Military Review

Does Russia need aircraft carriers? Syrian angle

263
The debate over whether Russia needs aircraft carriers has been going on for decades. Thousands of arguments have been proposed and refuted, dozens of detailed schemes of varying degrees of competence have been published, debaters have repeatedly turned both to screaming and hoarse. And the disputants never came to consensus.


Well, let me say a few words on this issue. Without claiming the ultimate truth, I will nevertheless try to substantiate the need for Russia of this type of ships and make it so that even the most inveterate skeptics no longer have the latest doubts. And, oddly enough, we will use the experience of the Syrian campaign.



Let's try to consistently refute the most common arguments of opponents of the appearance of an aircraft carrier in Russia fleet.

The first and most "slaughter" of them is as follows: an aircraft carrier is a big target for missiles, and in case of conflict it will inevitably be drowned. There is a lot of cost, no profit, we will again find ourselves at the broken trough at the cost of many billions of dollars.

As a rule, adherents of this approach are confident that, apart from the global confrontation between Russia and the United States, nothing bad can happen in the world. Therefore, they don’t even want to talk about the use of aircraft carrier units in low-intensity conflicts. To this they have a crown objection: “Well, are we not going to bomb the Papuans ?!”

However, as the experience of the same Americans shows, this is a very profitable and useful occupation. And given that we are often confronted by bearded Papuans with a huge arsenal of various weapons and considerable experience of subversive activities, and we unfortunately do not have military bases around the world, our own means of action should be quite impressive.

The Syrian conflict, among other things, clearly showed us one important thing: even with the current intensity of the confrontation between the Russian Federation and the flagships of the conditional West, no one is in a hurry to transfer the conflict between the main players from the political plane to the military. We are not embarrassed, lupim pro-American militants, and their masters in their rare retaliatory actions are trying with all their might not to accidentally hurt the Russian military. It is safe to say that the accuracy of Americans would only increase if a full-fledged Russian aircraft carrier was somewhere nearby.

That is one of the basic theses of the opponents of aircraft carriers, saying that we can not use them for their intended purpose, and if we try, they will be immediately drowned, is extremely doubtful. No, you can drown the aircraft carrier, we will not argue with that. But this is already such a level of escalation, for which it is possible to answer both with our own ships and military bases. And this is a gentle option. There is another that President Putin recently voiced, and which reads almost literally: why do we need a world in which Russia will not be?

Like it or not, Russia is a nuclear power. And we will be able to apply any tools of political or military pressure until the costs for another nuclear power are large enough for it to decide on suicide.

Let us leave the purely technical aspect of confronting aircraft carrier formations and anti-ship missiles to specialized specialists. But let's remember that the American aircraft carriers for all the postwar years did not suffer combat losses. And there were a lot of conflicts with their participation, and they were opposed not only by the “Papuans” with Berdanks, but also by Saddam’s Iraq, for example. That is, of course, it is possible to drown an aircraft carrier with an anti-ship missile. But delivering it to the launch distance is a daunting task ...

Let us, for clarity, try to simulate a situation where an aircraft carrier could be very useful to us. Everyone remembers, probably, the beginning of the “Arab spring” and the events in Egypt? Now imagine that power is seized there not by the moderate wing of the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), but by some radical group. And tens of thousands of Russian tourists suddenly become hostages.

And then everything could develop very sadly. For example, Russia could put up unacceptable political demands such as recognition of the sovereignty of Muslim republics within the Russian Federation and begin shooting hostages in response to our refusal.

Yes, this is a very scary scenario. And in the current situation, it smells of hopelessness - there are no military solutions to the crisis, the fulfillment of requirements is politically unacceptable, there is almost no hope of effective assistance from other states. Theoretically, we could probably count on Israel’s help (which he would ask in return, this is a separate question), but if he refused, we would have to watch hundreds or thousands of Russians cut off their heads live.

With an aircraft carrier within reach, the situation no longer looks so hopeless. In this case, the deck aviation could suppress air defense and rebel aviation, after which it would be possible to land the Pskov Airborne Division in Hurghada and try to evacuate our citizens from there.

Of course, I know that not only Hurghada is popular with our tourists. As well as I understand that such an operation can cost thousands of paratroopers. But the author intentionally simplifies an already rather dreadful situation, and he can probably be understood.

Another argument by opponents of the appearance of a full-fledged carrier-based fleet in the Russian Federation is the issue price and the economic feasibility of such a decision.

This argument is much more serious. Russia really is not an economic giant. And if we spend billions on aircraft carriers, shipbuilding infrastructure, new carrier-based aircraft, and so on, I would like to be sure that this money will be spent with maximum benefit.

Moreover, there is evidence that even at the headquarters of the Navy we do not have a clear understanding of why we need aircraft carriers and what the appearance of the ship we are developing should be. You can often hear, for example, that we need an aircraft carrier to cover the combat deployment areas of our strategic nuclear submarines. It sounds solid, but only at first glance.

For the combat deployment of our strategic submarine forces, a radius of several hundred kilometers from our bases is sufficient, since the range of sea-based ballistic missiles allows us to reach the adversary from there. For a deep, saturated defense of this zone, we are much more suitable not for an aircraft carrier, but for several naval aviation regiments, Su-34-type attack aircraft, fighters and anti-submarine ships. It is clear that if the funds necessary for the construction of an aircraft carrier fleet are invested precisely in these areas, then it is possible to achieve a multiple increase in the efficiency of investments. Yes, and will remain on a good dozen diesel submarines, sharpened by hunting enemy submarines.

And if this idea prevails here, protection of the port territories is above all, we really do not have the sense to make such an expensive garden.

The appearance of the carrier fleet in our country will be all the more justified, the less we will tremble over every penny and be afraid of the ambitiousness of entering the World Ocean as a full-fledged, powerful and somewhere even aggressive player. There are no mini-aircraft carriers, trial versions, air defense aircraft carriers and other flawed options - they will be a waste of money, waste, and water spilled into the sand.
Special gigantomania probably should not suffer either. We would have something normal like "Nimitz". So that he could carry fighter-bombers, DRLO, EW aircraft. And so that in such a quantity that little would seem to neither the terrorists, nor those who are hiding behind their backs ...

And the last argument: efficiency. Well, think of it, an aircraft carrier, say skeptics. What can he, this aircraft carrier?

I am sure that most of the adequate people who are familiar with military subjects are well aware that a good, full-fledged aircraft carrier can. But for the most suspicious, another argument is the Syrian one.

Analyzing the actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria, it is difficult to get rid of the idea that this whole campaign, as if on purpose, shows us the possibility of using just one aircraft carrier. Here and the number of aircraft involved in the conflict on our part - rarely when there were more 50-60 units. And it is quite comparable with a good aircraft carrier wing. The intensity of departures is also appropriate - 1-2 per day on board, which is quite normal for an aircraft carrier. Even the radius of the use of aviation from the Hmeimim base is quite suitable - rarely when more than five hundred kilometers, which fully and even with a reserve corresponds to the capabilities of modern carrier-based aviation.

It is clear that there were still helicopters, and indeed the Syrian aviation itself came to life a bit after the appearance of our VKS in the sky. And nevertheless, let us be frank, if any Russian aircraft carrier figured in official reports instead of the base Khmeimim, the situation would hardly have developed otherwise.

Add to this the mobility of the AUG, its independence from the favor of the leadership of a country, the remoteness and protection from any land saboteurs / terrorists, and you will understand that this is a very useful tool. Which we, of course, would be very nice to have in our arsenal ...

Recently, quite a few adequate signals have appeared that indicate that the leadership of the country and the Navy are dominated by bright minds who understand the need for the Russian aircraft carrier fleet. Now it is important that, for the sake of various compromise lovers, it is not yet castrated at the design stage.

And the shouts of “Ninuzhin fleet, Rasiya sukhaputnaya conduction!” Will be heard for a long time.

But if we want to be not only a land, but also a great power, we also cannot do without an ocean fleet ...
Author:
263 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. zxc15682
    zxc15682 1 May 2018 04: 45
    +22
    What are the aircraft carriers? It's time to build the "Death Star" to overtake amers
    1. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 1 May 2018 10: 39
      +10
      I remember the old anecdote: There is a desire to buy a Mercedes, but there is no possibility, there is an opportunity to buy a Zaporozhets, but there is no desire, but you need to go ... Here, there are no opportunities for an aircraft carrier, it remains to travel as corvettes - Cossacks .. .
      1. URAL72
        URAL72 1 May 2018 13: 57
        +3
        That's right, aircraft carriers are needed, but there is no money. Yes, and Su-57 is large, and what else will be in 10-20 years? If we build, then at least 4, we consider the construction time and we understand that we need a completely different air group. We will not pull, now the new bomber is more important, but it is easier, the carcass is demanding to the airfield.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 1 May 2018 16: 48
          +9
          Quote: URAL72
          That's right, aircraft carriers are needed, but there is no money.

          If money ceases to be taken out over the hill by all and sundry, starting from the central bank and ending with the national artists of Russia, then there will be a lot of money in Russia, you are tormented to master it.
          He put a plus on the article, but in my opinion the author is somehow too obsessed with the Middle East, I would consider the situation with South America and the Indian Ocean region, the confrontation for markets.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE 1 May 2018 16: 59
            +3
            Antarctic Sector, Arctic Defense, and Mobile Air Defense and Defense Reserve in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE 2 May 2018 07: 51
              0
              these are only the most pressing problems.
            2. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 2 May 2018 20: 24
              +1
              Antarctic sector - sounds very harsh!
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE 3 May 2018 09: 37
                0
                google it on this subject, a number of countries have long grown sick and the Antarctic sectors are painted in color on maps, despite the fact that there are Russian research stations
                Argentina has been living there for a long time, and England is proud that they together own more than 60% of this continent with Australia, South Zealand, South Africa, etc.
          2. hdgs
            hdgs 1 May 2018 23: 52
            +8
            Quote: Victor Kuzovkov
            Does Russia need aircraft carriers?

            The question is strange in itself, of course not.
            Quote: Victor Kuzovkov
            but we also cannot do without a great power without an ocean fleet ...

            Do you plan not only to be treated, but also to eat oak bark?
            Have the bast shoes already learned to weave? Learn how to lay an aircraft carrier, immediately required.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE 2 May 2018 07: 48
              0
              The question is just strange in itself.
              You will teach nothing.
            2. Sevastiec
              Sevastiec 2 May 2018 11: 49
              +3
              Quote: hdgs
              Have the bast shoes already learned to weave? Learn how to lay an aircraft carrier, immediately required.


              Why, sorry, this nonsense? Just count: an aircraft carrier, even an American nuclear strike, costs about $ 12 billion. Russia's annual defense budget, 60 billion dollars. Ours will obviously cost less and will be built for at least 5 years. Calculate how much percent of the defense budget he will eat and whether it is worth inventing about "bast shoes"?
              1. hdgs
                hdgs 2 May 2018 12: 24
                +3
                Quote: Sevastiec
                Just count: an aircraft carrier, even an American nuclear strike, costs about $ 12 billion.

                A fleet of support?
                What about aviation?
                And the basing infrastructure?
                You plus, plus ...
                Quote: Sevastiec
                Russia's annual defense budget, 60 billion dollars. Ours will obviously cost less and will be built for at least 5 years. Calculate how much percent of the defense budget it will eat up and whether it is worth inventing about "bast shoes"?

                So you answer me one question, why would any (any) country have an aircraft carrier, if it could use it only if it received approval in Washington? The Chinese are building with the Indians? So the flag in their hands - China, 30 slaves richer than Russia, and India, 3. Let them have fun if there is nowhere to put money.
                And Russia, with its "wealth", must be guided by such neighboring countries in terms of absolute wealth as Mexico, Israel, Denmark, Singapore. Have you heard that these countries had aircraft carriers? They do not have them.
                Even Holland, which is 2,5 times richer than Russia, does not have them. Even Australia, which is 2,75 times richer than Russia.
                Therefore, a conversation on this subject is simply inappropriate. At least for now.
                1. Vlad.by
                  Vlad.by 2 May 2018 21: 47
                  +2
                  Excuse me, how do you measure the country's wealth? Green pieces of paper? By population? Natural wealth?
                  Well, yes, Israel and the Netherlands are exactly the same field with Russia berries. By "wealth" ...
                  It's funny!
                  1. hdgs
                    hdgs 2 May 2018 22: 04
                    0
                    Quote: Vlad.by
                    Excuse me, how do you measure the country's wealth?

                    I do not measure anything. There are special and reputable international companies and services for this. They usually measure assets. Minus liabilities.
                    Quote: Vlad.by
                    Well, yes, Israel and the Netherlands are exactly the same field with Russia berries. By "wealth" ...
                    It's funny!

                    Funny only to such a layman like you. Here is a clipping from the rating of countries by absolute accumulated wealth for 2016:
                    16 Belgium 175.2%
                    17 Brazil 174.8%
                    18 Sweden 156.8%
                    19 Mexico 122.0%
                    20 Israel 101.0%
                    21 Russia 100.0%
                    22 Singapore 85.8%
                    23 Denmark 77.6%
                    24 Austria 74.4%
                    25 New Zealand 65.8%
                    26 South Africa 65.2%
                    Study.
                    1. Vlad.by
                      Vlad.by 2 May 2018 23: 23
                      +1
                      I don’t recommend being rude!
                      And you can reel your ratings around one place.
                      Already more assets than Russia - no one has.
                      And the accumulated wealth in% is not even a joke.
                      The Fed will tell Adyu and introduce an amero or some blue piece of paper (it will become from them) and where will these painted wealth be?
                      But in Russia there is everything! This is an asset.
                      Hello from the profane, "wise guy"
                      1. hdgs
                        hdgs 3 May 2018 00: 01
                        +1
                        Quote: Vlad.by
                        I don’t recommend being rude!

                        Those. if you are not in the subject, you can’t talk about it?
                        Or do you poorly know the Russian language and do not understand the meaning of the term "to be rude"?
                        Quote: Vlad.by
                        And you can reel your ratings around one place.

                        Ah, you are my sweetie. You don't know anything.
                        Quote: Vlad.by
                        Already more assets than Russia - no one has.

                        Well, I told you so. He does not even understand what net financial assets are. Why would he? He learned all the right things from political information at school.
                        See table, pers. Enlighten yourself little by little.
                        I’ll give you the top of the Raining. So that you finally calm down:
                        1 USA 9614.9%
                        2 China 2951.0%
                        3 Japan 2039.4%
                        4 United Kingdom 915.9%
                        5 Germany 669.6%
                        6 France 605.7%
                        7 Italy 543.9%
                        8 Canada 532.6%
                        9 Taiwan 360.5%
                        10 India 280.5%
                        He found the rich.
                        Quote: Vlad.by
                        And the accumulated wealth in% is not even a joke.

                        You are observant. This is really not a joke.
                        Quote: Vlad.by
                        The Fed will tell Adyu and introduce an amero or some blue piece of paper (it will become from them) and where will these painted wealth be?

                        Amazing layman.
                        Quote: Vlad.by
                        But in Russia there is everything! This is an asset.

                        Yeah. Count the liabilities.
                        However, do not. You still can’t.
                    2. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 3 May 2018 01: 26
                      0
                      Russia has 100% ... Russian rating? And they said something about international organizations.
                      1. hdgs
                        hdgs 3 May 2018 08: 14
                        0
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Russia has 100% ... Russian rating? And they said something about international organizations.

