Military Review

Russian project "Storm". Supercarrier - a profitable investment?

109
In the distant future, the navy of Russia may receive an aircraft carrier built on a completely new project. Specific plans to this effect have not yet been formed, and the project for construction has not yet been selected. However, this does not prevent domestic and foreign experts from discussing an interesting topic, as well as making various predictions. An interesting analysis of the situation and prospects of the Russian aircraft carrier program presented the English-language online edition Military Watch.


The 7 April edition published the first part of a major article, “Russia's SHTORM Concept Design a Worthwhile Investment? How Moscow Would Deploy its Supercarrier ”(“ Russian project “Storm”: a profitable investment? How Moscow will build its supercarrier ”). It looked at past and present events. 4 May appeared the second part of the publication, the theme of which were the expected events of the foreseeable future and the prospects for a new Russian project.


Superavianosets "Ulyanovsk"


At the beginning of the first publication, Military Watch recalls the recent the news... Earlier, the Russian military indicated the possibility of building a new aircraft carrier according to a project from the Krylov State Research Center. As a result of the implementation of such plans, Russia will become the only country in the world, apart from the United States, capable of building and operating such large ships. The proposed project is said to be similar to a modernized version of the Ulyanovsk aircraft carrier, which was under construction in the late XNUMXs.

The publication recalls that in connection with the collapse of the USSR, the construction of Ulyanovsk was stopped, and the finished structures were later cut into metal. An unfinished ship could become the first aircraft carrier in the Soviet Union / Russia capable of operating in the ocean zone. In addition, it was just the second Soviet aircraft carrier project, on board of which aircraft could be based without vertical take-off and landing. The first project of this kind led to the appearance of the Admiral fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov. "

Currently, the Russian Navy has only one aircraft carrier. "Admiral Kuznetsov" has a displacement of less than 55 thousand tons and, according to Military Watch, is poorly suited for combat work in the oceans. In terms of its combat capabilities, it is noticeably inferior to the American ships of the Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford projects. American aircraft carriers carry almost twice as many planes and are capable of launching them about once a minute, while the Kuznetsov can provide one take-off in four minutes.


Supercarrier type "Nimitz"


Another advantage of the American ships lies in the presence of steam and electromagnetic catapults, which increases the allowable take-off mass of decked aircraft. Due to this, fighter-bombers can carry more fuel and weaponsand, in addition, the work of early warning radar E-2 Hawkeye is provided. Russian deck aviation has no analogues of the latter.

The only advantage of "Admiral Kuznetsov" over American aircraft carriers edition considers excellent anti-aircraft and anti-ship weapons. Due to this, the aircraft carrier is less dependent on the accompanying ships. In addition, there may be advantages in the characteristics and capabilities of deck aircraft. However, as noted by Military Watch, this is a merit of the aviation industry, but not of shipbuilding or the aircraft carrier itself.

The Russian aircraft carrier worked not so long ago off the coast of Syria, but at the same time lost two of its planes as a result of accidents. American ships of the type "Nimitz", in turn, proved to be more effective in the matter of projection of force in similar operations. However, the new Russian concept project "Storm" provides for obtaining similar opportunities. It combines the characteristics of older ships project Nimitz and the newest Gerald R. Ford. The Russian aircraft carrier of the future will receive electromagnetic catapults, allowing to improve the basic characteristics of the aircraft. A 330 deck on the 40 m and the ability to carry 80-90 planes will result in significant combat potential.


Concept project of the super storm "Storm"


The publication reminds that the USSR did not build a powerful carrier fleet. In addition, due to the peculiarities of the military doctrine, he rather late began the construction of a developed ocean group. The Soviet fleet focused on missile technology and submarines, and it made sense from an economic point of view. One aircraft carrier cost as much as thousands of cruise missiles — and even a hundred of such items could guaranteed to sink an enemy aircraft carrier at long range. Progress in the field of anti-ship armaments has led to the fact that only one modern missile is capable of destroying the supercarrier with a displacement of 100 thousand tons. The aircraft carriers are still vulnerable to missiles. Unlike them, submarines, being a convenient means of projecting force, are more tenacious.

Carriers are unlikely to be the main weapon in a major war, but the United States doctrine is not without advantages. Ships with aircraft on board symbolize the military power of the country, and in addition, they are a convenient means of dealing with opponents with limited capabilities. Near the shores of Russia, China or North Korea - within the reach of coastal missile systems - aircraft carriers are really exposed to serious risks. However, they showed themselves well in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and in the fight against Middle Eastern terrorists. Finally, aircraft carriers are a convenient means of controlling ocean trade routes away from the enemy’s shores.

Military Watch believes that countries with great military power should always be ready to clash with each other. At the same time, they should not forget about the possibility of entry into minor conflicts. The last major war involving powerful powers was in 1953, and local conflicts occur regularly. As a result, opportunities in the context of small wars may be of strategic importance. Russian submarines are the best way to fight the US Navy and Army, while supercarriers are more convenient to fight terrorists, for example, in the Middle East, as well as to project force in any part of the World Ocean.


Su-57 - fifth generation air superiority fighters


A Russian supercarrier can make friendly visits to the ports of Southeast Asia or visit Latin American countries that have strained relations with the United States. Concluding the first part of his article, Military Watch notes that the political consequences of such actions and their influence on the country's prestige should not be underestimated.

* * *

The second part of the article “Russia's SHTORM Concept Design a Worth while Investment? How Moscow Would Deploy its Supercarrier ”, published a few days ago, is dedicated directly to the promising Storm project and related issues in the context of its future service.

At the beginning of the second part, it is noted that the Storm-type aircraft carrier can really be very useful, since it will give Russia a number of new opportunities. However, its construction may be associated with some problems that cast doubt on the whole program. First of all, doubts of foreign authors are connected with the cost of works. The aircraft carrier is expensive in and of itself, and a large aviation group additionally increases the cost of construction and operation.


Light deck fighter MiG-29K


As far as we know, in the future, Russia does not plan to abandon fighter aircraft to achieve superiority in the air, which is a response to the composition of air groups of foreign ships. At the same time, the new Storm will not have to use Su-33 fighters, which form the basis of the Admiral Kuznetsov aviation. Instead, the ship will receive newer MiG-29K multi-role fighters already in service. In addition, the appearance of the deck modification of the fifth-generation Su-57 fighter is possible.

A promising aircraft will cost about 100 million US dollars, not including development costs. However, thanks to him, "Storm" will be the only aircraft carrier in the world that ensures the work of the fighter to conquer the superiority of the fifth generation. As a result, the ship will receive significant advantages over any potential opponents. Military Watch recalls that the Pentagon planned to create a deck modification of its F-22 fighter, but then abandoned such a project. Thus, the United States will not have an analogue of the Russian deck Su-57.

