 4 floating aircraft carriers are now made under this project and 3 are already performing combat missions. Also, for information of the Western onalitags of the Russian Federation, it did not fight, like India, like China so far, what to use this device. If we take the Syrian operation, the task was to drive away the NATO troops and the task was completed. The loss of aircraft is a minuscule, due to how many accidents and loss of aircraft the Americans had. And Kiev, Minsk and Novorossiysk are sold and destroyed by traitors.

[bouncyhunter]

Hello my friend ! So, after all, mattresses wish to be given out for real pride. Well, they really want Kuzya to gurgle on the abyssal. From wasabi ears to them, most likely their prodigy Ford will sit on the bank with the stern.

[Svarog51]

Pasha, welcome

rather, their child prodigy Ford sits on the bank aft.

Enterprise has already "sat" on this bank.
http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2018-01-12/8_979_enterpri
se.html

[bouncyhunter]

Hello Seryoga!

Quote: Svarog51

Enterprise has already "sat" on this bank.

So it is: a holy place does not happen empty.

[Svarog51]

They would have to determine the pilot from the movie "Volga-Volga" there - they’ll definitely sit down.

[bouncyhunter]

Yeah, or the surname of the pilot should be Susanin.

[mvg]

Yes, there is nothing offensive. Granites do not fly for a long time. Neither planes nor rockets. A tin can, over which everyone neighs and which drowns its planes and burns tens / hundreds / thousands of tons of fuel and babosikoff. And he wants to swap from 40 to 80 billion rubles.

[dvina71]

Quote: mvg

Granites do not fly for a long time.

Who told you that?

[mvg]

Ask about the accident, when the fuel flooded the Granite compartment and repairs were considered irrational. There are directions, but no missiles.

[dvina71]

THERE 12 PU .. Everything flooded? And you think that at a plant that is capable of pumping RA water and waste, they will not be able to pump out several tons of fuel? Seriously?
Granite

Air defense and missile defense, electronic warfare

[mvg]

At VO there is the author "Andrei from Chelyabinsk", do not disdain, ask for details ... Granites no longer produce, Granites do not fly with Kuzi. Yes, and they are not needed there from the word "completely"

[cast iron]

Granites without producing. Do I understand correctly that the USSR did not make ammunition reserves in production? Those. how many submarines with ships for the "granites" released, how many total and "granites"? And you forgot to make stocks of the rocket, right? ;)

[ZVO]

Quote: cast iron

Granites without producing. Do I understand correctly that the USSR did not make ammunition reserves in production? Those. how many submarines with ships for the "granites" released, how many total and "granites"? And you forgot to make stocks of the rocket, right? ;)

wrong.
a rocket is not a sledgehammer.
Each rocket has its own shelf life.
Granites - all worked out, exhausted ...
There are no granites and never will be.

[Kyzmich]

That is, in your 5th nuclear submarine 949A Antei were left without weapons?
There will be no "Granites" will be "Onyx"
Everything ever gets old.
Change to a new one.

[ZVO]

Quote: Kyzmich

That is, in your 5th nuclear submarine 949A Antei were left without weapons?
There will be no "Granites" will be "Onyx"
Everything ever gets old.
Change to a new one.

Excuse me. but to change a rocket is not to change a drill in a screwdriver ...
If you do not understand. that a change of missile in the Soviet / Russian fleet is a radical restructuring of the entire ship. all BIUS, and much more ...

Until now, our Navy has no concept of "open architecture", "unification", etc.

[Kyzmich]

When were you at the inset of modern Russian naval weapons?
Everything is there.
It would be a desire.
But in any case, changing the missile system is easier than the ship itself.

[annodomene]

It was like that, even rocket launchers with aprkrk were involved for elimination. But everything is already in the past.

[Kyzmich]

My friend. About "flooded"
There was an embarrassment back in 1998 with the flooding of the central post of the ZRAK "Dagger"
20 years ago Karl!
Wake up!

[NEXUS]

Quote: dvina71

Because it is not an aircraft carrier.

He became an aircraft carrier at the moment when the main caliber was removed from him-PKR Granit.

[Kyzmich]

I will surprise you: all US aircraft carriers belong to the class of heavy cruisers.
Try to understand it.
Their shock weapons are carriers of anti-ship missiles and bomb-deck aircraft.
A RCC "Granite" is the same aircraft only without a pilot.
So, in principle, there is no difference.
Just by launching the RCC "Granite" we do not risk the death of the pilot.
And modern anti-ship missiles are very smart today.

[askort154]

As practice has shown, “Kuzya” is an expensive and worthless dish. Continuous repairs, after almost every “trip”. The very first attempt to “fight,” turned out to be the loss of 2 aircraft, moreover, not due to enemy opposition. I agree with the assessment in the article, with tears in my eyes. Kuzya is not the pride of our fleet.

[dvina71]

Quote: askort154

The first attempt to "fight

A normal attempt .. New airplanes were run in, new naval tactics were rolled back .. They pressed it out blindly .., they drove NATO submarines in Middle-earth .. He completed his task.

[mvg]

A strange run-in of aircraft, it seems painful to crash test. Yes, yes, it was Su-33 with iron that helped to overcome Aleppo. About the submarine drive ... did you have a snack today?

[dvina71]

Quote: mvg

did you have a snack today?

I don’t drink .. in principle, but maybe from laziness .. Tea drank a bite ..
Do you seriously believe that the plan didn’t try to work out their bases for such a purpose?
"Anti-submarine weapons

The ship is equipped with a Udav-1 anti-submarine defense system with 60 anti-submarine missiles. The boa constrictor-1, supplied by the Alloy Research and Production Association, protects surface ships by distracting and destroying enemy torpedoes. The system also provides protection against submarines, dwarf submarines and diversionary means such as submarines. The system has 10 sections and is capable of firing deep 111СГ rockets, placing minefields (111СЗ) and using distracting shells (111СО). The range is up to 3000 meters horizontally and up to 600 meters in depth.
Shipborne sonar equipment includes an armament detection and control sonar located in the ship’s hull, operating at medium and low frequencies, capable of detecting torpedoes and submarines. "The anti-submarine aircraft of the ship is equipped with a radar for search of surface targets, submersible sonars, submersible buoys and magnetic anomaly detectors."

[tlauicol]

Aleppo just with him re-lost

[dvina71]

Quote: Tlauicol

leppo just at it repeatedly lost

WHAT WHAT?

[tlauicol]

sorry, Palmyra of course

[zyzx]

D.B. This is about you.