                        This is done for convenience. And the rating is Allianz Global Wealth Report 2016.
                      2. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 3 May 2018 08: 35
                        +3
                        Goat sweet treat - only spoil!
                        May he abide in his holy faith in the “right” ratings from the “right organizations”
                        At one time, A. Raikin had a miniature "What is most important in the toilet?"
                        "... Some say that the line, others that the button ... and I’ll say a mess. The main thing in the toilet is the button!
                        Do not believe me - we’ll conduct an experiment, I’ll cut off all the buttons from the person who wants it, and we’ll see what he will do ... "
                        Lines and waists are everything from ratings, from net financial assets. But the buttons, or, if you want, modern "lightning" are the very assets, from drinking water to uranium ore.
                        Wise guys, like this, measure everything with the measures of the Rothschilds and Soros, according to ratings from Stanley.
                        Therefore, Brazil and India are richer than Russia. And the States that owe everything and everyone is the coolest country.
                        Well, it’s not so long before finding out who is thicker and longer.
                        And I don’t have to read manuals. Like the signs drawn. I clearly know debit on the right, credit on the left
                        and this is more than enough in the monetary universe. My company is working successfully.
                        I was not taught this at Mizru. And in adjunct writing a dissertation too. I won’t tell the topic, you still don’t understand.
                        So put your "layman" a little lower than those ratings on one causal place wound. And so go.
                        You are not interesting to me.
                2. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 3 May 2018 01: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: hdgs
                  Even Holland, which is 2,5 times richer than Russia, does not have them. Even Australia, which is 2,75 times richer than Russia.

                  There are a couple of helicopter carriers in Australia. And the aircraft carrier they had, even very "productive", was the only one of the post-war aircraft carriers that drowned two destroyers. Its Australian and American. Ram. It’s not surprising that the Allies no longer sell them aircraft carriers laughing
                3. evgeny68
                  evgeny68 5 May 2018 19: 48
                  0
                  Obviously the sausage generation got out with an iPhone and a calculator, when you were probably doing it, you were posted on an iPhone.
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 2 May 2018 16: 50
                +1
                not the fact that it will turn out cheaper, any research, a new shipyard for him
              3. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE 2 May 2018 18: 52
                0
                for the sake of nonsense, there is a fleet, there is infrastructure for it in general, aviation for aerodromes is still being done, without their own airships, air defense air defense systems will heroically resist but not for long, there’s nothing to drive anti-submarine aircraft, and some helicopters, which also need to be covered, to support landing .
        2. Cyrus
          Cyrus 2 May 2018 21: 07
          0
          Yes lan, why fight back with sticks
        3. okko077
          okko077 4 May 2018 14: 23
          0
          Analyzing the actions of the Russian air forces in Syria, it is difficult to get rid of the idea that this entire campaign, as if on purpose, shows us the possibilities of using just one aircraft carrier.
          The author of the article says stupidity and absurdity. Why in Syria an aircraft carrier if we are invited there? And will our fire spotters with binoculars be looking for targets for these planes in Syria? We do not have intelligence systems, we do not know how to fight in a modern war .....
          Aircraft carriers do not shine for us, we are completely unprepared for such expenses and there are no planes for him ... Given that our strategic aviation also consists of all kinds of historical junk, including its most “new” modifications, such as Tu-160M ​​and Tu-22M3M , and PAK YES in a distant fog, and don’t even think about it ... It’s good if the great ones have the brains and make more Su-34s ... We need more than 300 such aircraft and this is the minimum ... It carries nuclear weapons and has inexhaustible modernization potential and quite a bit inferior to these strategists and missile carriers .. Do not look at the "guides" there ...
          1. SETTGF
            SETTGF 4 May 2018 15: 39
            +2
            You, just a disgrace, couch strategist ...! If you call the trash Tu-160, Tu-22M3M - it says a lot about your intelligence in the field of military aviation!
            1. okko077
              okko077 4 May 2018 15: 42
              0
              No, this is yours, and leave your rewards for yourself! Fossil, you are our ...
          2. FRAME
            FRAME 6 May 2018 17: 26
            0
            That's right, there is no catapult aboard the Admiral, which means that the same SU will simply not take off completely loaded with fuel and weapons, not to mention long-range radio reconnaissance aircraft, and we have problems with guidance satellites, not to mention the power plant, which is logical to be a nuclear ship of this class, the admiral in Kuznetsov in Syria is not a bad show, modernization will show, in my opinion, to remove Granit rockets from Kuznetsov instead of SU ... MIG, with a boiler with a turbine installation, you can also achieve the result by completely changing the result
      2. Mikhail Zubkov
        Mikhail Zubkov 1 May 2018 14: 35
        +10
        It is better for the people to have 10 of their Cossacks than ADYN alien Merc. They are equal in cross-country ability, and the Cossacks are cooler in terms of effectiveness.
        1. Sevastiec
          Sevastiec 2 May 2018 11: 51
          +1
          But Mercedes brings money, and the Cossack, only it eats them for repair.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 2 May 2018 16: 52
            +2
            not at all, it’s just that Mears eats money like a vacuum cleaner, and the creeper moves beautifully and inexpensively from point A to point B
      3. Starley_1
        Starley_1 1 May 2018 18: 43
        +1
        Armenian anecdote: is it possible to disperse the japor to 200 km / h
        - it is possible if you lower it from Mount Ararat.
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. iouris
      iouris 1 May 2018 11: 13
      +1
      And let's put the question to the vote!
    3. dSK
      dSK 1 May 2018 11: 44
      +14
      Quote: zxc15682
      aircraft carriers?

      Unfortunately, aircraft carriers in Russia cannot now be based on the Baltic and the Black Sea.
      Now imagine ... tens of thousands of Russian tourists are suddenly taken hostage.

      To “overtake” an aircraft carrier to Syria, it takes at least two weeks plus a week to train, what can happen to “students” during this time? Bases in Syria "stabilize" a huge region and are cheaper than building a second aircraft carrier. Twenty years later, maybe earlier, if “nothing happens”, Russia will “give birth” to it.
      Since May 1, participants in! - “so let’s drink so that our possibilities coincide with our desires!”
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 1 May 2018 12: 18
        +6
        Are you sure that a full-fledged base is cheaper than an aircraft carrier? Well then, to you as an example of the naval base Kamran, there was only L / S 10 thousand people
        1. alstr
          alstr 1 May 2018 13: 28
          +24
          So the base and aircraft carrier needed. We still have no normal conditions for the basing of large ships (therefore, Kuznetsova was trying to drive out for the winter to warm seas).
          In addition, the aircraft carrier is not only him, but his escort (and this is at least a dozen ships). And there only one submarine costs as much as one base.
          In addition, we do not forget that for servicing an aircraft carrier, we need docks, which we have once and twice got too expensive.
          And you need to build two at once. You’ll feel like counting and crying.

          The answer to the question of whether our fleet needs aircraft carriers is yes needed, but not first of all.
          1. Bad_santa
            Bad_santa 1 May 2018 17: 07
            0
            Will have to build immediately 4. A pair of SF and Pacific Fleet. We need escort ships of about 30. And modern Russia cannot afford such costs. So in any case, without thinking about aircraft carriers, you will have to build escort ships. If there is money, then aircraft carriers can be. Just not like Kuzya - "not fish, not meat"
            1. Starley_1
              Starley_1 1 May 2018 18: 46
              +1
              Why all this argument? I do not understand. One member of the penis on the volcano and everything will be - quiet and smooth.
          2. Nehist
            Nehist 1 May 2018 18: 12
            +1
            That is, do you think it’s cheaper to pay for the lease of the territory in hard currency and invest the same currency in the development of a base abroad than to build an aircraft carrier and a base for its base at home?
            1. alstr
              alstr 1 May 2018 18: 34
              +4
              Yes. Cheaper. Because the base is needed here and now, but the AUG when it will be built is still unknown. In the best case, after 10 years.
              There is still a question of priorities.

              And speaking again from the point of view of resources, it is necessary to understand what will happen in 40-50 years (this is the period of construction and operation of the AUG).
              So it is likely that with the development of drones, air, surface and underwater - the need for classic aircraft carriers will be in question.

              Now the development of drones is limited only by means of communication (more precisely, their reliability leaves much to be desired). If you spend money on developing communications, you may get a more interesting result. Because even now, reconnaissance missions and missile defense tasks can be assigned to the same UAVs that can be shoved on ANY ship from one to hundreds (depending on size). Moreover, even the ship itself does not need to be redone (a place for two or three operators can always be found, but the most serious is the antenna for communication with the UAV). And this is one of the tasks of the AUG - to issue a command for a strike group.

              It’s even better to understand what tasks an aircraft carrier should carry out and whether these tasks can be accomplished with approximately the same efficiency and compare how much it will cost in comparison with the formation of AOG.

              Just to begin with, these goals need to be formulated, and while this is not there, then there will be no sense in the ACG.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 1 May 2018 20: 05
                +3
                Quote: alstr
                So it is likely that with the development of drones, air, surface and underwater - the need for classic aircraft carriers will be in question.

                Really? And where are you going to place them, you can curiosity?
                The shock drone that replaces the aircraft is not a tiny apparatus weighing a dozen or two kilograms, but a healthy and heavy bandura, otherwise it simply will not be able to carry powerful enough, and therefore large, weapons. Similarly with reconnaissance - you want to have a powerful flying radar - prepare the appropriate platform.
                1. alstr
                  alstr 1 May 2018 23: 47
                  +2
                  And why do we need an impact drone at sea, if there is a command and control missile system?
                  And is it not better to have several passive radars, but small (relatively), than one big fool?
                  In addition, a decent radar now weighs within a ton. Therefore, a drone even in the form of a helicopter with such a radar is now quite possible.

                  Once again: We need to decide what tasks the aircraft carrier and its group must solve (without it, it won’t last long). And after that compare what, how much.

                  The simplest example. The detection range of surface targets from a ship is not more than 100 km. If you take the same Orlan-10, and let it go for 100 km, then the range will double, and if you let it go in autonomous mode, then up to 600 km. And we only need to get a control center for launching missiles. How many eagles can be crammed into any corvette?
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 2 May 2018 06: 49
                    0
                    Quote: alstr
                    And why do I need an impact drone at sea, if there is a command and control missile
                    That is, drones are also not needed?
                    Quote: alstr
                    In addition, a decent radar now weighs within a ton
                    Have you tried to see the characteristics of the AWACS aircraft?
                    Quote: alstr
                    in the form of a helicopter with such a radar is now quite possible
                    There are helicopters, but whatever one may say, the plane is more powerful.
                    Quote: alstr
                    How many eagles can be crammed into any corvette

                    And how many missiles will he take on board? and how many can you create? As experience shows, missiles perform specific tasks and are intended for delivering precision strikes, and the main work lies on the FABs, which you cannot launch from a corvette.
                    1. alstr
                      alstr 2 May 2018 09: 55
                      0
                      1. I asked about drone drone, and not about UAVs in general. In this case, the issuance of the control center by a reconnaissance drone plus anti-ship missiles will be more effective than an attack drone with anti-ship missiles.

                      2. I am aware that there the weight goes to a few tons only of the antenna. But for the same fighter radars, the weight of the radar is not more than a ton, and often less than half a ton. With a detection range in active mode up to 300-400 km (in passive mode - up to 200 km).
                      At the same time, you can’t just send AWACS forward - it usually hangs behind the guard behind. But the UAV can be sent, because and do not mind losing.

                      3. About rockets. Missiles for an airplane, for a ship, you still need to do. And you can create a lot of them - the question is only in resources (and it's not about money - if you need to print).
                      And about the FAB - how many FABs were dropped in the Tempest in a glass by the wing of an aircraft carrier? And with Kuznetsov too. It’s just not their job.

                      Once again - you need to decide on the tasks. This is generally the first rule of control - to determine the task. And only then we look for ways to solve it and select the optimal in each case.
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 2 May 2018 10: 33
                        0
                        Quote: alstr
                        I asked about drone drone, and not about UAVs in general
                        And who will fight? Either a plane or a shock UAV.
                        Quote: alstr
                        But for the same fighter radars, the weight of the radar is not more than a ton, and often less than half a ton
                        But they are much inferior to AWACS aircraft.
                        Quote: alstr
                        Missiles for an airplane, for a ship, you still need to do.
                        It is necessary. But hundreds of thousands can not be done, purely physically.
                        Quote: alstr
                        And with Kuznetsov too. It’s just not their job.
                        From what? It’s just that the USA had a lot of planes in Iraq, and Kuzya, alas, was not up to par.
                        Quote: alstr
                        Once again - you need to decide on the tasks.
                        The task is simple - the projection of force. In the case of TMV, aircraft carriers really do not really help, but no one is going to start this war, because there are no suicides, but all kinds of local conflicts - this is and will be. This is why aircraft-carrying ships are needed, even with airplanes, even with helicopters, albeit drones.
            2. Starley_1
              Starley_1 1 May 2018 18: 48
              0
              I’m saying: to produce butterflies on a farm, when Sasha hangs in the balance?
            3. Mih1974
              Mih1974 1 May 2018 19: 24
              +1
              You are raising the question incorrectly - we are NOT paying someone for our base, but they are paying us (albeit by deliveries of small things like water, air travel, etc.) for the fact that our base protects peace and tranquility good Whoever doesn’t need our bases is airborne for himself, let him protect himself from the USA.
        2. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 2 May 2018 21: 51
          0
          It may not be cheaper, but it is constantly in the region and, to sink it, you will break your teeth under the root.
          And the possibilities to influence the situation in the region are much broader and deeper.
    4. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 55
      0
      https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5ad31d03bcf1bcc1f2
      948e31 / besshumnye-ohotniki-kak-odna-podvodnaia-lo
      dka-razrushila-mif-o-prevoshodstve-avianoscev-vs
      ovremennom-voennom-flote-5adf0531c3321b8a90a56f74
    5. smart ass
      smart ass 2 May 2018 07: 54
      +3
      Just as once the aircraft carriers replaced the battleships, just now long-range cruise missiles replaced the aircraft carriers, there is no sense in aviks. Let us recall the blow from the Caspian Sea to the militants in Syria and the lone Kuzyu who drowned 2 of his aircraft
      1. SETTGF
        SETTGF 2 May 2018 12: 39
        0
        Smart ass! You are so shortsighted ... The situation in Syria has shown that we simply need aircraft carriers, and if they were available, we did not have to "drive" our planes from Russia with an underload of ammunition in the first months of the fight against Ishil, when the base equipment was still in Syria! And also use bases in Iran for a short time!
        You probably just do not have knowledge on military subjects, then do not write nonsense ...
      2. Cyrus
        Cyrus 2 May 2018 21: 42
        0
        Wrong from the word at all
    6. SETTGF
      SETTGF 2 May 2018 12: 30
      +1
      The author of the article is completely right! You can always find money for the security of your country - Russia!
    7. SETTGF
      SETTGF 2 May 2018 12: 46
      0
      Events in Syria have shown that Russian aircraft carriers are needed like air! In the first months of Russia's participation in protecting its interests and the friendly people of Syria, it was necessary to “drive” planes from Russia with incomplete ammunition to carry out combat missions, while the equipment of our base in Khmeinim was going on and not only!
  2. Olgovich
    Olgovich 1 May 2018 04: 52
    +12
    However, as shown the experience of the same Americans This is a very profitable and useful activity. ,.
    Russia is not America at all and it does not need the American experience of imposing "democracy" throughout the whole world, because it has a completely different policy
    And when you consider that we are often confronted bearded "Papuans" with a huge arsenal of various weapons and considerable experience in subversive activities
    Where is this "often"? belay And where is the sea? request
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 1 May 2018 12: 22
      +11
      Quote: Olgovich
      Russia is not America at all and it does not need the American experience of imposing "democracy" throughout the whole world, because it has a completely different policy