If Russia really starts to build a new aircraft carrier, then the question of its service will become relevant. He probably will not be able to join the Black Sea Fleet. The Russian Ministry of Defense has repeatedly pointed out that this fleet is able to destroy any enemy forces in the region. In the Black Sea region, enemy ships are in the zone of action of coastal percussion systems, and therefore there are almost no tasks left for an aircraft carrier. In addition, the deployment of an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is hampered by current international agreements.

Russian project "Storm". Supercarrier - a profitable investment?
Chinese carrier-based fighter J-15


At the same time, the aircraft carrier may be useful to any of the three other Russian fleets. In their areas, the balance of power looks different, and the aircraft carrier is unlikely to remain without work. Also, the ship can carry the service at a distance from its base in certain regions.

To combat terrorists in Syria, as well as to reduce the potential of NATO in the region, the Russian fleet deployed ships in the Mediterranean. However, the "Admiral Kuznetsov" was poorly adapted to work at such a distance from the base. Prospective "Storm", in turn, will be able to show its advantages, as well as change the balance of power in the region. As a result, Russia will show its strength, and the critical ally in Damascus will receive the necessary support. Russia is strengthening ties with the countries of the Persian Gulf, and in the future, this region will also be able to become the target of another aircraft carrier march. In this case, the ship will also be a symbol of support for friendly countries.

Military Watch recalls that, according to open data, the project "Storm" provides for the operation of the ship at extreme temperatures, including in the Arctic. Now the Russian armed forces are building up their grouping in the Arctic and at the same time actually competing with the American and Canadian military. This reinforcement of army groupings is associated with the desire of several countries to obtain uniquely large natural resources of the region. The emergence in the Arctic of a new supercarrier with fifth-generation deck fighters will seriously change the balance of power. At the same time, American aircraft carriers are unlikely to be able to operate normally in northern latitudes.


Deck version of the F-22 fighter - a project that was never implemented


If the aircraft carrier Storm can really influence the situation in the Arctic and gain supremacy in the region’s airspace, then at the same time it will help Russia take control of the most important resources. As a result, the carrier program will fully justify the costs of its implementation.

The third place for the possible deployment of "Storm" edition of the Military Watch considers the Asia-Pacific region. In recent years, almost all new aircraft carriers of the world are sent to combat service there. China is now building its own carrier fleet and sends ships to the seas near its coast, solving defense tasks. At the same time, the United States, France and Japan are deploying their ships closer to China to demonstrate their strength and interest in the region.

In July, 2017, the UK promised to join such work. Its Secretary of Defense, Michael Fallon, said that immediately after the completion of construction and testing, two British aircraft carriers would fly to the Asia-Pacific region. Apparently, this promise will be fulfilled in the near future.


The hypothetical deck fighter based on the Su-57


Russia has its own interests in this region, and therefore is increasing its presence. Russian ships regularly come to the seas of the region, including to participate in joint exercises of the Russian and Chinese Navy. Appearing near Southeast Asia, a promising Russian supercarrier could shift the balance of power and reduce the influence of NATO or Japan.

The military budget of Russia is gradually reduced, and the load on it is growing. At the same time, as noted by Military Watch, a promising aircraft carrier of the Storm project can change the situation in any of the three regions of strategic importance. The combat and military-political consequences of his service may lead to the fact that the Russian project will interest foreign customers, and this will lead to the construction of ships for export. So, India can be considered a potential client of Russian shipbuilders. She has already acquired one aircraft carrier from Russia and is interested in increasing the number of such ships. In addition, the purchase of "Storm" may be beneficial to China, which is interested in copying technology or design solutions in order to develop its own shipbuilding program.

Also, the Chinese military may show interest in the deck modification of the Su-57 fighter. The adoption of such an aircraft will be a major breakthrough in comparison with the existing fleet vehicles such as J-15. However, for the time being it cannot be excluded that the Chinese industry is developing its own fifth-generation fighter. If “Storm” with deck Su-57 appears in the Pacific Ocean, then the results of such combat service can affect further decisions of China, and the contract for the supply of equipment will allow Russia to at least partially cover the costs of its development.

The second part of the voluminous article from the Military Watch ends with very optimistic conclusions. The authors believe that the largest costs of building a new Storm-type supercarrier will have to result in comparable strategic benefits. First of all, such trends will manifest themselves when a ship is deployed in the Arctic. The export potential of the project will also benefit. As a result, the benefits - both financial and military-political will more than cover all the costs of development, construction and operation. Thus, the construction program for the Storm aircraft carrier has a high potential and a great future.

Article “Russia's SHTORM Concept Design a Worth while Investment? How Moscow Would Deploy its Supercarrier »:
Part of 1: http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70145
Part of 2: http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70146
Author:
109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Soho
    Soho 10 May 2018 06: 22
    +25
    "in the distant future" ... "can get" ... "make predictions" ... - in psychology there is the term escapism, or the desire to leave reality in the world of illusions. So these mantras about some kind of probable hypothesis with aircraft carriers proudly plowing the seas and Akiyans very much look like this kind of disorder.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 10 May 2018 07: 03
      +12
      a long time ago they didn’t “rub the skin” on the empty issue ... smile
      1. astepanov
        astepanov 10 May 2018 11: 19
        +9
        Ha, the question is not empty at all. Of course, an aircraft carrier is needed, albeit not in vivo. I give an example: for an electromagnetic catapult, energy storage is needed. As such, it is proposed to use lithium-ion batteries - of course, from Liotech, the brainchild of Rusnano, which is driven by the popular favorite of Chubais. And nevermind that these batteries burn like candles (sorry, like rocket engines), that they have a much shorter service life, which are made from Chinese components. All the same, work will continue on the layout of catapults, Rusnano will receive its share of the dough, as well as a bunch of other offices. And the fact that in the end there will be no aircraft carrier anyway does not matter: the main thing is that the process goes on. And he will go, no matter how obvious the results are.
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 10 May 2018 12: 41
          +2
          Catapult ionistors are needed, not batteries
          1. ser56
            ser56 10 May 2018 14: 47
            0
            maybe better shock generators? bully
          2. Andrey1961
            Andrey1961 10 May 2018 17: 02
            0
            That bish capacitive batteries !!!
            1. ser56
              ser56 11 May 2018 12: 52
              0
              By no means, shock generators are a special type of electric generators that pulse huge power ... they have a specific energy reserve three orders of magnitude higher than that of capacitors ... bully
          3. astepanov
            astepanov 10 May 2018 18: 50
            0
            Quote: Cympak
            Catapult ionistors are needed, not batteries