[askort154]

Tiksi-3 .....when and how was practice shown to you ?? and by the way you will find a bowl at your dacha

Very "convincing." Read and chill out better.
Whether the Soviet fleet needs an aircraft carrier, debates in the highest echelons of the Moscow Region and the Central Committee of the CPSU have been ongoing for decades and have not subsided to this day. Only a shipyard in Nikolaev (Ukraine) could build a full-fledged aircraft carrier. And according to the Montreux Convection, the passage of aircraft carriers through the Bosporus and Dardanelles in 1936 is prohibited. That is, to build aircraft carriers in Nikolaev there is no sense, they will not be able to leave the Black Sea.
Therefore, they decided to go the other way, create a "station wagon" and call it an "aircraft carrier cruiser", with the appropriate weapons. We built 7 units without a catapult, based on the use of the Yak-41M (Yak-141) on them
with vertical take-off. The Kuzya was laid under the name Riga, then after Brezhnev’s death they renamed Leonid Brezhnev, then Tbilisi, and after the collapse of the USSR, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov, which was launched in 1985, and adopted in 1995
In the first campaign in December 1995 in the Mediterranean Sea, serious problems arose with the power plant (main power plant) and ship systems.
The boilers were made of pipes with low quality metal (constantly burned out). Therefore, it was more often under repair than at sea. Operation on fuel oil, a huge expense, forced to have large tanks. To maintain such a number of aircraft-carrying cruisers was expensive even for the USSR. After the collapse, they began to be fused abroad in
China and India. Only "Kuzya" survived and hung out on the "bank" in anticipation of his fate. There were no aircraft (set), nor crews. Training ground complex for pilots was in the Crimea, then "Ukrainian". Had to rent it. Only with the advent of Putin,
in the early 2000s, they remembered the Kuzyu and pilot training, there was only one instructor. A full set of wing (24 aircraft) on the “Kuzi” has never been. Before that, there were two disasters. 16 lines remained in service. Two more were lost in the last campaign. Now "Kuzi" is again to be repaired with modernization for a period of at least 3 years.
This is the fate (in short) of our Kuzi. His only merit and mission now is the training of the flight crew in case of the creation of a real aircraft carrier. The ship pilot is a piece product.
Whether we need aircraft carriers - there is still no unanimous decision. Maybe when Russia takes the 2nd-3rd place in the world in economic development, then it is possible to approach this issue more closely .. We have much more to be proud of in armaments. And “Kuzya” is no longer pride, he is the right simulator. I consider myself an absolute patriot of the Motherland (although it has long been non-partisan), but I am guided only by common sense.

[Tiksi-3]

Quote: askort154

Read and Cool Better

you need to read more .... can you generally describe the concept of using an aircraft carrier (cruiser-air) in our country? you read shnyaga and draw breathtaking conclusions based on them
you can read the delirium laid out by you for children at night - quote - "

Quote: askort154

The boilers were made of pipes with low quality metal (constantly burned out)

"and the sides or bottom did not burn out ???? if you were in the subject, you would not post this anachroism

Quote: askort154

Maybe when Russia takes the 2nd-3rd place in the world in economic development, then we can approach this issue more closely ..

another talking head voiced, and you reprinted without thinking .....

[ZVO]

Quote: Tiksi-3

you can read the delirium laid out by you for children at night - quote - "

Quote: askort154

The boilers were made of pipes with low quality metal (constantly burned out)

"and the sides or bottom did not burn out ???? if you were in the subject, you would not post this anachroism

He is absolutely right. in fact.
Any exit of Kuzi to the sea - he is always and everywhere accompanied by an ocean tugboat.
Kuzya is unreliable.
And the accident of 1995 - showed it and it is impossible to fix it. If you always drive a tugboat.

[Tiksi-3]

[quote = ZVO] He is absolutely right. in fact.
[quote = ZVO] Any exit Kuzi to the sea [/ quote]
any exit to the sea - can turn into a hole in the bottom or a harpoon in the cabin, so what?
How long did he stay in Syria and how much did ??? and probably only on the strap from the tug? ... so you post nonsense here? behind the tank columns there are always repair battalions ... it seems to me that the sofa and popcorn are the hard work that you can do just fine!

[ZVO]

[quote = Tiksi-3] [quote = ZVO] He is absolutely right. in fact.
[quote = ZVO] Any exit Kuzi to the sea [/ quote]
any exit to the sea - can turn into a hole in the bottom or a harpoon in the cabin, so what?
How long did he stay in Syria and how much did ??? and probably only on the strap from the tug? ... so you post nonsense here? behind the tank columns there are always repair battalions ... it seems to me that the sofa and popcorn is the hard work that you can do just fine! [/ quote]

You read about the Syrian campaign in 2012 ...
Then hatred was not in fashion ... Read, the article and discussions on TopVar were ...
And as promised to put it on overhaul then for 5 years.

So your sofa is not even revealed. and the basement ...

Show me in a warrant of any US carrier group - tug ...
Permanent member of the group. as it has been since 1995. Each Kuzi exit is always accompanied by an ocean tug.
And this is only the merit of our boilers.

[Tiksi-3]

Quote: ZVO

constantly acting as part of a group. as it has been since 1995. Each Kuzi exit is always accompanied by an ocean tug.

In Russia there is a large collection of publicists and experts who believe that the peculiarities of Russian geography mean that the country should not spend too much on the fleet. For these authors, Kuznetsov is a favorite target of criticism ...
By the way - Kuznetsov proved to be a very useful ship, which gave the country the necessary experience to create the latest ships. This, in turn, provided economic benefits - the export of similar equipment began ....
etc......

[Kyzmich]

A tugboat and a tanker are “driven” with it due to the lack of bases in our Atlantic and SPM.
In cases of something, no tugboat will quickly come to the rescue, unlike the NATO countries.

[Kyzmich]

I will add that tankers and support ships (KKS) like our Berezin are also included in the classic AUG of the US Navy

[ZVO]

Quote: Kyzmich

I will add that tankers and support ships (KKS) like our Berezin are also included in the classic AUG of the US Navy

You yourself are not funny your arguments?

Do not confuse support ships and ocean tugs ...
These are different things with different tasks.
The tasks of the support ship are to support AUG_ with the transportation of fuel, ammunition, products and it is very important to transfer cargo on the move to other ships.
But what, does the tugboat Chicker do the same?
No. You just have to put up with the fact that:
because of low reliability of ship machinery the only Russian aircraft carrier tugboat always accompanies, which in which case can come to the rescue.

[Kyzmich]

They clearly wrote to you that in the Atlantic and SPM we have no bases.
Help will not come.
What is not clear to you?
From where will you fly in tow if something happens?
When refueling a tanker from a tanker, a tugboat may very well turn out to be the case.
Thresh with screws such a colossus as the Kuzya nekomilfo.
And you can even kiss the tanker easily, a huge sail.
There was a breeze and you won’t have time to scrub it with screws - there is a lot of inertia.
I remember in 89 the new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Stance" of the US Navy flew aground in the Hawaii and scored Kingstones for the reactor cooling system.
I wonder what pulled him off? and then dragged to the base.
What about the destroyer Duncan?
The poor man chased after Kuznetsov and burned himself a power plant.
And with what they dragged him on a rope to the base?
By the way, not one U.S. aircraft carrier has an auxiliary propulsion system.
If that go forward to the reefs.

[ZVO]

Quote: Kyzmich

If that go forward to the reefs.

One question is just ...
How many miles are from San Diego or Bremerton to Subic Bay or Yokosuki?

[Kyzmich]

About the same as from Severomorsk to Tartus.
We have a guess here?
Why this question?
The counter question is how many miles from Kaluga to the star Aldebaran?
We can talk about ballet there or about women.
Can you be so mysterious?

[sogdy]

Quote: askort154

Read and chill out better.

You forgot to indicate the source and authorship. And they would say a lot about you.
Right, the rush of humanitarian people is NOT INTERESTING.