      And where did you get the idea that a strong fleet and AUG are needed only for the "imposition of" democracy "" (... in banana countries among the Papuans, as I understand it, right?)?
      During the Cold War, the United States actively used AUGs to set it against Soviet naval groups. The Soviet Union clearly understood that carrier-based aviation is one of the most important threats, a deadly enemy for single ships and even a detachment of ships (they tried to closely monitor during crises in the Mediterranean, because - that a mass takeoff with nuclear bombs to Soviet bases and cities was possible). Therefore, everyone knows very well what titanic efforts we made at that time on missile weapons, on the MRA of the USSR Navy, tried to deploy a full-fledged space group and created their own aircraft carriers (so that the "wedge" wedge ").
      Therefore, it’s very, very unfair to belittle the role of aircraft carriers, and even less to call them expensive troughs flooded with one salvo.
      1. max702
        max702 1 May 2018 13: 28
        +8
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        During the cold war

        That's it! you are talking about the 60s-70s .. Then yes, there were NO OTHER decisions .. In the 80s it turned out that the most effective submarines against AOGs, and today with the growing capabilities of aviation, rocket science, satellite target designation and many other AUGs are outdated like dreadnoughts, battleships, and battleships .. According to the mind, on ALL AUG of the planet, 20 missiles with a nuclear power plant are enough, plus the hypersonic Dagger and other weapons that are available from the mythical AUGs in 20-30 years .. during this time, the AUG will become completely obsolete, of course if the world elite, led by the United States, succeeds in destroying the scientific and technological component of the countries of the opponents (which they are now doing by destroying the color revolutions of science and industry in these countries) then then the AHG will carry democracy around the world for a very long time .. And yes, relying on the Syrian experience about AUG is better not to remember at all! For the fleet, alas, was so disgraced that it would raise idiocy; over the years, the airborne ground forces group lost one aircraft for technical reasons (Su-24 on takeoff), and this with thousands of sorties, and how does Kuznetsov differ? lost two planes, the field of which everything that could fly was transferred to Khmeimim and from there they made several dozen sorties .. What penny did it all turn out to be? I think that it is more expensive than the entire previous operation in Syria combined .. The United States is good, in addition to an unlimited budget, the absolute availability of any technological solutions from around the world, they also have hundreds of bases in key points of the planet. They can play boats all for a long time, and the money and the necessary infrastructure .. We have much worse with this .. There is not a single base abroad capable of accepting the ocean fleet, in Tartus a poor supply point .. And that’s all! Why should we play these games? other solutions must be found, any crisis in a given country has a name and surname, when the opponent understands that if something happens, a rocket will arrive in his palace, bunker, barn, etc. within a few minutes \ hours (you can also use a special warhead) wishing to transfer at once .. the thing is steel faberge leadership of the country, and not in the number of AUG and other ..
        1. shvn
          shvn 1 May 2018 16: 06
          +5
          And the Faberge’s leadership of the country is steel? We only constantly express concern ...
          1. max702
            max702 3 May 2018 11: 48
            0
            Quote: shvn
            And the Faberge’s leadership of the country is steel? We only constantly express concern ...

            Yeah, if we had the type of AUG, then immediately the steel in the Faberge of the leadership would have appeared?
            With the fact that they now have eggs, they should not be steel, but diamond .. Yes, that’s a small penny, and relatives aren’t quite at home .. That’s the reason for the softness of Faberge, and not the lack of AUG in them ...
        2. Leon68
          Leon68 1 May 2018 20: 06
          +1
          Max702, for the sake of objectivity, two planes (Su-24 and An-26) were lost in Khmeimim + one of the Su-24s was shot down by the Turks.
          1. max702
            max702 3 May 2018 11: 43
            0
            Quote: Leon68
            Max702, for the sake of objectivity, two planes (Su-24 and An-26) were lost in Khmeimim + one of the Su-24s was shot down by the Turks.

            They lost An-26 after Kuznetsov’s departure, therefore he doesn’t count in the "offset" (if Kuznetsov had been there until then and he would have suffered losses) SU-24 you yourself said the Turks shot down, that is, what difference does the plane take off from? So it turns out in fact that over the years of the database and thousands of flights, one loss was the fault of the technical staff \ pilots of the land base .. Kuznetsov’s numbers are very sad ..
        3. Cyrus
          Cyrus 2 May 2018 21: 45
          0
          Well, find and suggest, but for now, you just shake the air and your sofa.
      2. Starley_1
        Starley_1 1 May 2018 18: 51
        0
        Is Sasha not a sunken aircraft carrier? So this, which hangs on one "nozzle", according to the stupid Nikon.
      3. Olgovich
        Olgovich 2 May 2018 06: 17
        +4
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        And where did you get the idea that a strong fleet and AUG are needed only for the "imposition of" democracy "" (... in banana countries among the Papuans, as I understand it, right?)?

        Why only Papuans? EVERYWHERE, around the world, the USA considers it necessary to get into everything and for this they need aircraft carriers to attack.
        Russia does not and will not set such tasks. And for defense, the best aircraft carriers are land airfields
        1. Cyrus
          Cyrus 2 May 2018 21: 46
          0
          Fortunately, you are not the leader of the whole country.
        2. strannik1985
          strannik1985 3 May 2018 11: 05
          0
          For Russia, is it not the task of supporting a friendly regime, protecting citizens abroad, and imposing its own version of "democracy" at last?
          In relation to Syria, it is more efficient and easier to grind militants in Syria than to catch them all over the North Caucasus. Better yet, start crushing the “Arab Spring” even earlier, at the stage of unrest in Libya. Yes, Gaddafi is not our ally, but it was strategically more profitable for us to support him than to disentangle the consequences in Syria and even a bunch of countries in the region.
  3. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 1 May 2018 04: 55
    +7
    here, with all due respect to the author, “mayonnaise” does not need to be mixed up, and even more so, our guys from the airborne forces telepathy, let them sleep at least once, they have their index finger twitching, balts, here they go, we’ll beat Vaina. there they brought a couple of “abrams”, ours already had a “divide” before the fight, which will take place, we’ve already divided the “zip” and agreed with the receivers of the “scrap”. Enough to write about the “airman”, it's time to understand, we don’t want to understand to bring "crap" to the world, which means that the "drowned" in the form of "trumeen" but we do not need, -we get at least someone, without getting up from the "sofa", I will exterminate, but somehow. soldier
    1. Prosha
      Prosha 1 May 2018 16: 05
      +1
      Yurich if he could put 10 stars !!!)) especially about ZIPs smiled)
  4. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 1 May 2018 04: 57
    +7
    As for money - which is always lacking ... Well, not enough, so what? Our rivals are also missing. And much more (their entire colossal military budget is comparable to the balance of payments deficit). Maybe that's why they are given a loan because they hired money, set up aircraft carriers ... And now everyone is afraid to “ask” for their money back? wassat
    1. Prosha
      Prosha 1 May 2018 16: 10
      +1
      Your rivals have a coinage machine and a printing press with an original matrix that stamps gray-green pieces of paper, for which half the world will decrease and with your bare hands will climb on you without automatic machines, just tell them that they will get a lot of these candy wrappers. But my and your papers are not at all interesting to them. And 50 percent of the production of your weapons depends on strangers, and these same gray-green pieces of paper are also needed to buy their products
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 3 May 2018 09: 14
        0
        Please, Russia will not survive without greenery ??
        No way?
        Exaggerate is not necessary. The Russian Federation is completely self-sufficient. In contrast to those of England and the USA, without a fleet there will be a shortage of mass of products. And if the United States is even more or less able to feed itself from its territory, then the same Englishwoman will bend without a fleet in less than a year. Hence the difference in approaches. We need a fleet for defense, they need an attack.
  5. Lerych
    Lerych 1 May 2018 05: 17
    +10
    From May 1st! All! Why do we need aircraft carriers? We have a country, from the Kuril Islands to Kaliningrad, through the Urals, to the Crimea, an unsinkable aircraft carrier. YARS, DAGGER, SARMAT and CALIBER are our arguments. This is enough. Cans with sprats in tomato sauce are an unnecessary luxury.
  6. Hikaro
    Hikaro 1 May 2018 05: 45
    +21
    At this stage of re-equipment, it is necessary to measure what is justified for money and what priorities! Russia is in the ring! NATO’s ongoing exercises at the borders! There is no time for aircraft carriers! I hope the General Staff soberly assess the situation and know what weapons to bet on!
    1. Starley_1
      Starley_1 1 May 2018 18: 54
      0
      Well, no one canceled the volcano, which is yellow, even the Sasha Congress.
  7. Simon
    Simon 1 May 2018 06: 06
    +10
    Quote: zxc15682
    What are the aircraft carriers? It's time to build the "Death Star" to overtake amers

    What are you combing my friend! We already had a dying star in the 90s. If not for Putin, then Russia would not have existed! fool
  8. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 1 May 2018 06: 09
    +5
    Do you return the topic of the need for aircraft carriers in spite of the proclaimed military doctrine of the Russian Federation? Here it is more appropriate to prove (as Eun did) that even the large number of AUGs does not give a chance of victory over a united, small, but very proud people. To "Kuza" to cook up one shift and that's enough (in case of conflicts like the Syrian). And enemy ships need to learn how to sink at low cost, and most importantly, do not pee in their pants ...
    1. A_L_F
      A_L_F 2 May 2018 01: 28
      0
      Ena seems waiting for the fate of Gaddafi
  9. mmaxx
    mmaxx 1 May 2018 06: 28
    +12
    About the "Mistral" also yelled that he was not needed. M. b. it had a lot of technical issues that made it uncomfortable. But as a functional thing now, it would be in demand with a bang.
    Another thing is that an aircraft carrier anywhere except Nikolaev cannot be built purely according to the capabilities of the place, yes. Therefore, you can tryndet now: needed or not. Anyway, you won’t do anything yet. Yes, and you need to build a connection right away, and not just one trough. What same paratroopers to visit barmaley on what to carry?
    Avik is the perfect ship for local wars.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 1 May 2018 07: 33
      +2
      Quote: mmaxx
      What same paratroopers to visit barmaley on what to carry?

      on the IL-76, but the Marines analogue "Mistral" would not hurt ...
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 01
      0
      Av is not needed, and Mistral freaks don’t remember, nobody needs them, we’ll manage BDK, they are more effective and there are a lot of them
  10. cedar
    cedar 1 May 2018 06: 31
    +7
    Author, raise your eyes. The future of Russia is cosmoflot.
    1. MadCat
      MadCat 1 May 2018 06: 34
      +4
      Quote: cedar
      Author, raise your eyes. The future of Russia is cosmoflot.

      VKS is already in the past, an interstellar cruiser is needed!
      1. cedar
        cedar 1 May 2018 14: 39
        +3
        Combat space stations with docked shuttles loaded ...
        At a command from the Center, they scatter and take up positions to strike at ground and surface targets ...
        The distance to the goals is not thousands but only three hundred kilometers ...
        Almost an instant hit ...
      2. Starley_1
        Starley_1 1 May 2018 18: 56
        +1
        Yes, what a cruiser, when Sasha is sitting on a volcano !?
  11. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 1 May 2018 06: 39
    +10
    Aborigines ate Cook .... recourse But they did not touch Przhevalsky! No.
    1. Starley_1
      Starley_1 1 May 2018 19: 00
      0
      If eaten, then bon appetit. There will be nothing to eat and not only Cook. Crokindail will disappear, and flies will be like a delicacy for the elite.
  12. Simon
    Simon 1 May 2018 07: 09
    +10
    My opinion is that we need aircraft carriers, though not in such numbers as in the states, but one, for each fleet, would not hurt. In Syria, the aircraft carrier showed himself on the good side. Yes, even take Antarctica, we have our own plot there. Many countries are already claiming a place there. In the near future, strife will surely go there and it will be necessary to defend your site, and there an aircraft carrier with a fleet will come in handy.
  13. Dart2027
    Dart2027 1 May 2018 07: 14
    +14
    Judging by the number of discussions about the death star and the space fleet, the opponents of the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier have no clear arguments.
    1. MadCat
      MadCat 1 May 2018 14: 21
      +6
      Quote: Dart2027
      Judging by the number of discussions about the death star and the space fleet, the opponents of the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier have no clear arguments.

      Considering that the design and construction of one aircraft carrier costs 10 lards with greenery, the strike intergalactic cruiser looks more real after years ... lol
  14. Yak28
    Yak28 1 May 2018 07: 43
    +8
    Of course, it is better with aircraft carriers than without them, but where do they come from in our army? It takes decades to build them, and if you build 5 pieces there might not be a hundred years, Russia doesn’t have them.
    1. Prosha
      Prosha 1 May 2018 17: 02
      +3
      Then a proverb comes to mind - start teaching me what I have already forgotten. Aircraft carriers no longer make sense, because for building, for operation, for repair and use, knowledge is needed, Americans have been using it soon for about 80 years, if we start, we will have so much headache that we don’t even want to think about the future. Then they will laugh at us coolly. We have already tried to follow this path - they were catching up with America. We must live within our means and our lives, because the Americans did not begin to repeat our experience, they came up with their own, and who prevents us from thinking?
      1. Seaflame
        Seaflame 2 May 2018 00: 00
        +1
        Look at the Chinese. They started from scratch. Twenty years have passed and already prepare their own projects. And we already have experience and best practices.
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 3 May 2018 09: 24
          0
          Is the Chinese started from scratch? The USSR supported them, factories, licenses transferred. Then, due to the cheapness of the workforce, the West rushed to transfer production. So about zero you are in vain. Zero was in the Russian Federation in the 18th, but survived. And it is not known what would have happened if not for WWII
          1. Seaflame
            Seaflame 4 May 2018 05: 02
            +1
            From scratch in terms of competencies for the construction of aircraft carriers.
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 3 May 2018 11: 09
        0
        The USSR took this path only in the 80s (pr.11437), stuffing bumps with asymmetric measures.
  15. Gardamir
    Gardamir 1 May 2018 07: 51
    +10
    And the shouts of “Ninuzhin fleet, Rasiya sukhaputnaya conduction!” Will be heard for a long time.
    For this minus. The author is either a serious analyst or a clown. Do not mix.
    The most effective use of aircraft carriers is the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Now, when one of the branches of the armed forces is called the VKS, you have to rack your brains on how to drown American aircraft carriers, rather than build them in their likeness. You still remember about triremes.
    1. vlad007
      vlad007 1 May 2018 08: 47
      +3
      Quote: Gardamir
      The most effective use of aircraft carriers is the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

      The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor when no one expected it - and therefore it turned out effectively.
      1. Antares
        Antares 1 May 2018 10: 43
        +3
        Quote: vlad007
        The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor when no one expected it - and therefore it turned out effectively.

        Battle of Midway Atoll
        not so effective compared to Pearl, but a decisive / turning battle between aircraft carriers (that is, roughly equivalent)
      2. Gardamir
        Gardamir 1 May 2018 17: 10
        +1
        nobody expected this
        Alas, you are mistaken. Such operations take a long time to prepare. Therefore, information leakage is possible. Pointing to the day of the Americans, the Soviet Union and even its own American spies in Germany warned of the Japanese attack.
  16. Cannonball
    Cannonball 1 May 2018 08: 11
    +4
    An aircraft carrier is always a target. To use them in serious conflicts is pure suicide. Maximum - against princes from the banana republics / kingdoms.
    1. Alf
      Alf 1 May 2018 12: 44
      +1
      Quote: Cannonball
      To use them in serious conflicts is pure suicide.