            That's right, ionistors are needed - but not the ones with an organic electrolyte, imposed "from above." There are much more rational solutions.
    2. Nix1986
      Nix1986 10 May 2018 07: 48
      +6
      I agree, here is a clear example of the lack of a psychiatrist’s circumvention of his patients, the patient stopped taking drugs and immediately exacerbated.
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 10 May 2018 13: 05
        +3
        This is how to look. Exacerbation in a patient or doctor. Everything is relative
    3. gridasov
      gridasov 10 May 2018 11: 24
      +5
      A person cannot think in categories more than he is capable of. The driving force of the development of civilization is fantasy and illusion, adjusted to the level of a complex of scientific and technical capabilities of the period in which this fantasy is created. Psychology is not engineering and not applied mathematics and physics. Therefore, the illusion formed in the consciousness of an engineer and a scientist can radically differ from its assessment by a psychologist.
  2. Yak28
    Yak28 10 May 2018 06: 29
    +13
    Yes, we will not have aircraft carriers. In the USSR, large aircraft carriers like the US did not build, and even more so they will not build today. There is no experience and technology in the construction of such ships, all this will remain on paper, maximum projects and layouts. Let them build what they can and better in large numbers, and do not climb into the jungle of aircraft carriers
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 10 May 2018 11: 36
      +2
      Or maybe there will not be aircraft carriers built on the principle of the Americans, but there will be more integrated aircraft carriers, but at the same time bases for submarines and generally autonomous complexes for servicing weapons in remote areas. Whether we like it or not, we decided, after all, clever and perspicacious scientists and engineers at floating nuclear power plants. And their correctness will be confirmed by time. So, it will be necessary to consider the possibility of building more high-tech floating systems than the Americans, at least.
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 10 May 2018 12: 45
        +1
        Yeah, Admiral Vitya dreamed of a surface-underwater-air-space aircraft carrier. No result. It’s good that at least the admiral dreamer was replaced.
        The basis of the American aircraft carrier is an AWACS aircraft. And with a compact aircraft carrier trough, how will you launch AWACS? And how many planes can you lift into the air and for how long?
        1. gridasov
          gridasov 10 May 2018 13: 11
          +1
          Correctly ! On old or outdated physical principles this can not be done. But there are many abnormal physical phenomena that need to be carefully studied. For many years we have been considering fundamentally new technologies for organizing hydro-gas-dynamic flows in devices for their conversion. And no one is going to even consider them. And we will definitely not give them to anyone. At the same time, we can justifiably explain how and what works and what can be achieved by new methods. And so for decades we will save money on machine tools and then it is still unknown to whom these developments will fall into our hands.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2018 11: 54
      +4
      Quote: Yak28
      Large aircraft carriers like the American did not build in the USSR

      Ulyanovsk
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 May 2018 12: 30
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Ulyanovsk

        Yes, and “Kuznetsov” was, EMNIP, between the “Midway” and “Forrestal”.
    3. ser56
      ser56 10 May 2018 14: 47
      +2
      You are mistaken, in the USSR they built Ulyanovsk ...
    4. yehat
      yehat 10 May 2018 16: 56
      +5
      it's not about experience and not about technology - it can be developed or stolen,
      it's not even about the money. In the coming year, Avikov will not be for a girlfriend's reason - our industry is stupidly not ready for such work - neither in volume nor in composition.
      Remember how the Izmail series battleships were built - there were technologies, experience, and money on time, but no battleships were built.

      In addition to industry, aircraft carriers require a completely different level of service at the port.
      What is now is not good at all from the word.
      And finally, where to use them? There is not a single theater of operations where the aircraft carrier would be fully in demand.
    5. Alf
      Alf 10 May 2018 22: 52
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      No experience and technology in the construction of such ships

      But where to get them, if not in practice? If you talk like that, Armat didn’t have to build SU-57 either.
      1. Yak28
        Yak28 11 May 2018 06: 19
        0
        As the armata and su 57 will show themselves in a real battle, it is not yet known, and they were released from Gulkin’s nose and they still haven’t brought it to mind. And imagine how many years the aircraft carrier will have to build and bring to mind? In our realities, it’s probably about 100 years
        1. Alf
          Alf 11 May 2018 21: 48
          0
          So, it wasn’t worth building the T-14 with the SU-57?
          1. Yak28
            Yak28 12 May 2018 16: 51
            0
            Why it was worth it, the development of new technologies
    6. Yarhann
      Yarhann 12 May 2018 16: 19
      +1
      there are no technologies there that the Russian Federation does not use in modern karabest industry. All the most sophisticated technologies are already used on modern icebreakers, and these are nuclear power plants and turbines as movers. The only thing that they never used was a steam catapult; everything else is not a problem. The main problem is a dry dock of this size where you can assemble such a ship; it seems there isn’t but build docks for gas carriers - but they will be occupied for decades to come. That is, you need a dock. The ship itself is not a question at all.
      Questions begin with the formation of the aircraft carrier’s wing - you need a carrier-based AWACS - it doesn’t exist like a radar of this size and this is the main problem.
      The question is what capabilities AUG will have - if it is a universal AUG, then it is necessary to build a supercarrier in the type of American that can carry out any tasks assigned to it. If this is providing air cover during landing and etc. like a naval air base for ground grouping of troops, then in such an option UDC like Mistral is needed. For justice, it is worth noting that several UDCs are also included in the American AUG during the conduct of military expansion.
      In general, for the organization of a universal AUG it is not necessary to build a supercarrier part of the capabilities can be redistributed between AUG ships such as UDC frigates and nuclear submarines. That is, around the aircraft carrier such as Admiral Kuznetsov, you can completely build a modern universal AUG. Admiral Kuznetsov will exclusively carry out air defense missile defense and strike capabilities on land and water will be redistributed between the remaining ships of the warrant. The only thing necessary in any case is an AWACS aircraft - either manned or UAV.
      UDCs are now being built in all developed countries of the world in the Russian Federation; they also should have been, but not fate.
      So, in essence, the problem is only in the AWACS if we are talking about the full-fledged creation of a universal AUG and the filling of an order with all the necessary ships, that is, the UDC.
      If we also take the use of the AK aircraft carrier in Syria, then there would probably be more necessary UDC and AK to use exclusively to ensure air defense.
      Unfortunately, you won’t surprise anyone with the quantity in the modern world - that’s why you need an aircraft carrier as well as the same AK, UDC as Mistral and other ships are needed in the warrant, but naturally, for the full functioning of the AOG, you need eyes and ears, that is, an AWACS aircraft and technical intelligence .
      1. Ace Tambourine
        Ace Tambourine 17 May 2018 18: 14
        0
        The main thing is not even a dock for building this superwaffe ..
        It is much more stressful to create a base for its basing and maintenance, a berth, etc. infrastructure, because it will cost several times more than the monster itself.
        And these bases will need at least 3 !!!
        So consider what can be implemented instead of these projects ...
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor 10 May 2018 06: 58
    +7
    The author spent a lot of computer time on his PC, outlining platitudes, calculated on a teenage audience. Right now he’ll be marked! It’s already begun!
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 10 May 2018 07: 00
    +5
    At the same time, an aircraft carrier can be useful to any of the three other Russian fleets.