[Kyzmich]

Quote: askort154
And according to the Montreux Convection, the passage of aircraft carriers through the Bosporus and Dardanelles in 1936 is prohibited. That is, it makes no sense to build aircraft carriers in Nikolaev, they will not be able to get out of the Black Sea.
Lord, take it yourself and read this Montreux convention!
There is no ban on aircraft carriers there.
One wrote, the rest. As parrots repeat.
Your "Bank" in the fleet is called a "barrel")))

[Sergey985]

If you compare: how many nimitsey simultaneously on the go? I’m silent about the Frenchman (the crew was irradiated, problems with the screw, an endless series of breakdowns leading to interruption of trips and return for repairs). All aircraft carriers are not entirely reliable, forge is no exception.

[Hagalaz]

In general, unfortunately, there is some truth in this review. All must be honestly admitted. The ship is a problem. Not the combat loss of two planes in one Syrian campaign is very bad. And it’s the tenth aircraft carrier or aircraft carrier. It's not nice that they poked my nose, but here I agree with NI.
But must swim! At least to maintain staff qualifications. Perhaps in the future they will build a new aircraft carrier.

[Vadivak]

Quote: Hagalaz

Not the combat loss of two planes in one Syrian campaign is very bad.

It depends on what you compare it to.....

the fire at the Forrestol strike aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1967. This is the largest tragedy in the modern history of the US Navy. 134 people died in the fire, another 161 sailors were injured and burned.

The fire would have been caused by the spontaneous launch of a 27-mm Zuni unguided rocket, which fell off the Skyhaw attack aircraft pylon and crashed into fully loaded and equipped for take-off aircraft. A 17-hour fire swept six decks of the ship; nine bombs on the flight deck detonated. The ship and its air wing completely lost their combat effectiveness, 21 burned aircraft were thrown overboard. Skyhawk pilot was Mac Kane

In 1972, the Phantom fighter unsuccessfully landed on the deck of the Midway aircraft carrier and crashed into aircraft standing on the deck. 5 dead, 23 wounded, 8 aircraft lost.

In the 1966 year, on board the Oriskani aircraft carrier, the sailor carried a bunch of signal missiles, throwing the extension cords over his shoulder. One of the rockets caught on for something, the cord pulled and the rocket started. The sailor threw her aside on a box with the same missiles. The rockets caught fire and scattered throughout the hangar. 44 people died, another 156 were injured and burned. Almost all aircraft on the hangar deck burned down.

In 1981, the EA-6B Prauler electronic warfare aircraft landing on the deck of the Nimitz aircraft carrier crashed into a Sea King helicopter. The Spurrow rocket exploded from the fire, then another four. 14 killed, 39 wounded. Nine corsair attack aircraft, three heavy Tomcat interceptors, three S-3 Viking aircraft, A-6 Intrudur, and those responsible for the tragedy: EA-6B Prauler and Sea King helicopter burned down.

In the 1988 year in the Arabian Sea, on board the Nimitz, an A-7E attack aircraft jammed the electric descent of the Vulcan six-barreled gun, which fires 4000 rounds per minute. The "rebellious" gun riddled the KA-6D tanker. Kerosene spilled from its tanks, turning the plane into a fire torch.

A blazing plane was pushed overboard, but before that he had time to set fire to the 5 of the Corsair aircraft, as well as the Viking and the Intruder, which were nearby.

In the 1991 year on the Nimitz (CVN-68), the F / A-18C Hornet crashed while landing. The crew left the burning car, but its engines did not turn off and worked in afterburner mode. The aircraft carrier was saved by a brave mechanic who managed to get into the cockpit and turn off the engines.
During landing on a moving aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln", Kara Khaltgrin, the first female pilot of carrier-based aviation, was killed. Her F-14 "Tomcat" fell into the water when landing in the 1994 year.

1998 year. The accident on the aircraft carrier Enterprise. The EA-6B Prauler plane violated the controller’s ban and landed right on another plane - the S-3 Viking.

A very recent accident: in the 2011 year, the F / A-18C Hornet fighter-bomber exploded and burned on a catapult when it attempted to take off from the John C. Stennis nuclear carrier. 10 injured were reported.

But. American aircraft carriers are not accident champions at all. The French Charles de Gaulle, the ship-disaster, which practically did not come out of the dry dock, firmly held the palm here.

[Hagalaz]

Yes, really yours. But mind you, I do not join the definition of “worst aircraft carrier”. But to calm down with the excuse that someone also has problems, as it is not good.
In addition, your statistics apply to several aircraft carriers at different times. Only Nimitz screwed up three times, but the incidents are separated in time.

[sogdy]

Quote: Hagalaz

But also calm down by the excuse that someone also has problems

"The preparatory-final time, frequency, time and complexity of the routine maintenance depends on the complexity of the equipment" (c) "The complexity of the equipment is a quantifiable value" (x)
What kind of reasoning and finger breeding ?!

[Korax71]

And do not tell me the coefficient of combat use of mattress carriers and our kuzi? Well, the ratio of the total number of sorties and crashes? So I can also selectively pull facts about anything and in general it will look very disastrous.

[Vadivak]

Quote: Korax71

Well, and the ratio of the total number of crashes and accidents? So I, too, can selectively pull facts about anything and in general it will look very catastrophic.

Pull. Especially about anything. But not in this thread
And Kuznetsov against De Gaulle is quite a worthy ship.

[Svarog51]

Vadim And I liked your information note on disasters more than an article about Kuznetsov and the so-called rating.

[K.A.S.]

Ava do not tell us about the history of the development of the construction of the use of aircraft carriers in our country and in the USA?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Vadivak

The fire would have been caused by the spontaneous launch of a 27-mm Zuni unguided rocket, which fell off the Skyhaw attack aircraft pylon and crashed into fully loaded and equipped for take-off aircraft. A 17-hour fire swept six decks of the ship; nine bombs on the flight deck detonated. The ship and its air wing completely lost their combat effectiveness, 21 burned aircraft were thrown overboard. Skyhawk pilot was Mac Kane

Please tell me, on what trajectory did this mythical “McCain rocket” have to fly in order to get into the “sky hockey”, which was standing near and slightly behind McCain’s plane?
In fact, the Zuni left the Phantom launcher on the other side. Hit the McKane’s next skyhawk. I broke through the tank and ignited the fuel. McCain barely managed to get out of the cabin along the nose cone - before his skyhawk started to fry. And then the bombs began to burst.
The main culprits of what happened are the deck crew, preparing the planes for departure, and the gunsmiths who took the bombs.
1. The connection of cables to the NAR control system was carried out on a catapult according to the instructions. To reduce the preparation time for the departure, the team began to connect them with the suspension of PU. But this point was not just written just like that - due to pickups in the airborne chains of deck aircraft, there was a chance of a spontaneous launch. On a catapult, NAR would have gone over an empty deck into the sea. But on the deck parking lot - on planes opposite. Which is what happened.
2. Old-style bombs, stored for 15 years in the tropics, often in the open, were taken by gunsmiths and hung from planes. There were even suspicions about the beginning of the decomposition of explosives in them - so these bombs were not launched into the cellars.
Bombs of the new sample could "fry" for 10 minutes without detonation. Old - exploded in a few minutes. At the same time, fire brigades did not have information about old bombs. As a result, almost all the flight deck firefighters gathered to extinguish spilled fuel were confident that they had these 10 minutes - and were worn out when the first bomb exploded.
ICH, the rear officer who dropped the bombs from the warehouse, learning that the bombs were coming to the AB, forbade the vehicles to exit with them - until they received written confirmation of sending them to the AB.
And by the way - the road to disaster on the Forrestal was paved exclusively with good intentions. Some wanted to reduce preparation time for the flight and reduce the risk for personnel when working on an airplane standing on a catapult. Others - resume flights as soon as possible, interrupted due to lack of bombs.