      In serious conflicts, OTHER weapons will be used. But against
      Quote: Cannonball
      against princes from the banana republics / kingdoms.
      the very thing.
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 1 May 2018 13: 06
        +2
        What are we talking about.
        It is enough to recall how the Soviet battleships were used in the Great Patriotic War - almost the entire war - several convoys, defense of naval bases and repairs.
        In the event of a serious conflict, aircraft carriers will protect in the same way as battleships in the Great Patriotic War.
        1. Alf
          Alf 1 May 2018 19: 32
          +1
          Quote: Cannonball
          It is enough to recall how the Soviet battleships were used in the Great Patriotic War - almost the entire war - several convoys, defense of naval bases and repairs.

          And who was to fight with? In the Black Sea, Germany or, God forgive me, Romania had a fleet?
          CBF was locked.
          Quote: Cannonball
          In the event of a serious conflict, aircraft carriers will protect in the same way as battleships in the Great Patriotic War.

          In the event of a serious conflict, the aircraft carrier, and other ships, will not have time to leave the bay, as the sky will be decorated with fungi.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 05
        +2
        I don’t give us a ship with a cost of half of the country's cut air defense, for the sake of inconspicuous unlikely conflicts with the Papuans ..... for the Papuans and Karakurt it will be enough, but for a serious conflict there may not be any air defense, airborne forces, nuclear submarines of the Strategic Rocket Forces and much more.
  17. NEXUS
    NEXUS 1 May 2018 08: 31
    +15
    The debate about whether or not we need an aircraft carrier is stupid in itself. For those who say that our fleets do not need an aircraft carrier, I recommend rubbing their eyes and looking at the map if they do not know that the Russian Federation is washed by 3 out of four oceans. Yes, Russia is a continental state, but it is also an ocean power. Over time, our fleets will need aircraft carriers, and this is obvious. But first, you need to update the fleet of escort ships. And today this is the priority task in the construction of new warships.
    And one more thing ... to the landmen it means covering from the air is necessary, and the sailors will be trampled?
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 1 May 2018 09: 08
      +13
      And you wipe your eyes too and look at the map more carefully, and not anyhow. The coast of the Arctic Ocean, with the exception of Murmansk, can be completely excluded, since the coast and ports are frozen, and the Arctic coast is unsuitable for basing the fleet. The coast of the Pacific Ocean is also unsuitable, and completely. In winter, even the Golden Horn in Vladivostok freezes. The Baltic Sea is too shallow for an aircraft carrier, in addition, the Gulf of Finland also freezes in winter, only the tiny coast of the Kaliningrad Region remains. As for the Black Sea, Turkey, a NATO MEMBER, can at any time close the straits and lock aircraft carriers in the Black Sea. Thus, if you really take a balanced look at the map of Russia, taking into account climatic features, then Russia is a purely land country, not much different from Kazakhstan or Mongolia. The Russian fleet is not needed. As the experience of both World Wars showed, the cost of the fleet was in vain, since all these wars the fleet was idle. No wonder the WWII seafarers were transferred to the infantry and used as ordinary gunners. And I’m sure that all these fleet costs will also be in vain in the future. Instead of spending on the fleet, it’s better to send this money to the VKS, Strategic Rocket Forces and Ground Forces, there will be more benefit. In the end, as the experience of the Crimean, World War I and WWII showed, it was the army that smashed the enemy, and the fleet dangled nearby and stupidly devoured resources.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 May 2018 09: 27
        +12
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Thus, if you really take a balanced look at the map of Russia, taking into account climatic features, then Russia is a purely land country, not much different from Kazakhstan or Mongolia.

        More stupid and hard to come up with. Precisely stupidity. And if you think with your head and ask yourself an elementary question, what can the naval opposers oppose to the fleet in the event of a non-nuclear conflict? Coastal complexes? Their range is limited. An example of a missile strike of mattresses on the Syrians apparently did not teach you anything. By what means would we drown marine carriers if such an order were to follow?
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        As the experience of both World Wars showed, the cost of the fleet was in vain, since all these wars the fleet was idle.

        Another utter stupidity. Take a look how many German ships were sunk by our submariners. And these were not yachts, but ships carrying weapons.
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        The Russian fleet is not needed.

        This could be written only by a very young and uneducated person.
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Not without reason in the Second World War, sailors were transferred to the infantry and used as ordinary gunners

        Sailors were transferred to the infantry when they removed the main caliber from cruisers and battleships.
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        In the end, as the experience of the Crimean, World War I and WWII showed, it was the army that smashed the enemy, and the fleet dangled nearby and stupidly devoured resources.

        Hmm ... a very bad case ... fool
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 1 May 2018 09: 51
          +5
          More stupid and hard to come up with. Precisely stupidity. And if you think with your head and ask yourself an elementary question, what can the naval opposers oppose to the fleet in the event of a non-nuclear conflict? Coastal complexes? Their range is limited. An example of a missile strike of mattresses on the Syrians apparently did not teach you anything. By what means would we drown marine carriers if such an order were to follow?

          Do you think that the American fleet will come to Amderma, Tiksi, Dikson, Anadyr, Okhotsk, and the brave marines will capture them? Well, let them capture. Until the month of October. And then we will see how the brave marines will serve at -30, and their ships will break the ice.
          And if you think about it, the capture of Tiksi and other villages will not have any effect on the economy and combat effectiveness of Russia.
          Another utter stupidity. Take a look how many German ships were sunk by our submariners. And these were not yachts, but ships carrying weapons.

          A small clarification: they were not sunk by battleships, not cruisers and not aircraft carriers, but by submarines. I can’t argue with this that Russia needs to develop a strategic submarine nuclear fleet that will be Nemesis for evil spirits.
          Sailors were transferred to the infantry when they removed the main caliber from cruisers and battleships
          Do you know how many tanks or anti-aircraft guns or anti-aircraft guns could be made with the money spent on these 12-14-inch useless toys? And it’s right that the sailors were transferred to the infantry. Look, in the WWI, the sailors cooled for three years in their cockpits, while the foot soldiers rotted in the trenches.
          Hmm ... a very bad case ... fool
          Surely in the Northern War and WWII victory was won with the help of the fleet? As for the Crimean War, everything was decided by the army. It was the army that defended Sevastopol, and not the fleet at all. In the PMV, the army that defeated the Austrian, Turkish and German divisions also decided everything. In WWII, everything was decided on land, the fleet dangled there, far, far away ... Or you will argue that the battle for Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Kursk, the battle for the Dnieper, Bagration, the Iasi-Chisinau operation, the Wisla-Oder, Berlin defeated the fleet? Or did the fleet also defend Leningrad, Murmansk and their deblockade?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 1 May 2018 10: 22
            +8
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Do you think that the American fleet will come to Amderma, Tiksi, Dixon, Anadyr, Okhotsk,

            And why should he go there? You take a look at the range, and think for yourself.
            And answer me, dear, what would we do if there was an order to drown carriers after a missile strike of mattresses? What? Tanks, guns?
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            A small clarification: were not sunk by battleships, not cruisers and not aircraft carriers, but by submarines

            In the defense of the same Sevastopol surface ships, just played a very important role. The same battleship of the Paris Commune during the Second World War fired the main caliber of about 3000 shells. And he was not alone there.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Do you know how many tanks or anti-aircraft guns or anti-aircraft guns could be made with the money spent on these 12-14-inch useless toys?

            Are you infected from Khrushchev? Ships, due to their mobility and displacement, are capable of carrying any weapons, including long-range ones. No need to sit and invent nonsense. Even such a factor as the fact that the underwater carrier of nuclear weapons is the most effective and efficient part of the nuclear triad suggests that your reasoning is utter nonsense.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            WWII victory was won with the help of the fleet?

            That is, the fleet stood and didn’t? Covering convoys, transporting refugees, wounded, covering and supporting ground operations with fire, destroying enemy warships, etc.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            It was the army that defended Sevastopol, and not the fleet at all.

            From October 30 to November 11, battles were fought on the distant approaches to Sevastopol, from November 2 attacks began on the outer line of the fortress defense. There were no land units in the city, the protection was carried out by the forces of the Black Sea Fleet marines, coastal batteries, separate (training, artillery, anti-aircraft) units with fire support of ships.

            November 21, after shelling from coastal batteries, two cruisers and the battleship "Paris Commune", the Wehrmacht stopped the assault on the city.

            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Or will you claim that the battle for Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Kursk, the battle for the Dnieper, Bagration, the Iasi-Kishinev operation, the Wisla-Oder, Berlin won the fleet?

            The fleet on the sidelines smoked and did not cover the convoys with food, military equipment that went to our country, and did not drown the German transporters, stuffed with weapons to the top ...
            The question, dear, how would we fight with the Japanese at sea, if there were no mattresses at sea?
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 1 May 2018 11: 32
              +2
              And answer me, dear, what would we do if there was an order to drown carriers after a missile strike of mattresses? What? Tanks, guns?
              At this step, we have our own bolt with keys: namely, the Strategic Missile Forces! As the Russians said: why do we need a world where there is no Russia?
              In the defense of the same Sevastopol surface ships, just played a very important role. The same battleship of the Paris Commune during the Second World War fired the main caliber of about 3000 shells. And he was not alone there.

              In fact, the main role in the defense of Sevastopol was played by artillery, moreover land. Dota Sevastopol fired at such monsters as Dora and Karl. Do you think these Dora and Karl are sea guns? Ha three times! The Germans took Crimea as a purely ground force, in the same way in 1944 Soviet troops took Crimea as a purely infantry force. And in the 18th century, in the 18th century, the Russians took the Crimea by storm not with the help of the fleet, but with the usual infantry.
              Are you infected from Khrushchev? Ships, due to their mobility and displacement, are capable of carrying any weapons, including long-range ones. No need to sit and invent nonsense. Even such a factor as the fact that the underwater carrier of nuclear weapons is the most effective and efficient part of the nuclear triad suggests that your reasoning is utter nonsense.
              Now there is a Strategic Missile Forces. Carriers are needed to bomb Papuans who do not have nuclear-powered ICBMs.
              That is, the fleet stood and didn’t? Covering convoys, transporting refugees, wounded, covering and supporting ground operations with fire, destroying enemy warships, etc.

              Those funds that were spent on the fleet would be spent on the ground forces and aviation, it would be much more profitable! That helped the "ocean" fleet, which you are so dreaming of, the Russian Empire in 1917?
              The fleet on the sidelines smoked and did not cover the convoys with food, military equipment that went to our country, and did not drown the German transporters, stuffed with weapons to the top ...
              The question, dear, how would we fight with the Japanese at sea, if there were no mattresses at sea?
              In fact, Manchuria is located on land, and Korea too. No fleet is needed to conquer them! There was also a land border with the Kuril Islands. As for the Kuril Islands, they are frozen islands without trees (fuel) and values. No wonder most of the Kuril garrison in 1945, the Japanese drove south.
            2. dSK
              dSK 1 May 2018 12: 08
              +3
              Quote: NEXUS
              ? Covering convoys, transporting refugees, wounded, covering and supporting ground operations with fire
              - auxiliary operations. Now the military budget is divided, of the share of the Russian Navy - the main one is for submarines, the rest is based on the “residual principle”. The next 10-15 years.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 1 May 2018 12: 22
                +3
                Quote: dsk
                the rest according to the "residual principle

                And this cannot but disappoint. hi
            3. EvilLion
              EvilLion 1 May 2018 12: 44
              +2
              With the ranges of the Kyrgyz Republic in a thousand kilometers, no fleet is definitely needed, the enemy simply will not come to its coverage area. Rapprochement and battle of ships lose their meaning.
              1. Alf
                Alf 1 May 2018 19: 36
                0
                Quote: EvilLion
                With the ranges of the Kyrgyz Republic in a thousand kilometers, no fleet is definitely needed, the enemy simply will not come to its coverage area.

                If you talk like that, then the ground forces are not needed. It’s enough for the aggressor to use calibers to shoot from stationary points and ... having won.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 1 May 2018 21: 57
                  +2
                  No need to write nonsense, without ground troops, you and a gang in 10 people will not get from the mountains.
              2. strannik1985
                strannik1985 3 May 2018 12: 32
                0
                They launch missiles for a thousand km on land, stationary targets, for subsonic anti-ship missiles, the range is much shorter and there is a problem of the missile defense system.
          2. Standard
            Standard 1 May 2018 11: 30
            0
            All the same - as you call a ship ....
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 1 May 2018 12: 48
          +2
          what can the naval opposers oppose to the fleet in the event of a non-nuclear conflict? Coastal complexes? Their range is limited.


          You take the Su-35, hang up the anti-ship missile system, if necessary PTB, kick the pneumatics before the flight, hours through 3 you watch with interest with interest in the record how the next “Arly Burke” was drowning.

          A coastal missile systems from the "calibers" are fundamentally no different. Unless they fly faster.
          1. Leon68
            Leon68 1 May 2018 20: 36
            0
            EvilLion "b] Take the Su-35, hang up the anti-ship missiles, if necessary, PTB, kick the pneumatics before the flight, [/ b]"
            In order for the Su-35 to take off from the runway, it is necessary to prevent a striped volley of missiles along this runway. And they will mark it immediately after the defeat of the radar. Based on your reasoning, we have missiles, but striped ones have only tomahawks. To prevent the elite from entering the missile launch area, a fleet is needed.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 1 May 2018 22: 00
              0
              If the stripes break the runway ... In general, if my grandmother had a famous organ. In order for you not to break the runway, you need to do normal air defense, and fighters are part of it. But in the aircraft utopitsev this has nothing to do. And the range of aviation is much greater than that of any KR.
          2. Seaflame
            Seaflame 2 May 2018 00: 05
            +1
            Arly Berkay has a good air defense system and electronic warfare. One SU-35 may not pull ...
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 2 May 2018 13: 51
              +1
              Well, take the link. And why do tactics exist? With the proper setting of combat work, let someone put a rocket into the stern of the mattress.
      2. Antares
        Antares 1 May 2018 10: 47
        +2
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        In the end, as the experience of the Crimean, World War I and WWII showed, it was the army that smashed the enemy, and the fleet dangled nearby and stupidly devoured resources.

        don't tell me. The first war should be removed from the list. There are Sinop and Sevastopol (the actions of sailors), etc.
        Don’t remember the war with Sweden, it’s just that the land forces are good, but they couldn’t squeeze out without the fleet. The second war with Sweden. Turkish companies. The same RYAV in spite of the result.
        As a rule, it was the defeat in the RNE that laid the foundation for the opinion of Russia as a land power. But after RI, Russia was oceanic. Under the USSR, the status was not restored immediately. Logically, now the Russian Federation also needs to go through the process of recognizing the possibility of being an ocean. And this is in our global age of information and speed.
        1. Standard
          Standard 1 May 2018 11: 28
          +4
          Quote: Antares
          Logically, now the Russian Federation also needs to go through the process of recognizing the possibility of being an ocean.

          To do this, you need a pre-president WITHOUT the built-in inferiority complex.
          1. shvn
            shvn 1 May 2018 17: 08
            +1
            And the Foreign Minister without expressed concern ...
        2. CYM
          CYM 3 May 2018 20: 29
          +2
          Quote: Antares
          But after RI, Russia was oceanic. Under the USSR, the status was not restored immediately. Logically, now the Russian Federation also needs to go through the process of recognizing the possibility of being an ocean.