    I wonder, why in the Baltic is such a miracle why? We have only two options for using a hypothetical aircraft carrier: the Northern and Pacific fleets, moreover, the priority is probably the Northern Fleet.
    Yes, and discussions about what else even plainly in the project are not, at least premature.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 10 May 2018 12: 49
      +3
      And about the Baltic, a neighboring article follows about the heroic death of Baltic submariners in WWII. Everything is told there how it will be: the Gulf of Finland and the exit from the Kaliningrad base are thrown by mines and that's it: you can remove weapons from ships and start fighting on land.
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 10 May 2018 13: 39
        +2
        And I mean the same thing.
  5. Nix1986
    Nix1986 10 May 2018 07: 45
    +3
    I propose that you don’t trade so cheaply, still we are the largest country in the world, we are building the death star right away, we will appoint citizen Rogozin responsible for the project, and if we don’t have enough resources, then we don’t have patriots - why should they have 2 kidneys ?!
  6. geniy
    geniy 10 May 2018 07: 57
    +1
    Why does everyone think that an aircraft carrier can only be surface? Indeed, in principle, you can build an underwater aircraft carrier! If everyone thinks that the aircraft carrier must have planes on the upper deck, then this is a misconception. It's just that they are too lazy to constantly raise planes from the hangar and lower them back, but in principle the volume of the hangar on any aircraft carrier is designed to accommodate the full number of planes inside the hull. So, the fulfillment of this condition allows you to build underwater aircraft carriers.
    Moreover, the underwater aircraft carrier does not have to be built from scratch. The Russian Navy is now decommissioning and intending to cut into scrap several obsolete nuclear-powered submarine cruisers with ballistic missiles of project 667 BDR. But their fault is not at all that the ships are bad and supposedly cannot serve. It’s just that new submarines are being built for the Russian fleet, and by international agreement it is allowed to have only a strictly defined number of ballistic missile launchers. And everything beyond this amount must be destroyed. That is why the boats of project 667 BDR will be cut into scrap metal. And also because their rockets are liquid-fuel, using poisonous heptyl fuel. That is, such missiles are now completely unnecessary.
    But the hulls of boats and their reactors with turbines could still serve!
    In order to build a submarine nuclear carrier, it is enough to take two submarines of project 667 BDR, cut cylindrical mines of ballistic missiles from them, put two hulls side by side and connect them with intermediate structures - you get a submarine - a catamaran - the same as the Shark project " And in place of the carved rocket mines put light decks for storing aircraft with fully folded wings. And then you get a nuclear submarine - a catamaran aircraft carrier. And the Shark project can also be redone in the same way, and it will turn out much faster and cheaper than building an aircraft carrier from scratch.
    1. Soho
      Soho 10 May 2018 08: 20
      +2
      ha-ha-ha, it's funny laughing
      and what will take off will be from this catamaran? "Aircraft with
      "fully folded wings"

      which ones? We do not have combat VTOL aircraft, and for a shortened take-off and landing, a runway with all the mechanization is required. And where did you foresee it in your megaproject? And how will your flight management operations be carried out? By what means? on the principle of "shot-forgot" artillery? And who will cover this catamaran until the return of the squadrons from the BZ?)))
      belay
    2. seos
      seos 10 May 2018 10: 13
      +6
      Cruise missiles are capable of replacing aircraft with an aircraft carrier .... for this, we don’t need to block all kinds of submarine aircraft carriers .... we already have missile carriers ...
      Aircraft carrier - a tool for colonial wars with underdeveloped Papuans ....
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 May 2018 11: 12
        +2
        Quote: seos
        Cruise missiles can replace aircraft with an aircraft carrier ....

        In the future, airplanes will replace shock UAVs. As for Storm, the project of a Russian full-fledged aircraft carrier is a question, at least well for the 30s, if a decision is made on the construction. On this, I think, talk about the aircraft carrier for our fleets so far can be closed.
        1. Alf
          Alf 10 May 2018 22: 57
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          In the future, airplanes will replace shock UAVs.

          In the 60s they talked about the dying of aviation and its complete replacement with missiles.
      2. gridasov
        gridasov 10 May 2018 13: 19
        0
        Sorry, an aircraft carrier is a sovereign territory anywhere in the world. In addition, an aircraft carrier is only an aircraft carrier so far, but it’s worth talking about a high-tech life support and energy supply system, as well as the ability to be protected with combat equipment and perform a range of tasks. There can be many such tasks. Moreover, such systems are extremely important for combining in the future autonomous underwater structures with terrestrial ones.
    3. ser56
      ser56 10 May 2018 14: 51
      +2
      the ease of thought you have is extraordinary .... if it's not a secret - you have experience in designing not even ships, but any working device ... bully
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 10 May 2018 18: 35
        0
        You see, but modern technologies for designing and creating complex systems in the form of ships and others have a complex of dependencies in which it is necessary to solve the problems of strength, delivery of various energy carriers, solve the problems of dimensional compatibility, etc. But the logic with duality is the basis of all these solutions. Therefore, developers can not consider the principles of the implementation of many decisions by various devices as multifunctionality and compatibility. Therefore, you are right that I am not a designer or manufacturer. But to build a dynamic mathematical model of the transition of the laminar process into a turbulent one, I think I can continue. It is easier for me to analyze hyper-speed flights and the transformation of the interaction of the external environment with the aircraft hull than to understand why you call super-modern ships and submarines driven by primitively imperfect propellers.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 11 May 2018 21: 39
          +1
          dynamic mat model of the transition from laminar to turbulent ...... there is no model, with an increase in the flow rate it goes to turbulence, it’s just like a stove and most importantly nobody needs it ... but to create a working system capable of performing specific tasks is better than analogous enemy systems do .... this is useful, for example, create a stove with increased efficiency, .. and even better, analyze the task in such a way that it can be performed by other means safer, more efficient and cheaper .... for example, instead of making a dumb and dumb vulnerable and dor Gogo AB, just make neskoltko secretive, nedrogih safe for the crew, and dangerous for the enemy submarines .... That is the task and the path to victory ..... Russia AB does not need Russia has no colonies,
          1. gridasov
            gridasov 12 May 2018 10: 00
            0
            I will not agree! The future consists in the development of more highly dynamic physical processes and devices that operate and are in such a state. Hyper-speeds, ultra-high maneuverability with a complex of changed parameters of the vector and potential, large amounts of information are only a few of those issues that have to be addressed. The transition from laminarity to turbulence is also the transition from turbulence to sonoluminescence. These are plasma states at the boundaries of expiration and interaction. Therefore, the creation of the surfaces of airplanes, missiles, submarines and ships that interact with an elastic medium is an extremely important aspect. It is impossible to infinitely harden the surface of an aircraft or rockets moving at hyper speed, but you can use technologies that will distribute the potential from the surface of the outflow in such a way that the surface itself will self-sustain in a stable state of interactions. By the way, the information in its large volumes of transformation and movement also has signs and laws of physical processes. This means that to know and understand when information becomes destructive in its effect on the human mind - this weapon can be worse than bombs and planes. But everything has its place. Therefore, everything in the world has its own transformation and transformation algorithms. And to know the mathematics of these laws means to be able to create methods of use.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 12 May 2018 15: 06
              +1
              these are all general considerations,
    4. Alf
      Alf 10 May 2018 22: 56
      +1
      Quote: geniy
      In order to build a submarine nuclear carrier, it is enough to take two submarines of project 667 BDR, cut cylindrical mines of ballistic missiles from them, put two hulls side by side and connect them with intermediate structures - you get a submarine - a catamaran - the same as the Shark project " And in place of the carved rocket mines put light decks for storing aircraft with fully folded wings. And then you get a nuclear submarine - a catamaran aircraft carrier.