[Kyzmich]

This review is an example of complete ignorance of the topic.

[NEXUS]

Quote: askort154

I agree with the assessment in the article, with tears in my eyes. Kuzya is not the pride of our fleet.

In the 80s, the ships of the Krechet project were very successful for that time. And your agreement with the author of the article only says that you don’t understand anything at all ... however, like the author.
In addition, the tactics of using these aircraft carriers were slightly different than those of the US aircraft carriers. And given the evolution of Project 1143, we can recall the project of the aircraft carrier 1143.7, which, if completed, would not be inferior to the US aircraft carriers, with an aircraft wing of 70 aircraft.

[Kyzmich]

I remind you that pr 1143.7 "Ulyanovsk" in terms of the composition of the missile weapons is a complete analogue of the "Kuznetsov" same 12 PU "Granit"
Regarding the "air wing"
To date, assault and air defense squadrons have long been removed from all US aircraft carriers. (A-7 and F-14)
The concept of a single decker aircraft F-18A, which serves as the attack aircraft of an air defense fighter, reconnaissance and refueling, has been adopted.
For this reason, keeping on deck 30 + 30 + 30 aircraft was simply no reason.
And on this day, an aircraft wing of 40-50 aircraft fully performs the tasks that 30 + 30 + 30 as before.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Kyzmich

I remind you that pr 1143.7 "Ulyanovsk" in terms of the composition of the missile weapons is a complete analogue of the "Kuznetsov" same 12 PU "Granit"

Remind me if Kuzi has a catapult and what SU was planned in Ulyanovsk, and quantitatively what kind of air wing did Kuznetsov have compared to 1143.7 ...
Ulyanovsk is the same analogue to Kuznetsov as the same Nimitz.

[Kyzmich]

I will remind you.
To feed the catapult with steam, two boilers on KVG4 fuel oil (!?) were installed on Ulyanvsk.
This is so by the way.
The catapult was needed there for the aircraft AWACS Yak44
And the same springboard.
And beneath it, the 12PU "PKR" Granit ", exactly like on Kuznetsovo.

The rest of the aircraft is the same as on the Kuznetsovo
The number of aircraft is greater.
Well, and the displacement is greater.
What is there to not understand?
The power plant in his plans was nuclear.
In fact, the same TKR “Kuznetsov” is simply more of a nuclear power plant.
This project had nothing to do with the Nimitz layout.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Kyzmich

In fact, the same TKR “Kuznetsov” is simply more of a nuclear power plant.

You see what’s the matter ... you’re talking about Kuz and Ulyanovsk in such a way that “just one is bigger, the other is smaller, and so, these are essentially identical ships” ...
This is the same as saying, for example, Sarychi and Atlanta, which are basically the same thing, only one more and the other less.
Ulyanovsk is essentially different from Kuzi, just like Nimitz from it. And the line-up ... so here we had such a shipbuilding school. We built aircraft carriers like this ... just as we build tanks, planes, and so on ...

[Kyzmich]

My friend.
On Ulyanovsk, the front of the deck is a springboard.
Where did you see him on US aircraft carriers?
There is a springboard for take-off aircraft.
Do you understand this?
These are completely different technologies.
And the two Lighthouse catapults on the sponsor are for the YAK44 AWACS.
The whole concept of the ship is the same as that of TAKR "A Kuznetsov"
Springboard-aerofinisher-shock complex "Granite"
What are you arguing here?
And to compare the shock capabilities of Nimitz and Ulyanovsk is an ungrateful task.
The weight of warheads in the "granite" is 800 kg. and a flight range of 500 km at a very high speed, unlike RCC Harpoon.
Who will drown whom, the question.
This is so by the way.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Kyzmich

My friend.
On Ulyanovsk, the front of the deck is a springboard.

My friend, I’m talking about Ivan to you, you’re talking about Thomas to me ... what about the jumps with the Granites?
I repeat, saying that Kuzya and Ulyanovsk are the same ship, the difference is only in size, this is stupid, and complete. These are the ships of one project Krechet, but the difference between them is enormous.
Say the SSBN Yuri Dolgoruky (lead) and Alexander Nevsky of project 955, although one project, but these are completely different missile carriers ... about the Borey-A project, and even more so Borey-B, I generally keep quiet. The same story with the Krechet project.

[Kyzmich]

The difference is only in size and displacement.
The take-off technology is the same.
Take a look and show me at least one fighter at the launch position of the catapult?

The presence of the Granit rocket launcher complex on both ships makes them the same as a concept.
Well, the availability of a springboard.
These are obvious things. The presence of 2 steam catapults makes it possible to take into the air the AWACS YAK44E aircraft
that's all.
What are you trying to prove here?
The ships are absolutely identical in concept, unlike Nimitz.
Which generally has no strike rocket complex, as well as no springboard.

[Kyzmich]

I will explain the technology of take-off.
If you look at the thrust of the Su33 and F-18 engines, it becomes clear that our catapult is simply not needed.
First position А (105 meters) is a Su 33 take-off with a BN 800-3000kg mainly in interceptor configuration. (Difference in range and patrol time) 800-1500km. (2XP27ET + 2XP73)
Second distant position Б(195 meters) this is the take-off of Su 33 with BN from 3000-6500 kg mainly shock options (26 FAB 250 + 4P73)

[Kyzmich]

Fiction "Krechet" successful.
There was simply a lot of optimism in the 70s-80s about reassessing the capabilities of VTOL aircraft as naval aircraft.
In the United States, the conversion of all of their Spruense-type EMs into aircraft carriers of the Gyrfalcon type was seriously considered.
Ours very quickly went through this entire evolutionary stage of the YAK38-YAK41 and, in my opinion, skillfully stuck this Lockheed rake. as it became clear that any VTOL aircraft is much inferior to modern aircraft, while being more expensive and more complicated.
Nobody just expected that a 30 ton Su 33 could take off from a deck with a BN of 1 ton without any catapults, while having a run of 100 meters and a springboard.
It remains only to observe the tragicomedy with their F-35B.
Along with the "Shakespearean tragedy" of the aircraft carriers "Queen Elizabeth" and the Prince ....)))

[Kyzmich]

The loss of two aircraft is not connected with the ship in any way.
The first accident (MiG29) is not the ability of the command to make an operational decision.
There, to the nearest ground base, a little more than 100 km was 10 minutes fly.
Why didn’t the riddle plane go there?
The second accident is the pilot error during landing.
In any case, breakage of landing cables is the most common accident on aircraft carriers, including the United States with their experience.

[iouris]

Konoshenkov is too much. I would say simply: we have no other aircraft carrier for you.

[dvina71]

Quote: iouris

I would just say

I would say even easier .. we do not have an aircraft carrier, and was not expected. A classic aircraft carrier is an airfield and air base, the protection of which is carried out by attached forces .. "Kuznetsov" attack cruiser with an air wing .., in principle, he needs a pair of nuclear submarines from an escort .., he can handle the rest himself.