          IMHO Given the negative experience of the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR, the Russian Federation does not need to strive at all costs to become a great ocean power. We have no colonies, there are no long sea trade routes, and the sea blockade does not threaten us. But the NATO land bases at our borders are full and this is a priority defense problem that the ocean fleet will not solve, well, unless it complicates the transfer of troops from the United States.
      3. Leon68
        Leon68 1 May 2018 20: 24
        0
        Cat_Kuzya. What are you smoking there? Pour a little.
      4. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 07
        +1
        100 percent right, we don’t need a large surface fleet,
      5. Abrascha
        Abrascha 1 May 2018 23: 38
        0
        I’m embarrassed to ask, but if Erdogash will take and block the Black Sea straits like this (well, for example, he’ll somehow comb his heel at night, and in the morning he will take and block). The Russian Federation will react to these unfriendly actions. 1) As always, it will swallow and rub off. 2) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will express deep concern. 3) It will file a complaint with some international court and will convulsively collect evidence that Erdogashchabyak. 4) Will take some actions that are more consistent with the status of a Great Power (all the media in the Russian Federation, after all, have been repeating this for the last few years, maybe it's time to really show it) What do you think?
    2. Tusv
      Tusv 1 May 2018 14: 51
      +5
      Quote: NEXUS
      And one more thing ... to the landmen it means covering from the air is necessary, and the sailors will be trampled?

      Not. Andryukha. PVOshnikov even sent the coolest patrol in the world not to Guba, as it should, but to the database. In addition, we remember that the Central Committee of the CPSU initially wanted to build helicopter carriers with YAKs on board, but laid down 4 aircraft carriers. Some realized that covering the coast with aviation was several times more expensive than this trough. BUT! Andryukha. These toys must be protected from under water. And what about the Hunters and me? Full JO hi
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 May 2018 17: 53
        +1
        Quote: Tusv
        These toys must be protected from under water. And what about the Hunters and me? Full JO

        It’s yes, it’s dark and deep yet ... But again, while the aircraft carriers make no sense, until, as I have said more than once, we are not building escort ships. In addition, if we are building at least something poorly with the underwater component, then with surface ships of the first and second rank there is an even greater ambush than in the issue of multi-purpose workers. In addition, we also are not particularly building support vessels. And by the end, indeed, 15-20 years is not necessary to dream of an aircraft carrier.
        1. Tusv
          Tusv 1 May 2018 18: 31
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          But then again, while the aircraft carriers make no sense, until, as I have said more than once, we are not building escort ships

          Not. Andryukha. The Yankees have two submarines floating under the AUG; we have 1,5 Ash trees for all four fleets. The point is to build their AUGM, if the Yankees will call us, like in a dash? Option Number Tse. What a foolishness with us is reference to 6000 missiles, when we have escort aircraft and with such precursors as we, air defenses hi
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 1 May 2018 18: 41
            +2
            Quote: Tusv
            Yankees have two submarines floating under the AUG

            It is debatable ... sometimes four in a radius of 500 km ...
            Quote: Tusv
            we have 1,5 Ashen for all four fleets.

            Do not discount pike. These hunters are also toothy, and after modernization will become both quieter and more dangerous.
            Quote: Tusv
            What a fool with us reference 6000 missiles, with escort aircraft and with such precursors as we, air defense

            No, Vladimir, all hope for our missile defense and air defense is not the case ... we need a very efficient mobile fleet. And this does not mean that it should be huge, like in the USA. Imagine, for example, our AUG, in which a) On an aircraft carrier, say, one and a half hundred shock drones, with AWACS, PLO and so on, and b) strike cruisers and destroyers with anti-ship missiles Zircon with a radius of 1000 km ... Try to eat. I'm not talking about riveting 10 aircraft carriers, trying to catch up with mattresses. But 5 full-fledged aircraft carriers, taking into account repairs, rotation, etc., we need 2 fleets. To build a base somewhere near the devil on the horns is all one more expensive than to have such a connection as AUG. Although we also need bases, I have no doubt about that.
            And the anti-aircraft and so the work is unmeasured. The main task of which, by and large, is to swallow a swarm of missiles or a volley of ICBMs, so that we have the opportunity to respond.
            1. Tusv
              Tusv 1 May 2018 18: 59
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              No Vladimir, everyone hopes for our missile defense and air defense

              I'm on the Majesty of Air Defense, well, a complete adherent drinks In the 80s, they had every right to land at Our discretion. Even Gorbachev did not allow closer than 70, and Putin was just 17 km from the border. Pozorrrr
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 1 May 2018 19: 05
                +4
                Quote: Tusv
                Even Gorbachev did not allow closer than 70, and Putin was just 17 km from the border. Pozorrrr

                So, in order to push this border, we need a strong fleet. And while we are leaders in the development of anti-ship missiles and missile defense systems, we need to build mobile carriers so that the adversary does not even think about the Anaconda ring, disarming strikes, etc.
                And who, if not the fleet, will stop this spread of mattress democracy around the world?
                A simple example is the 5th squadron in Soviet times. And then it was relatively calm in the BV. As soon as our ships left, according to the principle, a holy place does not happen to be empty, NATO nonchristians came in and Iraq, Libya began, now Syria ... you know what I mean?
                1. Tusv
                  Tusv 2 May 2018 00: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  So, in order to push this border, we need a strong fleet.

                  There are no options. Trained in the fleet. And then it turned out. In air defense thundered. And fingers like Grandfather’s. I can break a piece of sugar, but I can turn it into powder. What am I talking about. AND! With our help, our fleet can hooligan up to 2500 from the coast :)
        2. Alf
          Alf 1 May 2018 19: 39
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          And by the end, indeed, 15-20 years is not necessary to dream of an aircraft carrier.

          Yes, but this does not mean that the Russian Navy does not need aircraft carriers.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 1 May 2018 19: 43
            0
            Quote: Alf
            Yes, but this does not mean that the Russian Navy does not need aircraft carriers.

            Read my posts from above .... I do not say that they are not needed ... I say that while there is no decent escort, it makes no sense to build aircraft carriers.
            1. Alf
              Alf 1 May 2018 20: 07
              +2
              Quote: NEXUS
              Quote: Alf
              Yes, but this does not mean that the Russian Navy does not need aircraft carriers.

              Read my posts from above .... I do not say that they are not needed ... I say that while there is no decent escort, it makes no sense to build aircraft carriers.

              I am not for you. There are simply a lot of people here who are replacing concepts — instead of “we can’t afford it yet, but wait” - “since we can’t, then it’s not necessary.”
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 10
          0
          NKs of the first rank were obsolete 100 years ago, and NKs of the second rank are enough and ten to the whole country, more need submarines, and ground facilities, cross-country aviation, airborne forces and strategic missile forces, I would not live to fat
    3. Leon68
      Leon68 1 May 2018 20: 21
      +1
      Andrei! You have long lagged behind life. There are now five oceans. This is when we were in school, there were four of them.
      1. Antares
        Antares 1 May 2018 20: 44
        +1
        Quote: Leon68
        Andrei! You have long lagged behind life. There are now five oceans. This is when we were in school, there were four of them.

        In 2000, the Member States of the International Hydrographic Organization decided to distinguish the Southern Ocean as an independent fifth ocean, combining the southern parts of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, to the extent limited to the north by the 60th parallel of the southern latitude.
        HERE, so we quickly adopted the international system, according to which there were 5 oceans. At school I studied 4, and already at university -5.
  18. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 1 May 2018 08: 32
    +7
    We need another day before yesterday !!! The projection of force in the oceans is much more significant than on land (open the book of world history, who were the world hegemonic empires? Sea powers !!! Who still has not learned this, is a fatal loser, or an enemy of the Fatherland and people, whose road is only on end !!!). Therefore, the debate on this topic is acts of sabotage inspired by our "strategic and sworn partner", and those who oppose, willingly or unwillingly, but corrupt agents of influence !! This is tantamount to disputes, whether you need nuclear weapons or not! But nuclear weapons are an emergency tool, and an aircraft carrier fleet, which is in no way inferior in its strength to nuclear weapons, is an everyday tool. And here simply banality is drawn! Confront the enemy with an aircraft carrier fleet, not having one, this is being the Papuans! If we can still shy away at the AUG of anti-ship missiles equipped even with nuclear warheads (but this is a direct prologue to a full-blown nuclear explosive!), Then all the other countries of the world cannot do this for sure (not in the same format), and who is the whole world after such a question ( ?) - right (!), the most Papuans! What conclusion suggests itself automatically? Have you forgotten that the very first efforts of our "good and caring sworn partners", after the collapse of the USSR, were titanic efforts on their part to deprive Russia of the carrier fleet? Not even SSBNs and strategic missile-carrying aircraft (this is later not so persistent)! By chance or what? Yes, only one who has this weapon, and can appreciate its true capabilities! And the rest can only guess.
    And about what? The answer is very simple, multi-species! From destroyers with a VTOL unit and helicopters on board, to a Kuznetsov-type TAVKR and a full-scale Nimitz type, but certainly a strike, with their own means of attack and defense other than aviation. Say expensive? Is it not expensive to drive the AUG through half the world to solve local problems? If for each sparrow to peel a gun, any country, even the United States, will fly into the tube without batting an eye!
    1. Abrascha
      Abrascha 2 May 2018 00: 04
      +1
      Ah, leave, They there themselves cannot finally give birth to a decision what exactly they want at the end. Either be a great power, or not be. To be, but not like mattresses. Toli to be like mattresses, but by other methods (not mattress, but some of their own). Moreover, the maxim “If we use their methods (mattress), then in this case, how will we differ from them?” In short, as always, they themselves do not know what they want at the end. "either democracy, or stellar sturgeon with horseradish" Well, of course the most important thing is "we are not looking for easy ways")))
  19. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 1 May 2018 08: 34
    0
    Quote: Yak28
    Of course, it is better with aircraft carriers than without them, but where do they come from in our army? It takes decades to build them, and if you build 5 pieces there might not be a hundred years, Russia doesn’t have them.


    Show the identity of the agent of influence! Or signed a contract with blood?
  20. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 1 May 2018 08: 37
    +2
    Quote: Cannonball
    An aircraft carrier is always a target. To use them in serious conflicts is pure suicide. Maximum - against princes from the banana republics / kingdoms.


    I recommend entering the Higher School of Higher Education, at least in absentia!
    1. Cannonball
      Cannonball 1 May 2018 10: 09
      +3
      I already won my own. But to understand the high cost of aircraft carriers and their vulnerability, higher military education is not necessary. Everything rests on the price of destruction of such a ship, and not on the possibility / impossibility.
      1. Alf
        Alf 1 May 2018 19: 43
        0
        Quote: Cannonball
        But to understand the high cost of aircraft carriers and their vulnerability, higher military education is not necessary. Everything rests on the price of destruction of such a ship, and not on the possibility / impossibility.

        But you can also drown SSBN, but nevertheless they’re building it.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 12
          +1
          Yes, but the probability of detection and, moreover, the drowning of SSBNs is hundreds of times lower than the drowning of AB
  21. geniy
    geniy 1 May 2018 08: 41
    +3
    Carriers are needed, but not ordinary ones are especially needed - but submarines - aircraft carriers. That is, building an aircraft carrier from scratch is long and expensive. But now there are several obsolete ballistic missile submarine carriers that have disabled the fleet as unnecessary - since they had missiles with toxic liquids such as heptyl. Well, if you cut out their missile silos and put decks and elevators in their place, and put another two submarines in parallel and connect the sides with a nuclear submarine - a catamaran aircraft carrier. And then she can easily make a round-the-world voyage in the underwater position and emerge completely unexpectedly for the enemy at any point. And then she can either simply provide moral support to the people of any small and poor country: at least the same Korea, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua, or Angola, or Argentina, or the Philippines, or Indonesia - and indeed there are about 200 countries on the globe. And if American aircraft carriers, for example, sail to Korea, then a Russian submarine, an aircraft carrier, can easily emerge in the same area and quietly stand on guard directly without threatening the Americans, but clearly hinting that they do not wave their sabers too much, and there are Russian interests in this area too. Or, for example, America has now flown an aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean Sea, and planes from an American aircraft carrier will fly there with impunity. but in the same way, our planes could fly in the immediate vicinity of them from an underwater aircraft carrier, slightly interfering with them and creating an implicit threat.
    And besides, everyone needs to understand that aircraft, from the point of view of using the ship's displacement, is essentially an ordinary cargo, which is easy to remove in the port and replaced with any other cargo. For example, tanks, armored personnel carriers, boxes of ammunition or food, And also in the tanks of a submarine thousands of tons of different types of fuel can be pumped - from ordinary gasoline for cars, to diesel fuel for tanks, or kerosene for aircraft. You will recall that some German submarines served as "milk cows" during WWII. And a huge catamaran submarine could transport thousands of tons of liquid fuel - remember that when landing from the coast of Britain to France, even an underwater pipe was laid for pumping fuel. But Soviet submarines-catamarans of the Shark type were mockingly called water carriers, because almost the majority of their displacement was occupied by ordinary sea water, which in principle is very easy to replace with liquid fuel.
    And the submarine is fundamentally different in that, unlike the surface aircraft carrier, it has a low freeboard, and there is a way that if you completely cut it off, then when navigating in position you can easily achieve such a meager freeboard (if desired) commander) - for example, only 3 centimeters - and then no cruise missile can get into it at all, and it will be impossible to detect a tankless submarine in positional position.
    And one more circumstance: since the freeboard for submarines is smaller (5-10 m) than for huge aircraft carriers (25 meters), and in addition to the submarine, you can also create a trim on the stern, from which the bow will rise, then it will be able to slightly crawl out onto an unequipped shore, and releasing a ramp to land tanks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled howitzers and thousands of paratroopers on shore. And while still unload them ashore thousands of tons of fuel, ammunition and food. And even landing a sudden landing in any coastal country in the world in order to help her can threaten the omnipotence of America.
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 1 May 2018 09: 07
      +6
      Quote: geniy
      she will have a scanty freeboard ... and then no cruise missile can get into it at all

      Deep thought recourse
      Quote: geniy
      she will be able to bow crawl out a little to unequipped shore

      Submarine in the steppes of Ukraine, practically belay
      Quote: geniy
      land tanks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled howitzers and thousands of paratroopers

      Submarine...
      Quote: geniy
      can threaten omnipotence america

      Yes it is not possible, but necessary !!!
      Something elusive on the work of Gridasov is similar ... but it seems not Gridasov. Shar-rad request
    2. Alf
      Alf 1 May 2018 19: 47
      0
      And you advise this to the Navy Commander, some ideas. That's just not realistic yet. And if the submarine crawls ashore, then it will remain there.
  22. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 1 May 2018 08: 43
    +1
    Quote: Gardamir
    And the shouts of “Ninuzhin fleet, Rasiya sukhaputnaya conduction!” Will be heard for a long time.
    For this minus. The author is either a serious analyst or a clown. Do not mix.
    The most effective use of aircraft carriers is the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Now, when one of the branches of the armed forces is called the VKS, you have to rack your brains on how to drown American aircraft carriers, rather than build them in their likeness. You still remember about triremes.


    You forgot to arrange a business trip in Fascistton! A fee of $ 30 disappear!
  23. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 1 May 2018 08: 48
    +2
    Quote: MadCat
    Quote: cedar
    Author, raise your eyes. The future of Russia is cosmoflot.

    VKS is already in the past, an interstellar cruiser is needed!


    I propose that the Association of Volunteer Assistants of Cosmoflot Builders be appointed! Ur-i-i-i-i-aah !!!!!!
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 1 May 2018 12: 17
      -2
      So go ahead. We have a free country.
      Or just scream at the internet?
  24. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 1 May 2018 09: 18
    +10
    And the shouts of “Ninuzhin fleet, Rasiya sukhaputnaya conduction!” Will be heard for a long time.