      And how many planes will fit there? 2? 3?
      Himself is not funny? You have already proposed submarines that can crawl ashore.
    5. Yarhann
      Yarhann 12 May 2018 16: 54
      -1
      complete crap underwater aircraft carrier this is utopia. the multifunctional nuclear submarine can do the entire shock, for this it needs to have one means - target designation means - and the rest will be done by the KR, anti-ship missiles, you can also shoot down planes and so on - the only question is target designation. That is, you need an AWACS aircraft and other reconnaissance equipment that will be in the air. Naturally, such a complex will be a means of destroying expensive and high-tech means of attack in view of the high cost of the WTO on board, but the range of goals with which it can be fought is very wide.
      A classic aircraft carrier with simple multifunctional hawks is good because it is capable of using Deshman weapons that can destroy cheap targets such as two-legged with small arms, light armored vehicles, tanks and all sorts of other carts, that is, targets for which it is expensive to use the WTO.
  7. tchoni
    tchoni 10 May 2018 09: 02
    +6
    Ryabov Cyril did not smoke again in the morning.
    And from that he wrote again,
    What a horse saw in a vacuum!
    And that was a round horse!
    Between the stars flew like an arrow!
    It remains to find out the question:
    "Why did he carry all this crap on the pages of VO!"
  8. Larum
    Larum 10 May 2018 10: 27
    +6
    1) there is no money for an aircraft carrier 2) 1n an aircraft carrier does not solve anything - it’s just a floating warehouse — an aerodrome, he needs a bunch of escort / guard ships, of which there aren’t 3) the projections presented - like light / squadron carriers - then they are narrow, inconsistent and inconvenient for quick launch.
    So all this bullshit for the crowd.
    1. jmndslthr
      jmndslthr 17 May 2018 19: 33
      0
      on the Northern Fleet ... there, of course, the NSR is freed from ice, but isn't the AUG patrol area under the overlapping radius of action of coastal missiles and aircraft, which have long had indications of prolonged supersonic sound. and aviation KR for a long time in hundreds of km radius. to cover boats in the North Atlantic .. and who will cover this AUG from the blow from all sides? somehow we did not have the Papuans to drive them without losses with the help of the AUG, extorting money from them for the maintenance of these same AUG
  9. Curious
    Curious 10 May 2018 10: 38
    +4
    "Shaw, again?" How much can this process characteristic of the pubertal period be repeated?
  10. garri-lin
    garri-lin 10 May 2018 11: 02
    +1
    Aircraft carrier needed. And not one. BUT he is in line LAST. We update the mosquito. Then reanimate the ocean. And only then aircraft carriers. As a component of the ocean. A question of decades. A few dozen. In the meantime, let them warm up. Drawings mastery for true is born in a dispute.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 May 2018 11: 55
      +2
      Quote: garri-lin
      A question of decades.

      For which the practice of using carrier-based aircraft will be completely forgotten
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 10 May 2018 15: 15
        +1
        Well, that's why Kuzey is engaged in necrophilia, so that at least some experience remains.
      2. jmndslthr
        jmndslthr 17 May 2018 19: 35
        0
        with dronovodstvom, already ordinary aircraft under some question is not like deck, which should be replaced first of all, in view of the monstrous percentage of losses even in peacetime.
  11. Gene Concrete
    Gene Concrete 10 May 2018 11: 11
    +4
    "Visiting a fairy tale"
  12. Livonetc
    Livonetc 10 May 2018 11: 30
    +2
    Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier in the Arctic?
    such trends will manifest themselves when deploying a ship in the Arctic
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 May 2018 13: 12
      +3
      Quote: Livonetc
      Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier in the Arctic?

      And because the main theater of operations for our AB is there, on the SF. And the main task is the air defense of our ship groups, covering the positional areas of the SSBN. From the coast, this air defense is not even theoretically provided - because the right flank of the "bastion" is 600 km from the nearest airfield.
  13. gridasov
    gridasov 10 May 2018 11: 50
    +3
    In my opinion, even if it is not possible to build an aircraft carrier, you still need to consider the possibility of creating such an integrated and high-tech system as an aircraft carrier. At the same time, think over and optimize all processes from energy supply to all those that can be encountered in autonomous navigation.
    Pessimists and alarmists should not be taken into account. These are people with whom the future cannot be built. But you have to look for solutions and technologies. We absolutely justifiably understand that, for example, our methods of converting a hydro-gas-dynamic medium will allow us not only to create new propulsors, but also increase the speed and maneuverability of massive surface ships, but they will also change all the principles of operation of pumps, compressors, water supply and sewage treatment, but they can also to allow the take-off of aircraft not on the principles of accelerating catapults, but by creating aerodynamic systems delivering flows with high kinetic energy to the aircraft at any location. That is, simply by feeding a stream of air flow to “shoot” the planes from their parking.
    1. NN52
      NN52 10 May 2018 13: 17
      +3
      gridasov

