Military Review

“Dagger” verdict of Russia

182
Russian hypersonic anti-ship weapon the new generation may be a decisive argument in favor of the refusal of the Russian Federation from its own carrier fleet.




The first access to the sea for sea trials of the second Chinese aircraft carrier, which took place on May 13 this year, inspires mixed feelings. Firstly, this is a sense of respect for the truly great Chinese people, who managed to arrange the almost conveyor release of these complex warships in the shortest possible time. historical deadlines. The first aircraft carrier, completed from the Soviet Varyag purchased in Ukraine in 1998, was delivered to the fleet in 2012, and the second was actually built from scratch at a Chinese shipyard in four years! Moreover, there is reason to believe that for the Chinese this is far from the limit of possibilities. And in the near future they will "bake" their aircraft carriers literally like pies.

Secondly, it is, of course, a sense of pride in the highest level of Soviet military shipbuilding, the projects of which even after almost 50 years were not outdated at all and were built by the Chinese as the basis of their first aircraft carrier. I say this with full confidence. Because ambitious China, intending to no less than surpass the United States in economic and military power, would never have laid in the foundation of its shipbuilding program deliberately outdated projects that automatically make it a second-rate country.

Moreover, I suspect that the next Chinese aircraft carrier, which is conceived as a full-scale, classic competitor to American giants, will be painfully familiar and will look like one of the draft designs of Russian design bureaus already presented to the public. Type the same aircraft carrier "Storm".

And finally, thirdly, this feeling of annoyance, understandable for any patriot of Russia. Who sees how in the neighboring country the most large-scale naval projects, obviously having Russian roots, are being successfully implemented, whereas in the RF itself they have great difficulty, and even almost in perpetual repairs, one aircraft-carrying cruiser. And the construction of new ships of this class for twenty years can not advance further turbulent newspaper discussions.

However, all of the above is inspired by the feelings, that is, the emotional perception of the new Chinese success against the background of our own endless slips.

And now let's assess the situation with aircraft carriers, so to speak, sober, without essentially irrational emotions.

Question one: does modern Russia have the necessary scientific and design base for building such ships? Answer: certainly has. Accumulated experience has not disappeared without a trace. Experts are still alive, who probably managed to pass on their unique knowledge to the new generation of designers. In addition, the specialized Russian design bureaus fully preserved not only the design documentation for the combat units already built, but also a huge, truly inexhaustible creative reserve for the future. Successful overhaul with the modernization of the Indian aircraft carrier "Vikremaditya" (former "Admiral Gorshkov") clearly demonstrated that they managed to preserve not only the Soviet "know-how", but also practical skills for implementing such projects. And at the level of large production teams.

Question two: Does Russia have shipbuilding facilities to build an aircraft carrier fleet? Indeed, in the USSR, aircraft carriers were built only in the now “independent” city of Nikolaev on the Black Sea. Fully sure this is a solvable problem. Even on the sites of currently existing shipyards, subject to their minimal reconstruction. With the commissioning of the shipbuilding giant, the Zvezda plant in the Far East, capable of building ships of almost any tonnage and complexity, this problem will become completely irrelevant.

As for the availability of state funding for such projects, one should not forget that only one percent of Russian billions invested in American securities will be more than enough for the planned construction of an aircraft carrier fleet.

The third and most important question: why then Russia does not build aircraft carriers? Moreover, the experience of the same China, which rushed in pursuit of the United States in this field, seems to speak in favor of the undoubted need for such ships as part of the Russian fleet.

However, we will not rush to conclusions. China, like the US, has an export-oriented industrial economy. Plus, the national economy of China is even more than the United States depends on stable imports of energy and various kinds of raw materials. Moreover, such imports, in their largest part, go precisely by sea. Therefore, reliable protection of maritime communications for China is a matter of national survival. And to save on the construction of aircraft carriers there just will not. US motivation is even more primitive. They just control most of the planet today. And in order to preserve this domination, they need to keep in their hands the world ocean. From here and aircraft carriers.