    I completely agree with these screams. Russia has no overseas territories, and there is no need to maintain a huge ocean fleet. As the experience of previous wars has shown, the Russian fleet made no contribution to the victory over the enemies. In the Northern War, the Swedes were defeated near Poltava, and finished off by landing on the ice of the Gulf of Bothnia to Stockholm, the Turks were also smashed on land in Transcaucasia, Romania and Bulgaria, in the Crimean War the fleet was stupidly sunk, since it was useless against the combined fleet of Britain and France, in In the Russo-Japanese War, the fleet mediocre ... all its ships, in the PMV fleet stood at its bases, and the sailors stupid from idleness quickly decomposed under the influence of propaganda, in the Second World War the fleet also proved itself to be completely zero, the Baltic fleet was locked in Finnish Oktyabrsky trembled over each destroyer and did not put it into the sea on the Black Sea bay, while in the Arctic, allied ships did most of the work to escort convoys.
    In addition, the climate of Russia must also be taken into account. Russia is not even Canada, where the Pacific coast does not freeze over the whole of Oregon to Alaska due to the warm Alaskan current, and the ports in Nova Scotia and the south coast of Newfoundland do not freeze in the Atlantic. Churchill knew what he was talking about when he threatened Hitler in the event of the capture of Britain to transfer the entire British fleet and the British Government to Canada.
    The coast of the Arctic Ocean, with the exception of Murmansk, can be completely excluded, since the coast and ports are frozen, and the Arctic coast is unsuitable for basing the fleet. The coast of the Pacific Ocean is also unsuitable, and completely. In winter, even the Golden Horn in Vladivostok freezes. The Baltic Sea is too shallow for an aircraft carrier, in addition, the Gulf of Finland also freezes in winter, only the tiny coast of the Kaliningrad Region remains. As for the Black Sea, Turkey, a NATO MEMBER, can at any time close the straits and lock aircraft carriers in the Black Sea. Thus, if you really take a balanced look at the map of Russia, taking into account climatic features, then Russia is a purely land country, not much different from Kazakhstan or Mongolia. The Russian fleet is not needed. As the experience of both World Wars showed, the cost of the fleet was in vain, since all these wars the fleet was idle. No wonder the WWII seafarers were transferred to the infantry and used as ordinary gunners. And I’m sure that all these fleet costs will also be in vain in the future. Instead of spending on the fleet, it’s better to send this money to the VKS, Strategic Rocket Forces and Ground Forces, there will be more benefit. In the end, as the experience of the Crimean, World War I and WWII showed, it was the army that smashed the enemy, and the fleet dangled nearby and stupidly devoured resources.
    1. Standard
      Standard 1 May 2018 11: 24
      +5
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      As the experience of previous wars has shown, the Russian fleet made no contribution to the victory over the enemies.


      If you weren’t a cat wink then you would quickly understand that the Navy was performing the functions of a nuclear weapon.
      Or are you one of those who says that rockets are useless to us, "but let's join the NPT and we will be like all normal people"?

      Broaden your horizonswinked, The cat Kuzya. Even if the aircraft carriers do not require immediate use, consider them a Weapon of Prestige. I hope you understand this formula.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 1 May 2018 11: 40
        +4
        Russia needs to develop submarine nuclear cruisers. This weapon is a nightmare for the Britons and Yankees! There will be enough bases in Severomorsk and Avacha Bay to keep the Britons and Yankees nervous.
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 1 May 2018 12: 35
      +4
      Cat_Kuzya !!! You should learn the history of Russia, and then you will probably understand what the fleet is for!
  25. midshipman
    midshipman 1 May 2018 09: 52
    +10
    Under my leadership, control systems for aircraft carrier aviation, its navigation, and approach were created. Aircraft carriers are indispensable for Russia. Gentlemen, in the near future will appear in service with UAVs. And aircraft carriers too. We will also have liners, icebreakers where helicopter-type aircraft will be required. And how are ships guarded without aviation? The issue of supplying submarines with their UAVs is already being considered. Therefore successes to you.
    On my initiative, research is already being carried out at one University of the country on the topic of creating a ship aviation control system (finding new solutions).
    1. Standard
      Standard 1 May 2018 11: 17
      +2
      Quote: midshipman
      Therefore successes to you.

      And why only to us? and you?
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 1 May 2018 18: 03
      +1
      Quote: midshipman
      Aircraft carriers are indispensable for Russia.

      I absolutely agree, but ... for an aircraft carrier to feel calm and confident in the open ocean, he needs a good escort, with cruisers, destroyers, and again support vessels ... and with this at the moment, (I'm talking about new ships) we have We’re not even able to give birth until the frigate of project 22350M, which is closer to the destroyer in terms of displacement.
      Quote: midshipman
      On my initiative, research is already being carried out at one University of the country on the topic of creating a ship aviation control system (finding new solutions).

      About UAVs you rightly said that. An aircraft carrier with a hundred or two strike UAVs is a very serious force. But what about surface ships of the first and second rank? Where is the Leader’s bookmark about which so much has been said? Eagles with Atlanta until blue in the face will not work, but they are already 40 years old. Burke's mattresses are stamped as fast as if they were planting potatoes. I’m silent about multipurpose nuclear submarines, of which we have quantitatively fewer than it should be. The bias is quantitative in relation to the SSBN, multi-purpose workers are very tangible. We have been building ash trees for a long time, Pikes have been waiting for modernization for several years.
      I once said that the only way out in this situation I see is the creation of a Hunter-class submarine of the Lyra type, only modernized, with a displacement of 2-3 thousand tons. They could be built much faster than Ash, and some of the functions of multi-purpose workers, such nuclear submarines could well take on.
  26. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 1 May 2018 09: 55
    0
    Quote: Lerych
    From May 1st! All! Why do we need aircraft carriers? We have a country, from the Kuril Islands to Kaliningrad, through the Urals, to the Crimea, an unsinkable aircraft carrier. YARS, DAGGER, SARMAT and CALIBER are our arguments. This is enough. Cans with sprats in tomato sauce are an unnecessary luxury.


    I forgot about the beer!
  27. geniy
    geniy 1 May 2018 10: 10
    +6
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    As the experience of previous wars has shown, the Russian fleet made no contribution to the victory over the enemies.

    Before defeating the Swedes near Poltava and crossing the ice of the Gulf of Bothnia, a naval battle took place at Gangut, where the Swedish fleet was defeated. And the Turks were smashed during the sailing fleet and under Chesme, and throughout the Mediterranean Sea, Greek-Russian pirates ruled, and then Ushakov brought the Black Sea fleet to the Black Sea and there he defeated all the Turks and actually built a free Greek state. In the Crimean War, the fleet was really stupidly flooded, although it could have given battle. None of you know that one Russian purely sailing frigate "Flora" in that war fought with three English steam frigates and defeated them individually, but this fact is hushed up by domestic historians, because then there is no way to explain why the entire Black Sea linear fleet was flooded .
    And the fact that they flooded - after all, the French flooded their entire fleet in the second world war, but they do not worry about it and still build ships, and they were planning to sell the Mistrals to us.
    And if you remembered how many islands in the world’s oceans were discovered by Russian researchers during the sailing fleet: both the Suvorov archipelago and Antarctica - and all this was given to other countries for free! And by the way, the Tsushima Islands Japan offered Russia to base the Russian fleet, but the tsar refused this offer.
    And Alaska was sold cheaply because there weren’t enough ships to protect it. In the same way, Siberia can be given, and Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.
    As the experience of both World Wars showed, the cost of the fleet was in vain, since all these wars the fleet was idle.

    The Russian fleet was idle due to blockheads of leaders. Although in particular on the Black Sea, the notorious Geben was driven into the WWI so that he was afraid to stick his nose out of the Bosphorus, and Russian armadillos shot Turkish shores from their guns, and ensured landing. In the Baltic, there was a gigantic superiority of the German linear fleet over the RIF.
    The Second World War fleet also showed itself to be completely zero, the Baltic fleet was locked in the Gulf of Finland, on the Black Sea, the Oktyabrsky trembled over each destroyer and did not put it into the sea, while in the Arctic, allied ships carried out most of the escorting of convoys.

    So in the first half of the Second World War and the Red Army was almost completely defeated and retreated to Moscow. And the mediocrity of the Soviet command bombarded with mine approaches to our ports, which is why our own mines blew up a large number of transport ships supplying Sevastopol. And by the way, the fleet also provided transportation of troops and cargo to Odessa and Sevastopol, landing, and there were no special landing ships at all, which, by the way, should be blamed on the command. And in the Northern Fleet, we had practically no fleet - except for a few miserable destroyers against the German battleship Bismarck and Scharnghorst.
    And if before the USSR had mainly a coastal fleet, nuclear ships with an unlimited sailing range and capable of appearing anywhere in the World Ocean are becoming more widespread. And the fact that Russia’s most part of the coast freezes in the winter, so the power of modern power plants (about 60-200 thousand horsepower) is many times greater than the power of the Yermak icebreaker = 6 thousand hp And if modern ships were to be given an icebreaking shape at the fore end, they could easily break ice of any thickness. And for nuclear submarines, the thickness of the ice is generally deeply indifferent. Personally, I have ideas that any Russian ship can easily save fuel and have a supply of food so that a boat the size of a minesweeper is capable of sailing for two years and make two round-the-world voyages. And the Russian fleet could go all over the oceans, appearing on any islands and coasts of all countries, because most of the 200 countries in the world (except Mongolia, Switzerland and Armenia) have access to the sea and the World Ocean).
    1. Antares
      Antares 1 May 2018 10: 56
      +3
      And then Ushakov brought the Black Sea fleet to the Black Sea and there he defeated all the Turks and actually built a free Greek state.

      The Black Sea Fleet in the World Cup? Maybe about the war in the Mediterranean. "Ushak Pasha" beat both the Turks and the Turks together with the French.
      Let me remind you that the tasks of the war with France were solved not only on land, but also in the Mediterranean Sea.
      None of you know that one Russian purely sailing frigate Flora fought three English steam frigates in that war

      the frigate, marching under the command of the young captain-lieutenant Skorobogatov, was attacked by three Turkish steam frigates under the command of Admiral Mustafa Pasha, who had a total of 62 guns with a caliber of up to 60 pounds. . From English there was only Slade
      (English admiral Slade, who took part in the battle of Turkish ships against the Russian brig Mercury) is not very successful in general, then a sailor ...
      but this fact is hushed up by domestic historians

      Slade does not mention the Flora case in his book Turkey and the Crimean
      In The Ottoman Crimean War (1853-1856) | BRILL (2010) also has no business with Flora
      In Flora, everything rests on a thin thread. Only a thorough Zayonchkovsky in his “Eastern War ...” cites the correct date of the battle (night of November 6) and a link to the source: “Report of Captain-Lieutenant Skorobogatov of November 11, 1853, No. 623 (Archive Marine min. Insp. Dep. , II division., 2 pp., 1853, d. No. 600); shift. journal fr. "Flora" for 1853 (Nikolaev center. Archive)
      it should be understood that 36 of their guns (12 cannon steamers) were inferior to 44 Flora guns, although there were one and a half knots of speed, but the steamboats were very voracious and not capable of long maneuvers and these were Turks .... with their poor shooting.
      Maybe that's why they do not mention much. Despite the awards of Nicholas 1.
      Nobody wants to remember the handed over Russian ship in those same years either. (All the same, Nakhimov drowned him according to the order of the emperor, although he did not know about it)
      1. geniy
        geniy 1 May 2018 11: 00
        +2
        Thanks for the corrections and additions. (of course, I made a reservation about the Black Sea fleet: Ushakov brought him to the Mediterranean rather than the Black Sea), but the comments and additions to the battle against the three steam frigates are very valuable - I did not know that. But still, these steamboat frigates were probably built in England, so in essence they are Turkish-English.
        1. Antares
          Antares 1 May 2018 22: 27
          0
          Quote: geniy
          But still, these steamboat frigates were probably built in England, so in essence they are Turkish-English.

          The Turks write that there was no Slade when performing Taif’s feat (he escaped alone by order from Sinop Bay with lime and returned there with doctors, on the way he managed to survive under fire several times as a superior enemy) is a sort of Turkish Varyag.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 1 May 2018 12: 42
      +4
      Well, yes, the Soviet command was mediocre, you can no longer read. “Darny” is only an author, he would have shown it to the Germans, and “Scharnhorst” drowned. It’s only a pity that at a price this Scharnhorst would go out in a couple of thousand tanks of the T-34 type, despite the fact that the allies have set up thousands of 4 tanks for us throughout the war, one wonders if it’s worth fighting over the sea if its control is more expensive than possible dividends from him.
  28. 1536
    1536 1 May 2018 10: 12
    +5
    There is one political scientist who did not remember his last name, since today all "political scientists" are on the same person, said that Russia is NOT a maritime power. Therefore, it seems that we do not need to develop the fleet at all. So, a couple of three ships a year for the coastal zone, well, to swim in the Mediterranean Sea in order to "show the flag", go to Singapore, check if it is true "banana-lemon", and that’s it. I would like to ask all these political scientists, do you seriously think that Russia is not a maritime power, or is it just working out? For centuries, Russia has fought for access to the seas. It now defends its right to use these seas at its discretion. Yes, after the collapse of the USSR, the ocean fleet was ruined, thanks to about the same conversations of the heralds Gorbachev and Co. (by the way, they are all about business whom God has not yet punished). I hope that today all these podpevals of "perestroika" will not be allowed to destroy the fleet that we have left, no matter how much they would like to. Russia - MARINE POWER! And she needs ships of all types and classes for the development of the oceans.
    1. Standard
      Standard 1 May 2018 11: 15
      +1
      Quote: 1536
      Well, swim in the Mediterranean Sea with the aim of "showing the flag", go to Singapore, check if it is true "banana-lemon", and that’s it.

      "Give me luxuries and I will do without the necessities." (from)
  29. geniy
    geniy 1 May 2018 10: 53
    +5
    I will remind everyone how many times the Russian fleet perished.
    Under Ivan the Terrible, there was an attempt to organize privateer flotillas in the Baltic, but the tsar died. The first grandfather of Peter the Great began to build large ships - he built the sailing ship "Eagle", but he was burned.
    Then Peter built a fleet in Voronezh to capture Azov, but this fleet was later burned. Under Peter the Great many ships were built, but after his death they all rotted uselessly without use under Tsarina Anna Ivanovna. She even allowed mariner Bering to use 60 square feet of canvas (about 10 square feet in one square meter), meaning she gave him a little more than one sheet. Then under Elizabeth they began to slowly restore the fleet. And under Catherine, the Russian fleet came to the Mediterranean and won a great victory at Chesme. And then these ships seem to have been sold to England. But in Nikolaev, Ushakov was already building a new fleet on the Black Sea, and he smashed the Turks on ships built from raw wood and without copper upholstery, like the Turks. Then, sailing Russian ships began to sail around the oceans and made many discoveries. But during the Crimean War, the entire Black Sea fleet was stupidly flooded. In the Far East, the only three warships were flooded: frigates: Diana, Pallas and Aurora. And so they later sold Alaska. In the Black Sea, Russia was generally forbidden to have a fleet, and the batteries and fortifications of Sevastopol were completely demolished. But the Russo-Turkish war allowed to build a few ships, and round priests and ordinary transport steamers with mine boats appeared. Then the Russian fleet slowly amassed strength. But the mediocre Russian-Japanese war began, and the entire Pacific fleet and the Baltic fleet that came to its aid were completely destroyed. they thought: what kind of ships to build, so long that at the time of the beginning of the First World War not a single dreadnought battleship was completely finished. As soon as the First World War ended and the civil war broke out, the whole Black Sea Fleet was completely destroyed - half of it was simply flooded as in the Crimean, and the other half was stolen into the French Bizerta. In the Baltic they tried to withdraw the Baltic Fleet from the Germans, and they seemed to save but then one dreadnought burned down, and there were only three battleships left for the whole country, and four huge battle cruisers were not completed and sold for scrap.
    Then, before the Second World War, the USSR slowly built and rebuilt obsolete ships inherited from tsarist Russia, and only before the war they laid down battleships of the Soviet Union type, which were then dismantled for metal. And they planned to build small aircraft carriers from cruisers, but forgot about it. And before his death, Stalin ordered the construction of huge battlecruisers and many large cruisers. But as soon as Khrushchev reigned, he ordered all unfinished structures to be cut into scrap metal. Then Brezhnev began to rule and mainly built nuclear submarines and medium ships, and only at the end of his reign began to lay medium steam turbine aircraft carriers. But as soon as a series of rulers passed and Gorbachev came and then Yeltsin - then all the aircraft carriers either cut or sold to other countries, there was only one old man, a semi-aircraft carrier.
    And what will happen next?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 1 May 2018 12: 38
      +4
      Khrushchev did a lot of things, but most likely he was right about the planned battleships. More likely not just Khrushchev, it was just that the older members of the government had the same thinking, those who were younger asked a question, but what for, all this is necessary in the presence of nuclear weapons.