      Regarding the supplying air flows ... Do you propose to create lift on a standing airplane on deck? Did I understand correctly? And shooting horizontally or vertically?
      And what amount of overload will affect the pilot? Or will everything be in your way on an UAV with AI replaced?
      Not too bold statement?
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 10 May 2018 13: 31
        +1
        You understood me correctly. We simply did not address the issue of solving overload issues. Therefore, I will only briefly say that to ensure the viability of a person under conditions of much higher overloads than those that exist now, it is necessary to apply the liquid shell method around a person. That is, it is a banal capsule with a fluid flow system. Then, depending on the direction of forces inside the capsule, a stable effect and pressure and all that is necessary for a person will remain. In fact, this is the same effect that we observe in the Faraday cage, but at qualitatively different levels. But the principle is the same. I note that the elastic shell of the body and the internal distribution are not pressure and blood flow systems and the inability of a person as a system to work under such conditions of a variable pressure vector is compensated by an external capsule in which the fluid will circulate and compensate for the forces and their direction from accelerations and braking, etc.
        1. NN52
          NN52 10 May 2018 14: 24
          +2
          For a flight at hypersonic speeds with the participation of a pilot, in the near future, far away ..... Maybe ....
          And so far fantastic ...
          1. gridasov
            gridasov 10 May 2018 14: 53
            +2
            This is if we compare a student of a school and a university with a specialist. What is obvious to a specialist seems fantastic to a school student. Therefore, for me it is obvious, but to others it seems fantastic. Understanding the physics of the process and justifying it as algorithmic steps is no longer fiction. Because fantasies, then ideas, then sound ideas are part of the overall process of achieving results. So if there is already a justification, then there will certainly be a process of implementation. Is there a demand for such technologies? There is !
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 12 May 2018 15: 09
              +1
              not every fantasy leads to a result, in order to make a fantasy fruitful, it is necessary to practically realize it, understanding that there is an objective reality, and it will have to be taken into account
  14. smaug78
    smaug78 10 May 2018 11: 56
    0
    The supercarrier "Ulyanovsk" - why not hyper?))))
  15. Nfl1.6
    Nfl1.6 10 May 2018 12: 09
    0
    I need an aircraft carrier yesterday ..
    Money, officially, no ..
    A pair of Eagles - for repair for sure ..
    The second - right up to the "needles" ..
    Why so?
    We take a couple of completely unsuitable Eagles, gutted, "knit" their flight deck. At the exit, the supercarrier is a catamaran.
    With the existing "on the needle" alternative, this option is viable and useful for the fleet.
    1. seos
      seos 10 May 2018 13: 28
      0
      The meaning of the cruiser to remake .... any tanker can be converted into an escort aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier .... and this miracle will cost like a 1500t corvette ....
      1. Nfl1.6
        Nfl1.6 10 May 2018 19: 41
        0
        Speed ​​/ marching speed.
      2. Nfl1.6
        Nfl1.6 10 May 2018 20: 39
        0
        Speed, and not just speed.
        The width of the flight deck will allow you to radically change the take-off / landing mode, in fact, parking, for example, on the right, take-off (on the entire length) - on the left.
  16. iouris
    iouris 10 May 2018 12: 25
    +3
    Does an aircraft carrier walk on water? Military costs are part of the national income irrevocably thrown into the water. (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, it seems)
  17. Desperado
    Desperado 10 May 2018 12: 48
    +1
    Quote: Soho
    "in the distant future" ... "can get" ... "make predictions" ... - in psychology there is the term escapism, or the desire to leave reality in the world of illusions. So these mantras about some kind of probable hypothesis with aircraft carriers proudly plowing the seas and Akiyans very much look like this kind of disorder.


    We are not China, we will not pull the new aircraft carrier, there is no budget, no place of construction ...
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 10 May 2018 13: 03
      +2
      So you need to come up with a program of private investment in a particular part of the project. For example, a private investor invests its development and funds or credit funds in creating effective
      desalination methods or the development of a new catapult, etc. mutually agreed terms of cooperation and cost compensation will be further developed. There are many forms of investing and stimulating minds to invest their intellectual resources. In the future, many technologies can be sold if they become obsolete. in general, many methods need to be adopted from Americans, Israelis, and others.
      1. seos
        seos 10 May 2018 13: 31
        0
        Private investors will create their own private army, as in Dill ..., invest loot in the state. weapons no one will be fools .... although everything can be .... Ukro-patriots SMSki then sent ....
        1. gridasov
          gridasov 10 May 2018 13: 51
          +2
          Just do not say that in Russia private investors are not a product of state policy or at least protesting them. The state, in the person of its management system, created the oligarchs of Russia, and not they themselves, this is understandable to a fool. Therefore, what does this have to do with a primitive comparison with Ukraine, which in fact is not a state. Since it has lost the ability to at least provide vitality to its subjects.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 12 May 2018 15: 13
        +1
        you are divorced from reality, a private investor needs to get the broth, and what broth from the army? PMCs cost without av. Only the state can finance the army realistically and in large volumes .... well, the sale of military technologies as well as their purchase ..... is a very delicate matter, it does not make sense to sell and sell, because technology is its own security, not someone else’s,,
  18. DeusExMachina
    DeusExMachina 10 May 2018 13: 14
    +1
    Something this "Suprim Commander" reminded me of ...
  19. Desperado
    Desperado 10 May 2018 13: 14
    0
    Quote: gridasov
    So you need to come up with a program of private investment in a particular part of the project. For example, a private investor invests its development and funds or credit funds in creating effective
    desalination methods or the development of a new catapult, etc. mutually agreed terms of cooperation and cost compensation will be further developed. There are many forms of investing and stimulating minds to invest their intellectual resources. In the future, many technologies can be sold if they become obsolete. in general, many methods need to be adopted from Americans, Israelis, and others.


    Private investors will not invest in long-term projects, the prospects of which are illusory, too complex and slow mechanism of financial state regulation. In order to adopt the methods of other countries, it is necessary first of all to bring to mind the design and construction processes, but for us all the deadlines go to the right through the fault of “allies”, a low level of managerial staff and constant delays in financing. What kind of competition are we talking about with a huge gap in technology?
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 10 May 2018 13: 42
      +2
      You yourself understand that the problem is not in the essence of the problem itself that needs to be solved, but in the system that exists in you or in the state. Therefore, if you want to live or not be a slave, think to change, improve. If you don’t want your children to be hostages of your inactivity and laziness, you don’t have to do anything and look for excuses. You cannot do anything yourself; look for people who, with renewed vigor and momentum, will do what seems impossible. Russia has always been full of geniuses and titans.
  20. Livonetc
    Livonetc 10 May 2018 13: 17
    +3
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Livonetc
    Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier in the Arctic?

    And because the main theater of operations for our AB is there, on the SF. And the main task is the air defense of our ship groups, covering the positional areas of the SSBN. From the coast, this air defense is not even theoretically provided - because the right flank of the "bastion" is 600 km from the nearest airfield.