Russia differs significantly from the two mentioned powers. First of all, its absolute raw material self-sufficiency. She absolutely does not need to swim over the oceans to bring from there what she herself does not have. The entire periodic table is present in the Russian Federation in practically inexhaustible quantities. A country where it is more important to reliably defend its own vast territory, including its own raw materials bins, which have always been appropriated by many hunters. For this, aircraft carriers are in principle not needed at all.

But there is one more, so to speak newest reason for serious doubts about the feasibility of building huge floating airfields in the Russian Federation:

"Russian hypersonic aviation “Dagger” missile system is capable of making the American fleet defenseless, it is the main “killer of aircraft carriers” in the Pacific, writes The Diplomat magazine.
According to the publication, since 2018, the hypersonic Dagger missiles have become the main threat to US warships in the APR.
According to the expert, the Dagger is able to destroy with one blow even the largest enemy ship from a distance of 2 thousand kilometers.
The US military leadership has repeatedly expressed fears that Washington does not yet have the ability to intercept hypersonic missiles. The Diplomat article states that all of this has serious consequences not only for American territory, “accessible to Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles,” but also for the US Navy, “whose aircraft carriers and destroyers in the event of a conflict could be under water after being hit by the Daggers ".
Russian aircraft will be able to conduct American warships from a distance of 3,5 thousand kilometers from sea borders, the article says. ”

If we admit that hypersonic anti-ship weapons are really irresistible for the enemy, and there is no doubt about it, because their physical properties are just like that, it turns out that Russia, which has such a system of guaranteed destruction of enemy aircraft carriers, cannot but understand the whole measure of vulnerability and combat the unreliability of these ships. And this, you see, is a very bad incentive to invest fabulous money in their construction, For which, by the way, you can deploy additional tank the army. And for the surrender also double the Russian pensions.

As for America and China, it will be much more difficult for them to abandon their carrier-based ambitions. United States because they have already built everything. And these, in essence, archaic ships today form the basis of their military domination over all sorts of third-rate powers, of which basically the world consists.

And the Chinese, as already noted, first, in the simplest way, try to keep up with the United States. And secondly, it’s not for nothing that they gained the fame of the world copy-paste! Because they can basically only repeat what others have done for a long time. Before a full-scale understanding of the new military-strategic realities arising from the introduction of hypersonic weapons and, moreover, they did not reach the realization of these ideas in metal. And when they reach it, they may think about it: is it worth it in such a hurry to build ships that will even more quickly go to the seabed!
Author:
182 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bastinda
    Bastinda 15 May 2018 05: 22
    +14
    According to the expert, the Dagger is able to destroy with one blow even the largest enemy ship from a distance of 2 thousand kilometers.

    Only question. Who and how will he be found at such a distance, and who will direct the "Dagger"?
    1. Titsen
      Titsen 15 May 2018 06: 27
      +4
      Quote: Bastinda
      According to the expert, the Dagger is able to destroy with one blow even the largest enemy ship from a distance of 2 thousand kilometers.

      Only question. Who and how will he be found at such a distance, and who will direct the "Dagger"?


      "- Who's there?

      - No hto! "

      This squabble from Prostokvashino more than ever accurately conveyed the whole essence of the issue.

      EW funds are unlikely to allow Knjal to hit the target by flying 2-3,5 thousand. km