      But during the Crimean War, the entire Black Sea fleet was stupidly flooded.


      Could have been drowned in battle with Royal Navy. Light.

      but after his death they all rotted uselessly without use under Queen Anna Ivanovna


      Well, actually, wooden sailing ships need to be sorted, count every 5 years, so the wooden fleet, which has ceased to be allocated funds for timbering (parsing a boat and replacing boards), will fall apart a decade before the trash. At the same time, they won the Northern War back in the 1721, and they still didn’t particularly go further than the Baltic Sea.

      And yes, the fleet is much more expensive than the ground forces and even aviation, which frankly stupefied in the prices of aircraft, so even reverse processes are planned there, and, oddly enough, it is in the United States, which were going to change the cool A-10, to just a toy ..
    2. sib.ataman
      sib.ataman 1 May 2018 14: 11
      +1
      Then we will whimper and wipe the snot!
  30. prior
    prior 1 May 2018 10: 57
    +3
    Colonies, such as modern Russia, aircraft carriers are not needed, enough oligarch yachts.
    Diplomats are kicked out, flags are removed from missions, even banana-lilac countries went to the Olympics under their own flags, we are alone, like a real colony under a white rag with colorful eggs. However, throwing hundreds of billions of rubles into a worthless toy for the military, having bred millions more poor pensioners, why not ?!
    When there is no money for portki, buying a tie from Versace is a very effective investment.
  31. Standard
    Standard 1 May 2018 11: 04
    +3
    Finally, an intelligible article on aircraft carriers.
    The author is a huge plus.
  32. Alecsandr
    Alecsandr 1 May 2018 11: 08
    +5
    At one time, Germany was carried away by the construction of large ships to the detriment of the submarine fleet. And when they realized the mistake it was too late. An aircraft carrier is too expensive a toy. It’s better to set up frigates with a good speed and range. Missile weapons with a large range and no need
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 1 May 2018 12: 46
      +3
      Do you know what killed the German submarine fleet? It is aircraft carriers
      1. Alecsandr
        Alecsandr 1 May 2018 20: 26
        +2
        Not aircraft carriers but the development of locators on planes and ships
  33. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 11: 12
    +3
    Well what can I say? Good and smart article. Deploying SSBNs is controversial, but otherwise excellent. Thanks!
  34. Operator
    Operator 1 May 2018 11: 14
    +5
    Kuznetsov was repaired for 100500 years, then sailed to Middle-earth, drowned a couple of planes and again sailed for repair laughing
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 12: 54
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      Kuznetsov repaired 100500 years

      Operator, Google banned, or what? Look how many Kuznetsov was repaired
  35. Tired
    Tired 1 May 2018 11: 15
    +5
    An aircraft carrier by itself does not exist. If the author suggests that Russia build aircraft carriers, then he must understand that numerous aircraft carrier groups are attached to the aircraft carriers that protect this worthy of billions of dead raccoons, a luxury from all sorts of misfortunes. Also included in these groups are polynomial auxiliary ships, bases for the aircraft carrier groups themselves and for supplying auxiliary ships, and the numerous security of all these bases of the aircraft carrier fleet. And this is not counting the accompanying infrastructure for supplying the bases themselves. This inevitably raises the question: where to get all this good money?
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 1 May 2018 11: 42
      +6
      Supporters of aircraft carriers do not understand this!
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 1 May 2018 18: 33
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Supporters of aircraft carriers

        And that all these ships without an aircraft carrier are not needed?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 19
          +1
          yes, it’s not needed in such quantities, except for submarines and minesweepers
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 1 May 2018 21: 59
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            except submarines and minesweepers

            Why minesweepers? Do you want to abandon the surface fleet?
    2. geniy
      geniy 1 May 2018 12: 35
      +4
      Probably many readers do not understand the whole fallacy of the argument of the Tired participant.
      Although it would seem - at first glance, an aircraft carrier really needs to go as part of a group of anti-submarine ships, air defense ships, at least one atomic submarine, and a supply vessel. Yes, and aircraft based on an aircraft carrier themselves are also not cheap And for all this, in the opinion of unskilled people, it adds a large amount to the cost of the aircraft carrier itself.
      But if we begin to understand, then everything will be much better. If you take an aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 90 thousand tons, then all escort ships in total will barely reach half its displacement (and warships cost much less than supply vessels). And the cost of ships in a first approximation is proportional to their displacement, that is, the cost of escort ships can be approximately equal to half the cost of an aircraft carrier - in fact, not such a big addition. And even more so when you consider that these escort ships are not useless ships for the fleet at all, but at a certain moment they can deliver a strong blow to the enemy. Here yesterday they showed a film about the defense of Stalingrad, and at a critical moment the army commander ordered the protection of his headquarters to go into battle against the Nazis. But if you think that the headquarters guard is not involved in the battles, and according to the profane it’s supposedly useless people, they don’t participate in battles, just like the profane ships do not participate in the guarding aircraft carriers.
      Well, well: do the Russian fleet need supply ships? Of course, they are not needed if we assume that Russian ships will only go side by side with their shores and will never go on long voyages. But if our surface ships will go on long ocean voyages, without the ability to go to foreign ports to take stocks, then supply vessels are still needed regardless of whether there are aircraft carriers or not.
      So it is with the bases. I remember the textbook phrase that, for example, the bay of Kamchatka Petropavlovsk is so large that it can accommodate all the ships of the world. So why build a lot of bases - isn’t there enough space for them to stand in any bays? And what to take fuel or food necessary any special devices other than a commonplace tap. And by the way, fuel can be pumped from any tanker that gets up close to the side.
      Or will you say that additional residential buildings are needed for families of sailors? So after all, residential buildings are still needed - it does not matter who the officers are by profession: whether they are sailors or tankmen, infantrymen or pilots, rocket-men or builders. The only question is whether we want to have a tiny and cheap army, or an army worthy of Russia.
      1. geniy
        geniy 1 May 2018 12: 48
        +3
        And here is such a nuance. Ships are fundamentally different from infantry weapons - machine guns, machine guns and heavy weapons - guns, tanks, and even aircraft. The fact is that all infantry, all tanks and guns are located almost all on the land territory of any country. These troops and weapons are of course compared in strength by both amateurs and professionals. But in peacetime, they almost have no chance to face off against the armed forces of other countries. But the fleet, in principle, is able to walk across all the seas and oceans of the globe, and meet there with the ships of all other countries, that is, to meet - this is not in the sense of a friendly greeting - but in the sense of competition.
        If you recall, some American destroyer brazenly crossed the course of the Russian ship - it seems the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov or Peter the Great. But why don't Russians do that? Indeed, even the simple escort of American ship groups by our ships or especially nuclear submarines creates an implicit threat to them, that is, as if a desire to measure their strength. But land tanks, guns and aircraft do not have the possibility of close contact with foreign counterparts. And therefore, it is advisable for Russia to have a fleet that is comparable in strength to, for example, the American one. And if one of you says that Russia has a small intestine, then I will remind you that with skillful management a weaker fleet can defeat a stronger one - for example, Admiral Ushakov almost always beat an enemy twice or three times stronger than him. And if, for example, the American fleet forty years ago had a total displacement of about 4,5 million tons, and the Soviet fleet had a displacement of about 2,6 million tons: it would seem much less, but if the Soviet fleet had about 1500 large and small ships, then Americans seem 600. But the combat survivability of ships does not depend directly on their displacement. There are several battleships and battleships that have sunk from hitting only one torpedo. And there are also a lot of huge passenger liners from one torpedo: “Lusitania”, “Britannik” (with a displacement of about 60 tons), “Armenia”, “Gustlof” (from only 000 torpedoes), while some lousy tug sometimes survived the explosions of two mines or torpedoes and remained afloat. For example, a sea hunter of the Mo-3 type with a displacement of only 4 tons - from the explosions of two mines or torpedoes the bow and stern were torn off, but he still remained afloat.
      2. Tired
        Tired 1 May 2018 13: 05
        +2
        You did not answer the question: where to take all this good money? Whether we want it or not, it has nothing to do with the economy. One repair of "Admiral Kuznetsov" borrowed cost 65 billion rubles. Now imagine how much it will cost at least one whole new aircraft carrier cruiser. Not even counting other related costs.
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 24
        +1
        the base is not a bay, there are still piers, warehouses, shipyards, railroad terminals .... well, of course, half the cost is not counting bases, it’s only 8 lard dollars (especially health and education of the country combined), for you it's seeds , and give them to the country, remove from the passbook, and I believe that if you do not skimp on anything, it’s on the right, that is, the nuclear submarine of the Strategic Missile Forces, VKS, SV, VDV
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 12: 55
      +3
      Quote: Tired
      If the author offers Russia to build aircraft carriers, then he must understand that numerous aircraft carrier groups are attached to the aircraft carriers that protect this, worth the rage billions of dead raccoons, luxury from all sorts of misfortunes.

      Not. These aircraft carriers enhance the capabilities of the surface and submarine ships available in the fleet, providing them with significantly greater combat stability
  36. demiurg
    demiurg 1 May 2018 12: 22
    +6
    Do you say an aircraft carrier is needed to oppress distant enemies?
    Even the United States with its vast experience, more than one major operation was not carried out only by aircraft carriers. Yes, the decks bombed everything from Yugoslavia to Libya. BUT only after the SLCMs, strategists and ground aviation were rustling there. The assets of aircraft carriers are only raider operations such as the indicative flogging of Libya in the 80 shaggy year, and even there the f-111 ground flashed, and the decks only fought on the ground. There are no examples in history when an aircraft carrier could support at least six months an intensity of 50-100 sorties per day. So do not dream, an aircraft carrier will never replace a ground airfield. Ganships and drones do not fly with aircraft carriers yet.

    Strange as it may seem, Russia still needs an aircraft carrier. And not one. In the Far East and in the North + replacement, that is, 3-4 pieces. But now the fleet has some problems. In fact, in 10 years we will have units of ships of the first and second rank. Ash-trees are built, but they are few, and pikes and loaves are not eternal. The project of the next post-Varshavianka project of DEPL (NPL) is limping on both legs. So far, neither modernization of the (mass) Tu-22m or its replacement is visible. We rejoice in the introduction of each new corvette. There are still no turbines for frigates and destroyers.

    Now it would be very good to dream of a series of Lad, 22350, or at least a large series of 11356, and a really large series of simplified Guards, an inexpensive universal submarine nuclear submarine that could become a mass substitute for retiring Cold War soldiers. By the way, I don’t even mention landing ships, although it’s easiest to stamp them. And only after that it is already perplexing as to which aircraft carrier Russia will need, because while the whole lot of ships that I mentioned are stamped, the tasks and, accordingly, the appearance of the aircraft carrier can radically change.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 12: 57
      +1
      Quote: demiurg
      There are no examples in history when an aircraft carrier could support at least six months the intensity of 50-100 sorties per day

      (heavy sigh) - during a desert storm, deck aircraft were used with exactly the same intensity as the Air Force.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 1 May 2018 13: 08
        +3
        (Tiredly looking up to the sky)
        We continue our suddenly interrupted conversation.
        The first couple of weeks, the percentage of departures from aircraft carriers did not reach 20%. This has been discussed more than once. The reason is technics and grenades of the wrong system. Not carrier-based aviation, but the attacks of helicopters, Kyrgyz Republic, and ground aviation disabled most of Iraq’s air defense. Even if this is not taken into account, more than one aircraft carrier did not work for six months with an intensity of 75 sorties a day for at least four months. Guided weapons who highlighted targets on the ground?
        Okay, I’ll ask a simpler question. What did the decks do that ground-based aircraft could not do? Needles patrolled and defended the captured territory.
        Something I do not recall the interceptions performed by the hornets. Oh yes, this is a fighter / attack aircraft.
        Why then f-16 someone shot down?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 13: 34
          +1
          Quote: demiurg
          The first couple of weeks, the percentage of departures from aircraft carriers did not reach 20%

          20% of what? :))))))
          There is a fact - dividing the number of sorties by the number of planes, we see that the number of departures on the 1 deck aircraft is no less than on the 1 land. What do you have to object to this fact?
          Quote: demiurg
          Not the carrier-based aviation, but the attacks of helicopters, Kyrgyz Republic, ground aviation disabled most of Iraq’s air defense

          But what, should it have been otherwise? Given the concentration of the air force that they got there? :)
          No one has ever said that carrier-based aviation is able to solve all the tasks of the Air Force in their place - there are fewer deckers. The point is that deck aircraft in general are no worse at handling them.
          Quote: demiurg
          Okay, I’ll ask a simpler question. What did the decks do that ground-based aircraft could not do?

          Ensured the striking of US stratobombs against Iraq from the sea. And what could land aircraft do that decks could not do?
          Quote: demiurg
          Something I don’t remember interceptions performed by hornets

          Two MiG-21, both interceptions made without interruption from the main task. That is, the hornets flew to bomb, at that moment Iraqi planes were discovered, the hornets shot them down and continued to complete the mission. By the way, this is the first time in history :)))
          1. demiurg
            demiurg 1 May 2018 13: 55
            +4
            1. 20% of the total number of departures, and at the hottest moment. Do not find fault with the words.
            2. Well, where is the dire need then for aircraft carriers? Maybe we just don’t have enough bases in the right places, and in disputes there is a substitution of soft with warm?
            3. And here in more detail. Needles could not cover?
            4. Freaky argument. Still An-2 would be shot down. There were 200-250 pieces of these hornets. For six months, two MiG-21s were shot down.

            Andrey, I understand the need for aircraft carriers. They are needed, but not now. Now the fleet has slightly different problems. You will not argue that the MiG-29KUB !! is planned !! equipping an aircraft carrier is far from a fountain even today. You can also recall the AWACS and electronic warfare, without which the construction of an aircraft carrier does not make sense, and there are not even projects for them, and there is not even a promising carrier for them. Erzatsi in helicopters are ersatzians.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 14: 55
              +1
              Quote: demiurg
              20% of the total number of departures, and at the hottest moment. Do not carp at the words

              I did not start. I really did not understand what you mean. As for 20% of departures, I want to remind you that the number of carrier-based aviation at the beginning of the conflict was approximately 23,5% of the total number of aircraft operating from land airports. And what do you see the problem in? :)))
              Quote: demiurg
              Well, where is the terrible need for aircraft carriers then?

              In the sea, in the ocean.
              Quote: demiurg
              Maybe we just don’t have enough bases in the right places, and in disputes there is a change of soft with warm?