    But, even in this case, would it not be more efficient to provide airfields on the mainland?
    How many aircraft carriers will be required to cover all the necessary zones?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 May 2018 14: 16
      +2
      Quote: Livonetc
      But, even in this case, would it not be more efficient to provide airfields on the mainland?

      On which mainland? From the right flank of the "bastion" to the mainland - about 500 km. Moreover, to the Norwegian part of the mainland. Yes, and Bear Island also belongs to Norway - so it will not be possible to equip an airfield there in advance. smile
      The fact of the matter is that land aerodromes in those parts are impossible. But it is impossible to bend the flank of the "bastion".
  21. spektr9
    spektr9 10 May 2018 14: 40
    0
    Yeah, how to build, but not before the 3000 year ...
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 May 2018 00: 01
      +1
      Quote: spektr9
      Yeah, how to build, but not before the 3000 year ...

      Look in GOZ on 20217- 2025gg. Already in the 2019 year, an aircraft-carrying ship is being developed! And it is planned to develop a new aircraft for vertical take-off and landing. Not I said that, but Deputy Defense Minister Borisov.
  22. Desperado
    Desperado 10 May 2018 15: 07
    +2
    Quote: gridasov
    You yourself understand that the problem is not in the essence of the problem itself that needs to be solved, but in the system that exists in you or in the state. Therefore, if you want to live or not be a slave, think to change, improve. If you don’t want your children to be hostages of your inactivity and laziness, you don’t have to do anything and look for excuses. You cannot do anything yourself; look for people who, with renewed vigor and momentum, will do what seems impossible. Russia has always been full of geniuses and titans.


    There is such a thing as "the upper ones do not want, the lower classes cannot." So here in Russia, the upper echelons do not want to change the established system of relationships, values ​​and interests. Well, there is no interest in the government appointing experienced leaders to leading positions, the system of “not having” people prevails, appointments are made with an eye on the interests of “their” clan. Mutko’s example is enough, it didn’t work out with sports, well, let him “try” himself in construction ... then the media will “correct” the roughness. “Russia has always been full of geniuses and titans” - these future geniuses are leaving because here and now the existing system does not need them.
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 10 May 2018 15: 18
      +1
      Absolutely agree ! They have something to lose, but we have nothing to do with the acre of chains. So they begin to probe me, but for now I hold on. Because I know and realize the fundamental nature of our developments. At the same time, I also understand that if someone pushes, it will be as it will. Only the Almighty knows how to prioritize the development of mankind.
  23. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 10 May 2018 15: 15
    +2
    If we want to be a maritime power, walk confidently into all four oceans, and not trample along our shores, then we need an aircraft carrier.
    We have machines for him, not Super Hornets, but quite normal - MiG-29K. This will give a huge advantage in the ocean over those who do not have aircraft in the ocean.
    From our side there is only one, but very fat BUT - we do not have deck DRLO, which will greatly affect the overall effectiveness of AUG.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 May 2018 16: 33
      +2
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      If we want to be a maritime power, walk confidently into all four oceans, and not trample along our shores, then we need an aircraft carrier.

      Yes, we even need to trample on our shores AB. smile Alas, there are no suitable islands with airfields on which to support the right flank of the "bastion" in the Barents Sea.
    2. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 10 May 2018 18: 59
      0
      The question is - how are the English going to do without Hokai on their Lizka?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2018 11: 15
        0
        Quote: TermNachTER
        The question is - how are the English going to do without Hokai on their Lizka?

        Helicopters DRLO on the basis of "Merlin". They, of course, will not replace the AWACS plane - but there are no other options for the non-catapult AB.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 13 May 2018 10: 45
          0
          As far as I know, there are also AWACS helicopters on Kuznetsovo, but alas, they are not thrilled. That is, the Britons deliberately underestimate the capabilities of their super - duper ship?
    3. max702
      max702 10 May 2018 23: 25
      0
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      If we want to be a maritime power, walk confidently into all four oceans, and not trample along our shores, then we need an aircraft carrier.

      Alas, we are only 140 million, and the bourgeois 1.5 billion .. And we have at least the same tasks .. That’s not enough resources to solve all problems with the same efficiency .. That’s why the fleet is not a priority for today, there are a lot of other more urgent tasks. It’s like laying the battleships in front of the Second World War .. A lot of effort has been expended, and the exhaust is zero, if not minus ..
  24. NF68
    NF68 10 May 2018 15: 31
    0
    A deck of 330 size on 40 m and the ability to transport 80-90 aircraft will result in significant combat potential.


    Judging by the presented layout, the width of the flight deck there is clearly more than 40 meters. Yes, and there will be few of these 40 meters.
  25. Curious
    Curious 10 May 2018 15: 50
    +3
    There is a proposal to create an initiative group and start collecting signatures under an appeal to V.V. Putin with a proposal to expel ... Chubais and in his place appoint a certain gridasov with the delivery of emergency powers and transfer to Rusnano the development of all types of "unavailable world analogues" of weapons , including aircraft carriers and the Death Star.
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 10 May 2018 16: 00
      +1
      Trying to understand such unreasonable tricks
      1. Curious
        Curious 10 May 2018 16: 02
        0
        Yes, there is nothing unreasonable here. Normal offer. Really refuse?
        1. gridasov
          gridasov 10 May 2018 18: 43
          0
          I don’t even comment. I am small, "gear" in its place. And I like my place.
  26. klm-57
    klm-57 10 May 2018 16: 29
    +2
    Military Review, or rather its edition, is strange. What kind of "profitable investment" can we talk about? Are the pacifists gathered here? Then you need another publication. Or do you plan to sell profitably? Profitable for yourself.
  27. Imobile
    Imobile 10 May 2018 17: 07
    0
    Then it will be necessary to build interaction with the security ships. We have no such experience, no specialists. We have everything built on the principle that each in the field is one and a warrior. This is a complete perturbation of all armed forces. Are we capable of this?
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 10 May 2018 18: 57
      +2
      By this comment you confirm the complete inability of modern types of weapons and means of defense to carry out their tasks. In a word, when they say that a superweapon has been created, this is yet another lie. Otherwise, an aircraft carrier should be able not only to be a carrier, but also to be a very powerful and armed system that can hit any attack, but also attack any bridgeheads of scale. This means that the Americans, creating and supporting the existence of many aircraft carriers, are aware of the risks and how to conduct diplomacy with opponents. In general, they manage to catch a fish and eat a yushka, while others are afraid to invest in the development of important technologies and do not have the opportunity to build up experience in creating and owning such large-scale weapons systems.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 May 2018 00: 15
      +3
      Quote: Imobile
      Then it will be necessary to build interaction with the security ships. We have no such experience, no specialists.