      Yes, and the Goal will not wait ...
      1. Division DON-100
        Division DON-100 15 May 2018 11: 43
        +38
        Titsen (Ig Titsen) Today, 06:27 ↑
        EW funds are unlikely to allow Knjal to hit the target by flying 2-3,5 thousand. km
        Oh how? Well, apparently, our designers eat their bread in vain. Once the “expert” Titsen said they won’t hit, then they won’t hit. Well, our general staff, together with the president, can stand by and shed tears "at the mighty Dagger ... laughing
        As I understand it, in the opinion of local eKhSperds, the “Dagger" should be scrapped, because it still can’t do anything.
        Yes, and the Goal will not wait ...
        Of course it won't. How long will the Dagger need to cover a distance of 2000 km? According to my calculations, it turned out that it took about 10 minutes, what distance did the same “Harry Truman” manage to cover during this time at maximum speed? According to my calculations, again it turned out about 9 kilometers. That is, in your opinion, the "Dagger" is not able to adjust its course in 10 minutes of flight and will stupidly fly to where the aircraft carrier was spotted?
        The expert level of VO commentators is simply exorbitant, to listen to some IShperds, so we all need to disperse the Moscow Defense Forces, because they are not capable of anything. But here it’s just a storehouse of “smart” heads ... laughing
        By the way, for those wondering who and how will detect AUG, and what, have we already destroyed the space group? Or is it a priori undetectable stealth target for the AUG reconnaissance satellite? Nude ... fool
        1. credo
          credo 15 May 2018 12: 32
          +19
          Quote: DON-100 Division
          Oh how? Well, apparently, our designers eat their bread in vain. Once the “expert” Titsen said they won’t hit, then they won’t hit. Well, our general staff, together with the president, can stand by and shed tears "at the mighty Dagger ...
          As I understand it, in the opinion of local eKhsperds, the “Dagger" should be scrapped, because after all, it cannot do anything ...

          I agree in you. Apparently, this "expert" is not aware of the fact that from a distance of 2,5 thousand kilometers, the Russian Navy recently successfully fired with more slow-moving "Caliber" at targets in Syria. And they say they shot very successfully, while the “Caliber” did not fly through Russian territory, the Russian signalmen on the ground did not sit there every kilometer and did not launch a rocket.
          It is amazing how these "experts" have not yet doubted the reality of the flight of rockets into space with the astronauts, because this is generally fantastic.
          1. Division DON-100
            Division DON-100 15 May 2018 12: 45
            +8
            credo Today, 12:32 ↑ New
            It is amazing how these "experts" have not yet doubted the reality of the flight of rockets into space with the astronauts, because this is generally fantastic.
            Well, we don’t listen to such people. Yars and Poplars are inflatable, Cardboard reinforcements, the fleet is rusty, planes do not fly, the “Dagger” is only in the form of a model or a cartoon, and even it is not hypersonic, because it has the wrong engine, the Caliber is very small and they not as accurate as stated in the Ministry of Defense ... In general, "Lelikusopropalo", "Putin all the time", etc. etc. all in the same vein.
            No, well, they want to believe in all that nonsense that they write here, let them believe, then there will be a surprise. laughing
          2. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 15 May 2018 16: 47
            +5
            Well, the slow-moving Caliber is a bit from another opera. In Syria, targets were motionless with previously known coordinates.
            But! The dagger is most likely not to fly 2000 km, half of this range it will rest under the belly of a carrier (Mig-31), which is quite capable of receiving command from reconnaissance assets from the shore. And for the passage of the remaining 1000 km he will need no more than 10 minutes. This is at a speed of 5M. What is the speed in his real life - only Krishna knows. Yes, and is there a possibility of correcting the guidance point in flight - only the Buddha knows for sure, but I think there is.
            And to pay a visit to the largest and shimmering radiation "Christmas tree" - 100% the designers taught him! otherwise, what is the point of all this going on.
            1. Bastinda
              Bastinda 15 May 2018 17: 03
              +2
              And to pay a visit to the largest and shimmering radiation "Christmas tree" - 100% the designers taught him! otherwise, what is the point of all this going on.