              Maybe not enough. Costs on 800 American bases we will consider? Given the fact that without aircraft carriers and KUCHI allies, they still could not do even against Iraq?
              Quote: demiurg
              And here is more detailed. Needles could not cover?

              Of course not, look at the map
              Quote: demiurg
              Freaky argument. Still An-2 would be shot down. There were 200-250 pieces of these hornets. For six months, shot down two MiG-21.

              The argument is that Iraq simply did not conduct any serious air battles, with the exception of just a few attacks on the MNF aircraft. And the main losses of the Iraqi Air Force suffered either on the ground or when the Iraqi planes were flown to Iran, therefore, to talk about some sort of interceptions and to compare different types of coalition planes on this parameter - generally on the other side of good and evil.
              1. demiurg
                demiurg 1 May 2018 15: 33
                +2
                Andrei, honestly, what is more important for Russia now, a series of frigates, corvettes and diesel-electric submarines or an aircraft carrier?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 16: 23
                  +3
                  Quote: demiurg
                  Andrei, honestly, what is more important for Russia now, a series of frigates, corvettes and diesel-electric submarines or an aircraft carrier?

                  Lord, what does the aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy have to do with it? :))) I challenged your rather local thesis regarding the capabilities of carrier-based and land aviation, nothing more :)))
                  As for AB, for us, I have some thoughts on this subject, I will outline them soon (I hope to write this week to get on the main next). And so - today nuclear submarines, minesweepers and naval aviation are very important for us, but since we want to be in the ocean - then a series of destroyers based on Gorshkov - well, you heard 22350M in 8000 tons.
                  1. demiurg
                    demiurg 1 May 2018 16: 59
                    +2
                    The role of an aircraft carrier in taming the rebellious is greatly exaggerated. Yes, he can quickly get close and do the wrong to the enemy. But for Russia, I do not see such opponents. Some Zimbabwe can drive into the Stone Age and Ash by setting up fireworks from the Caliber. It’s also not cheap, to put it mildly, but it is available.
                    Andrey, I’m not against an aircraft carrier. But right now, its construction will be a waste of money. There will be a full-fledged wing for him and an order from new frigates, I’m all for it. By the way, what about the minesweepers? It seems to be built slowly.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 18: 53
                      +1
                      Quote: demiurg
                      But for Russia, I do not see such opponents. Some Zimbabwe can drive into the Stone Age and Ash with fireworks from Caliber.

                      The answer is simple - Hmeimim air base. As you can see, the caliber is not enough
                      Quote: demiurg
                      Andrey, I’m not against an aircraft carrier. But right now its construction will be a waste of money.

                      Normal project of the Crimean bridge level and much cheaper than the World Cup
                      1. demiurg
                        demiurg 1 May 2018 19: 34
                        0
                        We stop the argument to the next topic about aircraft carriers.
                        If not difficult, write about Gromoboy and Russia in the Baltic, and in general these are very beautiful ships. Yes, about the meeting of Rurik and Emden. And then with some sort of left-hand book I know that the poor fellow was enough for the light cruiser to have two volleys, and the details end there.
                        And if I lay down the stars evenly, I give birth to the idea of ​​aircraft carriers, it may be interesting to debate.
                      2. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 2 May 2018 17: 04
                        +2
                        not at all Andrey You are wrong "they spend $ 2,9 billion on the construction of the road and railway bridge structures themselves," this is far from $ 15 billion for AV ..... "The cost of the Krasnodar FC stadium will be no more than 20 billion rubles" , multiply by a few pieces, all the same, one third of the AB will not work, AB cost is for example the cost of a trans-Siberian railway, imagine how much the trans-Siberian railway gives and how many losses will be from AV
                  2. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 29
                    0
                    Andrei began to state logically, only destroyers are not needed, just potting, or just upgrade 1155, but about AB I agree, they are not needed, bravo truth and logic triumphed!
  37. EvilLion
    EvilLion 1 May 2018 12: 29
    +4
    As Kaptsov very accurately said, if they are not waiting for us somewhere, then there is nothing for us to do there. And if they are waiting, then they will provide both bases and kerosene. When a hunt lives, you will begin to love even Russians. Moreover, Russia in Syria has not only a regiment of airplanes, but also a mass of special forces, military advisers, military police units, and all actions on land are carried out by the Syrian army. Without this, the presence of an air wing would have lost its meaning, and it is precisely because of the low level of combat capability of the Syrian army that we have been sitting there for 2.5 years, and apparently, 50-60% progress, although it may be more, we will be picking it for a long time to come. It would have been dispersed for a long time, having sent, as in that anecdote of 20, thousand eggs in tarpaulin boots. Well, not 20, so 100 thousand. But the Syrians themselves are to blame for what is happening, and they also have to climb under the bullets.

    So gentlemen, masturbators for aircraft carriers, you would first think about what tasks you are going to solve with the help of 1-2 regiments, and who will do all the dirty work if you not only want to bomb, but really control something, for which there’s always you need a huge amount of manpower.
  38. Denimax
    Denimax 1 May 2018 12: 35
    +2
    I did not understand how to save the hostages with the help of an aircraft carrier.
  39. flicker
    flicker 1 May 2018 12: 43
    +2
    Does Russia need aircraft carriers? Syrian angle
    What are aircraft carriers? These are mobile (floating) airfields. Question: Does Russia need mobile airfields? Answer: come in handy. laughing
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 1 May 2018 21: 31
      +2
      would a bentley come in handy? so why don’t you have it?
      1. flicker
        flicker 2 May 2018 09: 57
        +1
        good why do I need a bentley without an aircraft carrier? laughing
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 2 May 2018 16: 57
          0
          why do you need AB? am
          1. flicker
            flicker 2 May 2018 17: 52
            0
            What do you mean why? To protect the bentley. And why else AB? laughing
  40. demiurg
    demiurg 1 May 2018 12: 57
    +4
    Quote: geniy
    Yes, and aircraft based on an aircraft carrier themselves are also not cheap And for all this, in the opinion of unskilled people, it adds a large amount to the cost of the aircraft carrier itself.
    But if we begin to understand, then everything will be much better. If you take an aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 90 thousand tons, then all escort ships in total will barely reach half its displacement (and warships cost much less than supply vessels). And the cost of ships in a first approximation is proportional to their displacement, that is, the cost of escort ships can be approximately equal to half the cost of an aircraft carrier - in fact, not such a big addition. And even more so when you consider that these escort ships are not useless ships for the fleet at all, but at a certain moment they can deliver a strong blow to the enemy.

    I will correct it. A normal destroyer, level 45 of a project or a burke costs 2-3 times cheaper than an empty one, without an aircraft carrier. The price of a supply ship against the background of the price of a destroyer or a nuclear submarine is a penny.

    There is such a principle, reasonable sufficiency. An aircraft carrier is needed, but its need is not critical. But the lack of network centric and fifth-generation aircraft in the troops is very critical. Now, in need, even from the shore there is really nothing to cover the deployment of strategic missile carriers. What remains is not even trying to work out the deployment in crisis conditions. An aircraft carrier even if it is built there is no escort warrant. Rather, there is now, but by the time it is built, there will be 1-2 ships in the security order.
  41. kig
    kig 1 May 2018 13: 00
    +4
    For some reason, supporters of aircraft carriers forget that an “aircraft carrier” is not only a ship. These are technologies that are shoved into it. Do we have a steam catapult? Not to mention the electromagnetic? No. Do we have aircraft for an aircraft carrier? Theoretically, yes, almost not very visible. Do we have pilots for these aircraft? Theoretically, there are, practically they can be counted on the fingers. Do we have ships that form the ACG? There are no such. Do we have a port infrastructure that allows us to keep an aircraft carrier in good technical condition? I doubt it very much. And finally, do we have a factory where we can build a ship of this size? sure. these are all solvable questions, the answers to which depend on a volitional decision; you yourself know whom. But in the end - isn’t it better to build a couple of Boreevs for this money?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2018 17: 32
      +1
      Quote: kig
      Do we have a steam catapult?

      Yes
      Quote: kig
      Not to mention the electromagnetic?

      In general, work was curtailed on it when it was in a very high stage of readiness. In essence, it was assumed that Ulyanovsk would no longer receive steam, but electromagnetic
      Quote: kig
      Do we have aircraft for an aircraft carrier? Theoretically, yes, almost not very visible.

      You do not see the MiG-29KR? Hmm ... what does the optometrist say about this? I have -4,5, and I see :)))
      Quote: kig
      Do we have ships that form the AUG?

      We have 2 fleets, the presence of AB on any of them will qualitatively strengthen the ship’s composition there
      1. kig
        kig 2 May 2018 01: 54
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You do not see the MiG-29KR

        20 pieces for the whole country do not do weather, especially since the air group must be balanced.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the presence of AB on any of them will qualitatively enhance the ship’s composition there

        Yeah, and for decades they will slow down the development of these very fleets ... money, damn it
  42. nikvic46
    nikvic46 1 May 2018 13: 01
    +2
    I don’t want to hear that Russia is a land power. Yes, and Peter the Great would roll over in the grave if he heard this.
    have changed, but Russia needs to maintain a reliable fleet. It's about whether Russia needs an aircraft carrier. I will ask military experts a question. Would they use their power against the American aircraft carriers that attacked
    in Syria? I foresee a negative answer. For the entire time of the Cold War, aircraft carriers were not hit, although with them
    planes took off and bombed Laos, Vietnam. And the Soviet country could well strike at aircraft carriers. The consequences were well thought out. That would be the beginning of the war. No matter how seditious it sounds, the aircraft carrier is the guarantor of peace.
    you need a fleet of missile-bearing, aircraft-carrier, underwater. But all this will be the "fifth wheel in the cart" if the space industry with all its attributes is not developed. If there is no money for this, then politicians with diplomats will earn money. I don’t have to learn what to build on politics.
  43. lazy
    lazy 1 May 2018 13: 02
    +2
    from the beginning to decide which one? one large atomic or 2 small types of escort. and, of course, Iran is needed in the same Syria, let’s say, and NATO countries did not give permission to fly military aircraft, or the barmalei would be at a distance of shelling of all Syrian airfields. I don’t remember what country the evacuation of Russian and Chinese citizens from, we had to wait for permission to fly planes from the Arabs, China introduced a warship to the port. To protect interests anywhere in the world, aircraft carriers are needed. not a lot, but at least one in the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet.
  44. Vladimir Kazakov
    Vladimir Kazakov 1 May 2018 13: 32
    +3
    It is not necessary - the issue is not relevant. It is necessary.
    But this question is in the plane of technical feasibility and financial costs. There is neither one nor the other now. Secondly, it is simply naive to consider the construction of the ship itself - an aircraft carrier needs an appropriate supply base, with all the developed transport system and logistics. Thirdly, we must not forget about the training of personnel for an aircraft carrier, these are also yards of rubles. Four, we do not have ships to support, and ships to create AUG. We don’t have them at all. Just for example, the AUG of the Americans is protected by 3-5 Berkov. We simply do not have ships that will be comparable to berks. And given that we cannot replace the 4th year of a gas turbine engine with 22350, the creation of new types of ships is simply an adventure.
    If the aircraft carrier itself can be ordered in China (conditionally), then everything else must be created by us, and this is the cost of another aircraft carrier, if not two or three.
    This is to say that we do not need an aircraft carrier, but a development program for the aircraft carrier fleet for 20-30 years, in which everything will be laid down - the aircraft carrier itself, escort and support ships, the Navy base, the shipyard with a dry dock, and staff training. Even 30 years are not enough. If one aircraft carrier is estimated at 200-300 yards, then all the necessary infrastructure is another 300 yards. That is why keeping ground bases cheaper, and developing quick reaction troops and BTA cheaper.
  45. Dashing
    Dashing 1 May 2018 13: 52
    +4
    Aircraft carrier is an attacking weapon. But we do not want to attack anyone at long distances and capture other territories. His would be to keep. The author discusses aircraft carriers in the realities of barrel artillery, i.e. in the "outfits" of past wars. Now more relevant are nuclear submarines, tectonic, atmospheric weapons, etc. Yes, and this expensive thing is floating airfields. Not with our leaky economy to discuss such projects.
    1. asv363
      asv363 1 May 2018 18: 31
      +2
      Dashing, are you seriously writing about tectonic and atmospheric weapons?
      1. Dashing
        Dashing 2 May 2018 08: 25
        +1
        Teasing, of course. But, after all, historical is the fact of the proposal of the still young academician Andrei Sakharov to launch a nuclear torpedo in a certain place on the US coast. According to his calculations, this would cause a tectonic catastrophe - an earthquake and tsunami, leading to millions of victims. The military were terrified. So there is a joke in every joke.
  46. Tomato
    Tomato 1 May 2018 14: 09
    +1
    Quote: max702
    In the 80s, it turned out that nuclear submarines were most effective against AOGs, and today with the growth of aviation, rocket science, satellite target designation and much more, AUGs are outdated as dreadnoughts, battleships, and battleships

    What interesting things you write. Tell me, but all the same, UAG is not used to protect. One side developed, the other stood still. All of the above does not apply in order to detect and destroy all the threats of UAG? Or engineers have only one cerebral hemisphere.
    When at least one aircraft carrier is destroyed, then your words will become gold. In the meantime ...
  47. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 1 May 2018 14: 14
    +1
    Quote: Norma
    Quote: 1536
    Well, swim in the Mediterranean Sea with the aim of "showing the flag", go to Singapore, check if it is true "banana-lemon", and that’s it.

    "Give me luxuries and I will do without the necessities." (from)


    No, not everything! We’ll leave you without a pension, but we won’t give a benefit to any disabled person!
  48. anlaskov
    anlaskov 1 May 2018 14: 27
    +3
    If we, like the Americans, do not want to scare the cannibals, then why do we need them? AND? We have a heap of our territory: do we have to master it, raise demographics, populate open spaces, and squeeze out all the rot from our territory, and then from the Eurasian continent?
    1. anlaskov
      anlaskov 1 May 2018 14: 29
      +1
      All liberals and cosmopolitans to the trash-let them take their suitcases and share: who is in the US and who is in the EU?
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 1 May 2018 15: 18
      0
      Quote: anlaskov
      We have a heap of our territory: we must master it, raise demographics, and populate open spaces

      In the 90s they said the same thing. How did you end up remembering?
  49. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 1 May 2018 14: 31
    +3
    I prefer 100 corvettes of 1000 tons each than Adyn Aircraft carrier per 100 thousand tons. Those who break it into the project are enemies of the people and Amer’s agents, pests of influence. Catch our amateurs in the Kremlin in expensive fanabery. In general, it is necessary to establish a check with the lie detector at the General Staff of the Navy. Some 30 years ago someone delays hydroaviation deliberately. Reveal the time to start!
  50. ilik54
    ilik54 1 May 2018 14: 36
    +3
    The military machine of Russia has become a high-tech system for destroying the enemy anywhere in the world, and all this happens without straining and with small forces. And aircraft carriers are yesterday, they will soon die like dinosaurs or like mammoths. And, indeed, why create such a miracle of technology with billions of investments if it can be destroyed by a dozen modern missiles? Russia is a land power that does not wage colonial wars, so let's create here and now weapons that will be a cut above in terms of technology and everything will be fine.
    There, the Americans, after the next blow of the Kyrgyz Republic to Syria, did not understand that their era with the AUG ended in Soviet times. In fact, aircraft carriers have always been used against an enemy with a low technological culture, in fact, against tribes with stone bows and stone arrows, well, at best, against small arms, and when they encounter an enemy equal to them or weapons superior to them in technological condition, here they are losing hard. Realization of the catastrophic failure came only to a few professionals and this is good - even if they are all in the happy ignorance of their frank weakness and worthlessness.