[NKT]

The magazine does not understand the differences between an aircraft carrier and an aircraft carrier cruiser)

[iouris]

Quote: NKT

The magazine does not understand the differences

The problem is that the magazine fulfilled its particular task of the information war, but Konashenkov did not.

[sogdy]

Quote: iouris

but Konashenkov did not fulfill his.

Are you sure? And what kind of discussion is this ?!

[iouris]

Quote: sogdy

And what kind of discussion is this ?!

Kuzya is not an aircraft carrier. What is the discussion about?

[ZVO]

Quote: iouris

Quote: sogdy

And what kind of discussion is this ?!

Kuzya is not an aircraft carrier. What is the discussion about?

After the dismantling of the Granites, which was a long time ago, he is an ordinary aircraft carrier.
No cruiser. no shock ...
Just a simple aircraft carrier.
It is strange that people sitting on military-related forums know absolutely nothing.

[Kyzmich]

This classification is far-fetched.
The appearance of the aircraft carrier has long been determined.
This is a developed left sponson (flight deck)
The superstructure (s) shifted to the right waist and means for launching and landing aircraft.
And what is crammed in addition to this is the customer’s business.
At one time with the US aircraft carriers practiced the launch of the Tomahawks and Cho?
Actually, there are no problems, in bulk.

[Simon]

Worst! And then why, from Admiral Kuznetsov, when he went to the Mediterranean Sea, to the Syrian shores, all the NATO ships scattered from him like fry from pike!

[MadCat]

Quote: Simon

Worst! And then why, from Admiral Kuznetsov, when he went to the Mediterranean Sea, to the Syrian shores, all the NATO ships scattered from him like fry from pike!

yeah, they got excited, he smoked so much that they thought it was just Novice’s test!

[san4es]

National Interest named the worst aircraft carrier in history

... Apparently they didn’t look at their own ... They go, .... "pears hang around."

... Anchor them in the ass

[Kyzmich]

How much I watch similar videos about their aircraft carriers, I catch myself thinking that in front of me is a certain shopping center!
A bunch of rooms for eating, shops.
And at the same time three tiered bunks in cubicles (!)
Moreover, the first tier is almost on the deck!
Our engineers from Nevsky KB simply went crazy. When they saw this!
On our ships, the cubicles are two tiers, as in a compartment carriage.
I got the impression that all these aircraft carriers are platforms where trade is in full swing and not military service.
It is surprising that on both sides the crew moves in both directions to meet each other.
Still amazed by the abundance of idly staggering crew members and constantly.
The moment is very striking

[san4es]

Quote: Kyzmich

... I catch myself thinking that in front of me is a certain shopping center!

Yeah ... What a country, such a fleet.

The moment is very striking

[ul_vitalii]

Somehow, after all, we managed what to escalate, we will proceed from what is.

[annodomene]

This ship performs its main function (better or worse - now this is not the issue). In my opinion, there is only one drawback - the lack of nuclear power plants on board. For such a displacement and the required cruising range, it would be the very thing, as they say "in the vein."

[Kyzmich]

The Americans really do not know how to get rid of this nuclear power plant))
The type of power plant does not determine the autonomy of the ship.
This is easy to understand by looking at the rest of the AUG.

[annodomene]

1. If Americans do not know how to properly operate nuclear power plants, they can get rid of it
2. How can the type of power plant not determine the autonomy of the ship? It’s one thing when you go under a nuclear installation and you don’t need to rack your brains about replenishing fuel supplies, and another thing when you are tied to the constant supply of organic fuel from the outside. I do not know how much fuel is available at the TAVKR, but I believe that it does not provide such a cruising range without refueling as a nuclear power plant. For auxiliary DGU - please. Moreover, the delivery of diz. fuel in the conditions of REAL DB - this is the hemorrhoids.
3. In the "corps de ballet" AUG many are present. But in an underwater environment, an aircraft carrier is guarded for some reason, not by a diesel submarine.

[Kyzmich]

1. They know how, but it is very expensive and very controversial survivability in a combat situation.
They build hopes for electromagnetic catapults
Its appearance on aircraft carriers will allow them to remove nuclear power plants from them.
2. The composition of the surface AUG US Navy:
Air defense 1-2 KR URO type "Ticonderoga"
PLO 3-4 EM URO type "Arly Burke"
And the aircraft carrier himself.
All surface protection ships have non-nuclear power plants.
Plus, surface ships include support ships with conventional GEM
How do you imagine them delivering fuel?
And the provisions?
What about fresh water for drinking?
Will you order them from a desalination plant?
Your teeth will fall out in a couple of months.
3. A nuclear power plant on a winning submarine, because it is air-independent and provides long-term underwater swimming.
But autonomy on nuclear submarines is about the same as on diesel-electric submarines. -45-60 days on average.
The autonomy of the ships is determined mainly by the capabilities of the crew located in the conditions of long-distance navigation.
This is understood a long time ago.
For this reason, all of its US nuclear cruisers were cut long ago for scrap.

[Fisher martin]

The article is not about anything. "having lost two aircraft: MiG-29K and Su-33," "- And what? Americans are losing entire squadrons, and no one is yelling that the US Navy is not effective. “According to the author, the cause of the cruiser’s failures is“ poor construction quality and poor support ”- where did they come from? Because he smoked? So there are a bunch of photos where ships with the same installation smoke, even smoke.” The only exception is “Admiral Kuznetsov "Which" remains in some kind of service, but has not yet produced offspring (at least in the Russian Navy). " These are questions to the Ministry of Defense and the State, and not to the aircraft carrier.

[Kyzmich]

they have a special nano-smoke there!
Example brand new UDC "Iwo Jima"
Two boilers type V2M-VS

[X Y Z]

But the F-35 is just handsome. I would, if someone came up with the idea to erect a monument to the state cutting of dough, I would recommend putting it in particular. It is possible next to the US Congress. For the edification of posterity.

[Korax71]

Don’t choke on poisonous saliva. The meaning of the article is aircraft carriers. What does the penguin have to do with it. Or will you fly to each news from behind a hill? You might think that some saints work for us, and corruption is an unknown word in Russia. Or triple rise in price of Olympic objects is norm? or the price of 1 km of Moscow Ring Road, which is comparable to the price of 1 km of the andron collider, probably because we care about the hard worker and everyone's salary as the president of matrastan it seems that half of the money was borrowed and not returned to the penguin mattresses

[shubin]

All the same, it must be admitted that in this type of armament, such as the carrier fleet, Russia lagged behind the United States for a long, if not forever. The USA has almost 100 years of experience in construction, combat use, training of flight personnel, etc. etc., and Russia, in fact, starts everything from scratch, and not to mention the financial side of the issue.

[dvina71]

Quote: shubin

All the same, we must admit that in this type of armament, such as the carrier fleet, Russia lagged behind the United States for a long, if not forever

Neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation sought to catch up with the American carrier fleet. But one of the tasks of the Navy of the USSR and now the Russian Federation is the destruction of aircraft carrier groups. For this, powerful RCCs were created .., Unlike the USA .. where RCC is practically absent .. well, there are no subsonic harpoon..maximum of 8 launchers per destroyer .... this is a laugh.
Actually, the difference in approaches to the construction of floats and means of defeat is a reflection of foreign policy .. It is not difficult to draw conclusions.