              Look at the standard AUG order for at least 70 years, the aircraft carrier does not shine like a tree, it works only for reception.
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 16 May 2018 18: 40
                +10
                Wah! Sorry, but I can only imagine the operation of the takeoff and landing control tower at the reception. Yes, and the dispatching service needs to know exactly the position of all aircraft in space, and for this we need active radars that work on radiation.
                A telecoded radio relay communication, albeit very directional, but not passive. Apparently, you have not heard a colleague about data exchange protocols.
                Well, in general ... at every combat post on the radio station - and the posts are there - Mama Do not Cry. And all this goes on the air!
                And this does not take into account the radiation-working electronics of the aircraft themselves, of which at least about a dozen on the deck are not even on a “market day”
                Well, it’s necessary to freeze such nonsense about a peacefully and “quietly” floating aircraft carrier!
                1. Laughtermaster
                  Laughtermaster 1 June 2018 06: 41
                  0
                  about a peacefully and quietly floating aircraft carrier

                  Maybe he is about the “Gerald Ford”? wassat
          3. mva
            mva 17 May 2018 08: 36
            0
            Yes, successfully, for an immovable target, which does not have any opposition. But the fact that they flew through foreign territory is nonsense, it is not possible to knock a cruise missile off course with electronic warfare equipment, only to reduce accuracy slightly in the final section (if the electronic warhead in the final section works).
          4. Tiksi-3
            Tiksi-3 17 May 2018 11: 14
            +5
            quote "The entire periodic table is present in the Russian Federation in practically inexhaustible quantities." - belay I assure you as a geologist by training - you, the author, did not teach the materiel at all !! sit down two!
            quote - A country where it is more important to reliably defend its own vast territory, including its raw material bins, which have always been assigned many hunters. For this, aircraft carriers, in principle, are not needed at all. belay wassat ... no words, but at the same time you write - "On which, by the way, you can deploy additional tank army" belay fool tanks are weapons of defense ???, oh well ... - quote -And for the surrender also double the Russian pensions. ... this is the apogee !!!! ... you can immediately see how competently approached the written article. Conclusion? - you don’t know the materiel, you don’t own the economy, they attributed politics !!! article is a fat minus !!! no figures and analysis in an accessible form !! colocvium is not delivered!
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 15 May 2018 15: 47
          +2
          Quote: DON-100 Division
          But have we already destroyed the space group?

          Yes
          1. nikola1975
            nikola1975 18 May 2018 18: 59
            +1
            One Millennium Falcon remains
          2. KCA
            KCA 19 May 2018 08: 23
            +1
            Sorry for the immodesty, did you hear about the quantitative and qualitative composition, the appointment of all satellite groups by the commander of the videoconferencing or personally by the commander? Or is my level of access to top-secret data, unlike yours, not enough for an answer?
        3. mva
          mva 17 May 2018 08: 32
          0
          I think for a start you need to learn to count. In 1, the dagger does not fly along the prima, but along a ballistic trajectory, and reaches 10 M in the upper section of its flight (altitude 50..80 km). In dense layers of the atmosphere with such a speed, it can’t definitely fly. Did the photo see him? Where is the thermal protection? In 2 Why radio-transparent cap? It’s clear that when it reaches the target it’s flying not at that speed + for acceleration, it also takes time + climb. The homing head for the “Harry Truman” definitely works on the final site (judging by the radiolucent cap), which means that it is completely blinded by EW + methods due to its low speed it is probably possible to bring down (albeit difficult). In general, to call such a hypersonic missile is pure propaganda. With the same success, the FAU-2 can be considered hypersonic, and that more than 5M was accelerated, then hypersonic.
          1. SVD
            SVD 17 May 2018 12: 10
            +4
            Or maybe with a parachute, the "Dagger" descends on the final trajectory? Already "analyze" in full.
          2. KCA
            KCA 19 May 2018 08: 49
            +1
            10Mach "Dagger" reaches the lowest point of the trajectory - punching the 1st deck of an aircraft carrier, what nonsense do you write about the top point? Actually, at the upper point of the ballistic trajectory, the speed is minimal, did you ever swing on a swing with a top suspension?
      2. Skif83
        Skif83 23 May 2018 18: 57
        +1
        Yes ... somehow you, my friend, think badly about our designers. Do you suspect treason or just sabotage? Or lack of knowledge? Why are you so?
        Probably there are no fools sitting there, if they direct the ICBMs, they will “dagger”, do not worry.
    2. raw174
      raw174 15 May 2018 06: 32
      +2
      Quote: Bastinda
      and who will direct the Dagger?