      Igor, you are terribly far from the truth! Joint sailing is one of the elements of navigating naval groups, such as RCUG, KPUG, OBK, DesO ... Avugi also went normally at one time ... So why is there no experience !? And there are experts.
  28. Andrey1961
    Andrey1961 10 May 2018 17: 12
    +3
    But today there is a need for aircraft carriers in Russia if we are not going to fight outside the continent where Russia has no inaccessible places!
    And an expensive aircraft carrier requires a whole escort of no less cost so that it does not go down with a few thousandth crew and aircraft, which today is not very difficult to do with modern weapons and delivery vehicles of such !!!!
  29. Tomato
    Tomato 10 May 2018 21: 39
    +2
    This is a rhetorical question. The main question is how much and where. And believe me, as a senior sailor, I understand something in the fleet development strategy.
    Russia has 4 fleets, and as we know from history, in the event of hostilities, communication between them can be interrupted. In fact, each fleet will act as an independent unit.
    While the enemy has the ability to concentrate forces in any of the theater of operations.
    Therefore, each fleet must have at least 6 UAGs.
    One example. Baltic Under the USSR, the task of the DKBF was to capture the straits. There is no “Warsaw Pact”; aviation has no opportunity to be based in Poland and Germany. Only aircraft carriers are able to provide air cover and support.
    We see the rapprochement of the DPRK and the USA. Where is the guarantee that Iran will do this? And instead of a friend, we get another enemy. Conclusion: the Caspian Sea - 3 aircraft carriers.
    Well, 2 groups for patrolling in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, this is at least 8 aircraft carriers.
    Do not forget about the Mediterranean Sea. In order not to have to break through from Black with fights, another 1 UAG must be there on a rotational basis all year round. 4 more aircraft carriers. 2 on duty, 2 - repair, rest of the team, etc.
    I did it - 39. You can round up to 40, with large-scale production the unit cost is lower.
    1. max702
      max702 10 May 2018 23: 28
      0
      Quote: Tomatoes
      I did it - 39. You can round up to 40, with large-scale production the unit cost is lower.

      All the same, you need to troll more elegantly ...
  30. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 10 May 2018 22: 44
    +2
    It seemed that the publication cited by the author, "offers" us to get involved, in an adventure, with the construction of an aircraft carrier, in the near future wassat
  31. Imobile
    Imobile 11 May 2018 10: 06
    0
    Quote: BoA KAA
    Quote: Imobile
    Then it will be necessary to build interaction with the security ships. We have no such experience, no specialists.

    Igor, you are terribly far from the truth! Joint sailing is one of the elements of navigating naval groups, such as RCUG, KPUG, OBK, DesO ... Avugi also went normally at one time ... So why is there no experience !? And there are experts.
    What is the system that, according to the radar of one ship or aircraft, will automatically launch a rocket from another ship or submarine and notify all types of troops. (Not a phone, of course)
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 11 May 2018 21: 45
      +1
      there are such systems, but gave a subscription, I will not say
  32. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 11 May 2018 22: 09
    +2
    1 stupid obtuse expert, write an article (money to pay) superficial and full of senseless and slogans) our idolaters playing shipbuilders and choosing the biggest boat as the main crest were delighted and began to repeat their mantras "power projection", "You need it because you need it exactly, "" we are a great power? how can we love one without him, "" but kuzya how old is how to live? "," everything is gone chef everything is gone gypsum is removed, kuzya is old, the storm is not being built. the client leaves .. aaaaa "," but without AB it’s not interesting to talk about your submarines that are invisible, but the trawls are tiny and there’s nothing to brag about "
    Ezekiel "Thus says the Lord God to the mountains and hills, valleys and hollows: behold, I will draw a sword upon you and destroy your heights; and your altars will be laid waste, your pillars in honor of the sun will be broken, and I will cast down your slain before your idols;. ..
    In all places of your residence, cities will be devastated and heights destroyed, so that your altars are desolate and destroyed, your idols are crushed and destroyed, and your solar posts are broken, and your works are blotted out.
    And those who are slain will fall among you, and you shall know that I am the Lord. "
  33. geniy
    geniy 12 May 2018 19: 03
    +1
    Quote: Alf
    And how many planes will fit there? 2? 3?

    According to the size calculation, 24 Mi-29 fighters with fully folded wings (that is, with an overall width of the MiG-29 with folded wings of 3 meters) will fit into each hull of a former underwater missile carrier with four compartments occupied by an aircraft hangar. This means that they will fit into two hulls a total of 48 such fighters.
    Moreover, I was not proposing any other crawling ashore (only five to six meters), but this very same catamaran submarine, which, if desired, could be used either as an aircraft carrier, or as a tank landing ship, then as a cargo ship for transporting food, logistics and ammunition, as a tanker for transporting fuel: gasoline, kerosene.
  34. Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 13 May 2018 20: 31
    0
    An article is about nothing, and without specifics. An attempt to pray on the subject of "to be or not to be." Hot debate ?! Many people see the logic of GPV in this country? At first, three projects of corvettes 20380/20385/20386 are built here where the PLO functions (in my opinion, below Dagestan type 11661-K, and it seems to me that the cost of building it is lower than any of all three of the above projects, then why "Cheetah "only for export?), and then refuse to continue construction. Then, not particularly developing its gas turbine engine building (i.e., by the efforts of just one enterprise, and not by creating 2-3 similar production engine building enterprises) without which it is hardly possible to build its ships of rank 1-2 in the foreseeable future, statements are made from the series - “for the time of the absence of our gas turbines, to replace the 11356 R / M frigates, we will build Karakurts as an alternative ?! How about? And they turn out to be equal? ​​For this, and with the same absence of our well-established gas turbine production, something is said, - "a series of frigates 22350 will not be laid down anymore, and instead of them enlarged fr. 22350M with a VI about 8000 t.?! Despite the fact that their project (and most likely those tasks) is still there?
  35. Alexy
    Alexy 14 May 2018 04: 48
    0
    Brad.
    Throw away so much money to project power to the Papuans.
    We don’t need this, our budget is not half a trillion.
  36. kig
    kig 19 May 2018 06: 16
    0
    Insidious foreigners again lead us into temptation. One aircraft carrier is equal to two or three Boreas - of course it is beneficial for them that we peck
  37. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 2 June 2018 12: 13
    0
    Dreams and discussions about our super-bearer. While he can not afford. And after a decade, there will already be new technologies in the aircraft industry and shipbuilding, which will actually change the requirements for such a giant.
  38. Dmitry Merkulov
    Dmitry Merkulov 20 October 2018 17: 10
    0
    It would be better if they took the Storm KM, both more useful and cheaper
  39. serg2108
    serg2108 22 August 2019 19: 52
    0
    in 20 years we’ll build when the 6th generation of aircraft appears!