[rocket757]

We need icebreakers very much! Therefore, there are the BEST!
An air cruiser is, as an experiment and an experience ... there is no special need for them, as an experience of norms. There is no development, and there is simply no special need.
They will never go to our shores, they will also come closer to China, too, they will not scare India! Again it turns out colonial, only colonies are smaller and smaller and rockets against ship’s are getting better and better .... what's next, will there be a platform for gulls?

[annodomene]

It's all about the concept of warfare at sea. For the Empire and the Russian Federation, there are no such tasks for which many aircraft carriers are needed. About "Mistral", by the way, the same song.

[Loess]

The geographical position of Russia does not favor the emergence of a powerful aircraft carrier fleet. An aircraft carrier fleet is not vital for Russia. The lack of a sufficient number of places of possible basing and the cost of creating such a fleet are not justified by the tasks that such a fleet can carry out. Everything is simple and logical.

[Retvizan 8]

Then all ships with helipads should be evaluated as helicopter carriers.

[annodomene]

Wow, great thought. ! So let us call Project 1134B (BF) a mini-aircraft carrier! Amen!

[annodomene]

Quote: mvg

Yes, there is nothing offensive. Granites do not fly for a long time. Neither planes nor rockets. A tin can, over which everyone neighs and which drowns its planes and burns tens / hundreds / thousands of tons of fuel and babosikoff. And he wants to swap from 40 to 80 billion rubles.

About the "Granites" you got excited, dear.

[smart ass]

We have the worst weapons, which is why we still

[Stoler]

While Kuznetsov is not fully equipped with an aircraft fleet, this is definitely not an “aircraft carrier”

[u1977020556]

while brains are not equipped with convolutions, and reasoning with facts ....))

[anjey]

Western DB, Kuzya will still show you Kuzkin Mother !!!!! ....

[navy33]

Greetings to all! Let them say that our TAVKR is bad, but it is ours! And if necessary, it smells so that it doesn't seem enough! Plus, the crew is motivated and professional. And I ask you not to call the Cruiser a trough and write that he is swimming, he walks!

[u1977020556]

That's right, the sailor Uncle Igor says the same thing - only ***** floats, and the ship goes.

[wolfkill]

I was most surprised about the Japanese Avik Kaga, he was especially terrible when his planes bombed Pearl Harbol or when he chased American ships until 42

[ventel]

So in the article they correctly and compare with Kag and Beran, these weapons also carried artillery155-152mm were more like air cruisers than pure aircraft carriers.

[kan123]

This is not an aircraft carrier, in the classical sense - a barge with airplanes - the more the better. This is an aircraft-carrying cruiser, precisely because the problem was solved in the USSR by those not yet Serdyukov "headquarters", such a ship is most likely the most optimal for the conditions of the Russian Federation. In the USSR, 70% of the income (then it was still in the country) went directly to people, and 30% to the modernization of enterprises, job creation, and the Army and Navy. Those generals, trillionaires, could build these barges, but chose this project - why they made such a choice - then there was some kind of bluff in it. Probably already then, these aircraft carriers were considered, as big targets, in the future war.

[Archivist Vasya]

The article is disingenuous, yet Kuzya is not an ordinary aircraft carrier, which means that it will be inferior to them by the classification of aircraft carriers. Dishonest comparison. But as for his campaign in Syria, then I agree - without him they would have managed better. He did not make a decisive contribution, the planes took off half-empty, and after the emergency they began to fly even less often, 2 non-combat losses ... isn't the cost of experience expensive? Run-in application - wow, it’s good. The fact that he is out of date is definitely a fact. Without a nuclear power plant, its potential is much less for such a displacement.
As an aircraft carrier, he is not very (but not the worst), and we don’t have anything else and are not expected in the next 10-20 years. So we are happy with what we have.

[NKT]

And where is the displacement? An aircraft carrier needs a nuclear weapon first of all to ensure the operation of the catapult.

[u1977020556]

Tochnyak)) "Kuznetsov" the most "worst")) Absolutely morbid foolish ...
It seems to me that if now after this article the "best" American aircraft carriers finally go out to sea, they will certainly drown right away. .. They are drowned by the evil Syrian partisan mortar-bombers)) Somewhere they wrote that they had already dispersed along the US sea border and loaded the stink bombs into mortars)) I think other news will soon appear, .. about how as a result of a successful Syrian attack mortars on steam boats and sailing catamarans the best aircraft carrier of the US Navy "Gerald R. Ford" went to the bottom)) along with a crew numb with horror)).
Interestingly, the Chinese have laid down the construction of 10 latest aircraft carriers, it seems to me that The National Interest is already aware that all ten pieces are also the worst)) They just don’t write this yet, they are waiting for the Chinese to launch them)).
So for now, only we will be the “worst”)) But is it worth it to get upset? )))

[gukoyan]

Well, at least in some ways we are the first)))

[gukoyan]

Well, at least in some ways we are the first)))))

[next322]

The ship is really unsuccessful .... 80 percent of the time spent in repairs or at anchor ..... Very rarely went to sea. A few times out to the military.

In December 1995 he went to the Mediterranean Sea. At the very beginning of the campaign, problems were found in the operation of the main power plant. It turned out that two of the eight steam boilers salted pipes - sailors instead of distilled flooded overboard water. During the trip, the tubes of other boilers regularly burst and leaked, evaporators, turbogenerators, diesel generators failed. As a result, the ship moved at an average speed of 2-4 knots.
In February 1996, when visiting Malta, all boilers refused, and the ship was left without a move. Due to strong winds, there was a danger of the ship being thrown ashore.
In August 1998, when the fuel was received, the wrong valve was mistakenly closed, and 60 tons of fuel oil poured into the fire control post. The post is out of order. A little earlier, due to a pipe break in the ship, two of the four Dagger anti-aircraft systems were flooded.
In 2000, a sailor БЧ-5 died from an electric shock on a ship.
On January 17, 2002, a fire occurred on the ship during repairs at the Severomorsk roadstead. The foreman of article 1, V. Bobylev, died - he was poisoned by carbon monoxide.
In October 2003, a fire broke out in the main flue, when the ship set sail for sea trials after docking in the Barents Sea.

[u1977020556]

and now bring the American statistics ... statistician)) But if you’re “mistaken”, a big ... waiting for you ... exposure))

[Kyzmich]

1995-1996 g Malta-SPM ......- 4 knots
What year of birth are you?
Or your memory is bad and not up to date. What happened in the country?
Only short-sighted can grind teeth at these times.

[Amateur]

Well, again, National Interest. Let's comment on MK. By the way. Why did our beloved doctor, vice president and other Sivkov spread to tape.ru?

[1536]

Maybe the ship is the “worst”, it’s how to look and what to compare with, but it fulfills its mission correctly: enemies fear, friends admire.

[Vard]

Who said that? Americans ... Well, these are famous liars ...

[LIP]

When themselves (the US and NATO) have nothing better, then of course all the best will be considered the worst. States in Syria defeated ISIS. North Korean talks with China are also their merit! And here we are about some aircraft carriers ...

[Wolka]

... and completed the combat mission

[Evgenii Xolod]

And as an aircraft carrier, the cruiser is more than not bad, but we like the main thing. All the rest let them go through the forest.

[shadow]

Actually, this is not an aircraft carrier, but an aircraft carrier cruiser, where not only there are airplanes, but also other weapons in bulk. And to compare it with an aircraft carrier is not correct. Well, unlike Elizabeth, at least he does not sink and does not break like an American Ford.

[MadCat]

Quote: Shadows

Well, unlike Elizabeth, at least he does not sink and does not break like an American Ford.

Of course it doesn’t break, and doesn’t sink, it’s just that after each trip for several years in the repair docks it settles, for the fortress, like wine!
(This one that doesn’t have any taxes except that it is dragged in tow, a disgrace, it does not break, yeah.)

[Kyzmich]

Quote: askort154

And according to the Montreux Convection, the passage of aircraft carriers through the Bosporus and Dardanelles in 1936 is prohibited. That is, to build aircraft carriers in Nikolaev there is no sense, they cannot leave the Black Sea.

Lord, take it yourself and read this Montreux convention!
No there is a ban on aircraft carriers, no.
One wrote, the rest. As parrots repeat.

[Kyzmich]

The National Interest is probably not aware of the existence of such freaks. Like British aircraft carriers such as the "Invincible"
This is a thunderstorm of the seas.
It’s impossible to watch without laughter
On board there are already six (!) "Under-planes" Sea Harrier with a combat radius ... 135km

[Kyzmich]

Quote: ZVO

Quote: iouris

Quote: sogdy

And what kind of discussion is this ?!

Kuzya is not an aircraft carrier. What is the discussion about?

After the dismantling of the Granites, which was a long time ago, he is an ordinary aircraft carrier.
No cruiser. no shock ...
Just a simple aircraft carrier.
It is strange that people sitting on military-related forums know absolutely nothing.

My friend. "Ordinary aircraft carriers" the United States is now called multi-purpose shock
And the letter CV in their designation is translated into Russian as a cruiser with airplanes. (Cruiser voler)
voler - the aircraft is heavier than air - the airplane
It is aircraft that are strike weapons.

[Stalnov I.P.]

Yes, it’s not nuclear and smaller and less airplanes, but there is one BUT and this but allows aircraft carriers to approach this handsome man no more than 800 km, since he has cruise missiles in the ammunition with a range of up to 1000 km, although now they say that they allegedly removed the missiles, while others say they replaced them with Caliber and Onyx, where I really don’t know, but I do not advise the Americans and others to enter the 800-kilometer zone, and suddenly they take it and shoot. Pi ... crept unnoticed. They love our military words MORE THAN 2000 km, or maybe 2900 km, more than 10 Machs, or maybe 17 Machs, lovers of the fog, how in those parades of the times of the USSR they will weld whatever crap to a rocket and the West then thinks for years that this is a rocket. And if they put Zircons on it at a speed of more than 8 max, then all these American pelvis should be sent to the scrap, although the Dagger has already sentenced them, but still.

[Kyzmich]

There are USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and USS (CV-59) Forrestal carriers in history.
The first nickname is "opener" - the can opener at the second "Zippo".
I hope those who know the history of the fleets are aware of these nicknames.
Still there is "Charles de Gaulle, R91" nicknamed - ship disaster.
These are the true leaders in this libel.

[Xscorpion]

Quote: Hagalaz

In general, unfortunately, there is some truth in this review. All must be honestly admitted. The ship is a problem. Not the combat loss of two planes in one Syrian campaign is very bad. And it’s the tenth aircraft carrier or aircraft carrier. It's not nice that they poked my nose, but here I agree with NI.
But must swim! At least to maintain staff qualifications. Perhaps in the future they will build a new aircraft carrier.

Zadolbali. With 2 lost planes. 1 only fell from Kuznetsov. And no one else was injured. Compare with the accidents on American aircraft carriers when dozens of planes burned in one incident. The second lost plane fell into the sea a few kilometers from the ship when it returned from tasks. Kuznetsov is innocent in this incident.

[ZVO]

Quote: Xscorpion

The second lost plane crashed into the sea a few kilometers from the ship when it returned from the mission. Kuznetsov is innocent of this incident.

You really do not know the reason for the fall of the second plane?
Or are you just blatantly lying here to everyone and to yourself in particular?

The second plane crashed due to fuel production, which in turn occurred because. that the Kuzi crew cannot replace the torn tracks of the aerofinisher within the standard time ...
And the plane circled nearby - could not land.

Kuzi’s crew is completely guilty of both cases of aircraft crash.
Guilty! Totally!

[Kyzmich]

And what prevented him from flying 100-150 km and landing at Haymin base?
Is it 10-15 minutes of summer?
The presence of admirals on board is obviously to blame.

[annodomene]

Quote: Kyzmich

1. They know how, but it is very expensive and very controversial survivability in a combat situation.
They build hopes for electromagnetic catapults
Its appearance on aircraft carriers will allow them to remove nuclear power plants from them.
2. The composition of the surface AUG US Navy:
Air defense 1-2 KR URO type "Ticonderoga"
PLO 3-4 EM URO type "Arly Burke"
And the aircraft carrier himself.
All surface protection ships have non-nuclear power plants.
Plus, surface ships include support ships with conventional GEM
How do you imagine them delivering fuel?
And the provisions?
What about fresh water for drinking?
Will you order them from a desalination plant?
Your teeth will fall out in a couple of months.
3. A nuclear power plant on a winning submarine, because it is air-independent and provides long-term underwater swimming.
But autonomy on nuclear submarines is about the same as on diesel-electric submarines. -45-60 days on average.
The autonomy of the ships is determined mainly by the capabilities of the crew located in the conditions of long-distance navigation.
This is understood a long time ago.
For this reason, all of its US nuclear cruisers were cut long ago for scrap.

1. In a combat situation, the survivability of any equipment is a moot point. When e / m catapults appear on a non-nuclear aircraft carrier - then there will be a conversation. For her (catapult) use requires a lot of energy.
2. The question was that the aircraft carrier should be with the nuclear power plant. Regarding the end of your second paragraph, I did not quite understand: where and what to deliver? In the presence of nuclear power plants, fresh water is easy to obtain, and, yes, for 25 years of systematic use of water from shipboard HEU (type PS-3-1), my teeth are all in place. Lucky, probably?
3. Do not confuse, please, the term of the BS and the autonomy of the platform, it (autonomy) is approximately 120 days, depending on the project. The term of autonomy depends firstly on the psychological stability of the crew, secondly on the availability of provisions on board, thirdly on everything else. Also to add here the more reliable operation of the nuclear power plant: input-work at power for a long time-output of the installation. Those. there are no start-stop modes, IMHO.

[Kyzmich]

1. In terms of energy (generation), there are no differences between ships with a nuclear power plant and a nuclear power plant
Still others are even more profitable (in terms of steam parameters) 450С against 280С
I advise you to look for how the “Ford” provides power to its catapult, especially the inertial drives, which rotate at 6000 rpm, were especially amused
Well, then giving out under a hundred megawatts of electricity is my friend is not a joke.
It is clear that 380 volts are not suitable otherwise feeder devices will become the size of a flight deck.)) So you need to increase the voltage? I assure you 6000 volts on an iron ship is not comme il faut.
It’s just an epic action on the verge of a circus. And it’s too early to talk about its performance.
2. Nobody owes anything to anyone. Argument instead of casting spells.
The proportion of desalinated water from the evaporator plant in drinking water should be 20 max 40%.
In three months, 7 teeth I just turned into pumice.
I do not advise you to experiment with this - not only your teeth suffer by the way.
3. Dad, I wrote to you:
The autonomy of the ships is determined mainly by the capabilities of the crew It is in the conditions of distant swimming.
What's wrong?
To date, the autonomy of ships (including nuclear submarines) is 45-60 days on average.
Your 120 days is an exception and very doubtful in practice.
It is for this reason that they closed the projects of atomic frigates and, on the experience of their atomic cruisers, 8pcs and 1 EM
All are now cut into scrap metal. -18 years ago.
And to this day we have non-nuclear ships in the AUG (except for the nuclear submarines and the AB itself)
How do you order to be with their autonomy?
But about the input and output of nuclear power plants you are simply not in the subject.
The circus begins, just when the nuclear power plant begins to work for a long time at low power.
It’s very realistic to get an “iodine hole.” And it’s not a thought to drive 200mW continuously
How much is in the know-the main scourge of the Premier League in the bases.
On the Internet in bulk articles on this topic.
And while neither the Chinese nor the Indians are considering nuclear power plants in their projects, they plan to install EM catapults precisely because of the unnecessary use of nuclear power plants to produce steam of 600 kg / s for steam catapults
Em catapult allows you to do capacitive or inertial (like Ford) energy storage.

[annodomene]

Want to show your "smartness"? Well, well .. I haven’t tried for 120 days, and 68 are easily tolerated. I’ll repeat a little -120 days, this is a real figure, selected from the conditions of TO EO (1 time in 4 months usually). 40 ... 60 days is the time of carrying BS or performing other tasks. You can send the pla for a week, put mines, for example. This does not say that she has 7 days of autonomy? About input-output - most likely you are not in the subject. At least once count KBI NPP. I agree that the designer expected that the power plant will work for a longer time at 30% Nnom, but ... Life makes its own adjustments. And with what fright when you park in the base when the nuclear power plant is working, you can get an "iodine hole"? I’ll tell you “in confidence” that for installations, such as on ..9A projects, such a concept as operational time and forced parking time for nuclear weapons after dumping the AZ with ANY power does not make sense, like the iodine well as a whole. If anything, so "heavy artillery" in the form of the Central Military Command - our all. Moreover, working constantly at rated power is for moron boys, because forced mode. This was possible on the 1st and 2nd generation platforms, I doubt very much that the installations from them will be put on modern ships. And yet, if you are "in the know", then name the boats correctly - the floor, the nuclear submarine is an emergency submarine. In the vastness of articles in bulk, only I still prefer the book of V. I. Vladimirov and the "brick" of Sarkisov-Puchkov in addition to this issue. Not for the red words - when he was “manager,” he completed more than seventy inputs and outputs of the GEM. Something like that.
How and how much to get PV and PrV - teach someone else. 23 years of experiments gave "normal flight." So that your tender organism does not suffer, I allow myself a little advice - 01 (one) three-liter can of sea water for a fresh water tank (4,3 meters cubic meters), where the evaporator boils, generally solve the problem. Yes, you will run a little more often in latrine, but that's okay, the kidneys are washed. In a word, as your “old man” I will say only one thing - learn the materiel, son.

[Kyzmich]

120 days!
Yes to go nuts!
The homeland will order 200 days too!
SO WHAT!
They wrote you 45-60 on average.
Would have helped.
Our submarines are several times inferior to the autonomous ones in the autonomous ones, despite the autonomy for 90 days.
Factor of.
Proud of nothing.
After 60 days you walk on the shore, like a zombie deck you catch with your feet.
From oxygen, the bosom is spinning.
From fresh milk-drunk.
After 120 days, a warrior from you is like a bullet from shit.
Well, we are all heroes!
And the reality is somewhat different.
PS
A nuclear submarine is an emergency submarine
Oh well
And DEPL, then what?

[annodomene]

I'll start from the end: DEPL is a diesel-electric submarine, they are also called "non-nuclear". The term pla was introduced by order of the Navy Civil Code and it is not for you to pervert it. After 60 in the PC you begin to perceive everything as in R. Heinlein’s novel "Stepsons of the Universe". Regarding the term of autonomy - explain in which BS you personally participated. At the end of all the races, I personally did not feel dizzy, did not get drunk from milk, etc. Apparently, your body is rather weak, it happens ... And what will happen to me in 120 days is not for you to judge. I do not quite understand how our boats are inferior to the state ones - in terms of the number of autonomous vehicles, or in the time they were continuously under water. And no one is going to be heroes, but to dissolve snot is also somehow not very good. Everyone clearly knows what they are doing.

[Kyzmich]

I don’t give a damn about what our MO is giving out there.
Submarine is the accepted abbreviation for the designation of the type of submarine nuclear submarines.
And do not get excited about this.
What will happen in 120 days with one individual - few people care about the infirmary and the punishment cell.
And who will guarantee that with 5000 people the crew will be all right, the big question.
And do not about my health.
At the "Hercules" creeping barely alive after a week of storms, I looked for my service.
I have 4 BS for about 4 months in the SPM TAKR "Kiev"
Why such an interrogation?
You yourself would introduce yourself for decency or you would have entered the image by sticking epaulets.

[annodomene]

Easy, dear. And then contradict yourself. 4 months on TAKR, this is not 2,5 months on pl. The submariners of the sun do not see, but do not whine on this occasion. You do not touch my shoulder straps, please, I honestly earned them myself, and not on the floor, but out of the holds. But I really had no luck with the storms, and not so often had to hang out in them. In the depths, you know, not so much chatters. When pitching, I just want to eat very much. 5000 people on a surface ship, with fresh air, the sun sometimes - and what can happen to them? Hard - yes, but not deadly. Judging by the fact that you were on the running "Kiev", then you found the empire. I also grew out of it, and walked around the seas decently.
I’m not going to interrogate you; you are simply not interesting to me. Continue hysteria further. Just, please, do not go into the submariners, or rather, do not discuss their service, which you have no idea about.
Sincerely, Commander of the BCh-5 (alas, the former) Apkrrk 949A of the project.

[Kyzmich]

Listen to you.
Didn’t they raise yelling about the Premier League?
No?
What does this abbreviation not suit you?
Then tell me how you are going to write SSBN and SSBN in the text
PLAT, MPLATRK, PLARK, APKRRK. and ssn?
How?
Do not get tired?
And how is the SSBN different from SSBNs?
I threw a tantrum here myself.
Fresh air on the ship?
Walk six decks down and even better in the ship’s MCO. Onto the first platform, when overboard 50C in the shade.

With disrespect for those who have forgotten the naval fraternities like you.
St1st Bch5 in stock.
Reasoning like a boot.

[ZVO]

Kyzmich,

Quote: Kyzmich

About the same as from Severomorsk to Tartus.
We have a guess here?
Why this question?

The question was logic.
To that. find a lot of tugboats en route from Bremerton to Subic Bay ...

[Kyzmich]

Well, in the Persian Gulf there is no need to drive the MB as part of the AUG, as well as in the SPM.
There the United States is full of bases and friends.
And at such transitions to the Philippines, I would not be surprised to see him as part of the ACG.
What is so here?
Like fire engines on the decks of their aircraft carriers and UDC.
Just an elementary security measure.
An elementary question, what was stranded and towed with two damped reactors USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) in 1999?
He has no auxiliary rowing EC unlike our atomic Peter, on which he develops 18 knots.