      MTR, as in Syria? smile
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 15 May 2018 07: 51
        0
        Quote: raw174
        MTR, as in Syria?

        Maybe then it’s easier to hang up the dolphin with trotyl than bother with the “Dagger"? Technique will fail, and the dolphin will never rep to him.
        1. Sasha_Sar
          Sasha_Sar 15 May 2018 16: 58
          +1
          On our dolphin there is their "dolphin".
          1. Lycan
            Lycan 18 May 2018 08: 49
            0
            Ours, in addition to TNT - with a gun, a fume and a former recruiter.
            1. Sasha_Sar
              Sasha_Sar 18 May 2018 09: 57
              +1
              Offset! Ridiculed sincerely laughing
    3. dSK
      dSK 15 May 2018 08: 29
      +1
      Quote: Bastinda
      Who will find him and how

      All hope for satellite reconnaissance and guidance. You can’t hide such a “megatzel” in camouflage nets.
    4. Dimontius
      Dimontius 15 May 2018 14: 26
      +1
      It's cool to read the first lines of paragraphs - briefly and concisely and conveys the meaning) ATP to the author
    5. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 15 May 2018 16: 33
      +4
      For example - electronic intelligence systems such as Mail, Vega, etc.
      Carrier warrant with its mass of radiation glows in the radio range "all the colors of the rainbow"
      Those. to determine the coordinates of the “AOG swimming up to our shores” even in passive mode at ranges up to 2000 km is not such a difficult task.
      And there are also over-the-horizon radar systems (Sunflower, Murmansk, Borisoglebsk?). These, at a distance of up to 3000, can determine the location of the order in real time with sufficient accuracy.
      For coastal defense - more than enough!
    6. Bastion Eagle
      Bastion Eagle 7 June 2018 10: 22
      0
      An aircraft carrier group is not a submarine, its movement in the vast oceans is monitored by satellites and accompanied by submarines. For such large and well-known objects, as an option, a conclusion along a quasi-ballistic trajectory, independent identification of targets by priorities and destruction ...
  2. Bastinda
    Bastinda 15 May 2018 05: 25
    +1
    will be painfully familiar and will be similar to one of the conceptual designs

    It will also be similar to the "CV-1 Langley". Hull, smooth deck ... laughing
  3. G A_2
    G A_2 15 May 2018 05: 39
    +9
    "The Russian hypersonic anti-ship weapon of the new generation can be a decisive argument in favor of the Russian Federation abandoning its own aircraft carrier fleet"
    Rocket euphoria had already passed, cruisers on the stocks were cut. Can we repeat?
    1. raw174
      raw174 15 May 2018 06: 38
      +6
      Quote: G A_2
      Rocket euphoria had already passed, cruisers on the stocks were cut. Can we repeat?

      But indeed, it is better for missile defense, they are cheaper and easier to manufacture. The main question is the real effectiveness of the application, so that on day "D", the propelled rocket does not turn out to be a dummy ...
    2. Stas157
      Stas157 15 May 2018 06: 41
      +23
      Quote: G A_2

      Rocket euphoria had already passed, cruisers on the stocks were cut. Can we repeat?

      5-10 years and the United States will have its own hypersonic weapons, and an aircraft carrier fleet. And with us, only hypersonic weapons. In addition to this, the Russian economy, judging by its "explosive" growth, will lag even further behind the economies of Western countries, India and China ... And although Putin recently promised for the sixth time that Russia will soon enter the top five largest economies peace, there are no prerequisites. To do this, there’s nothing to do - to reach the GDP growth rate, at least the same as our neighbor’s. With the government of Medvedev, Kudrin (in the plans) and Mutko, it is unlikely to achieve real explosive economic growth.
      1. nikola1975
        nikola1975 18 May 2018 19: 05
        0
        You hold on! Just no money ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
    3. igorka357
      igorka357 15 May 2018 06: 47
      +10
      And now come back to the breakups of the 90s! If we had an ocean fleet and twenty aircraft carriers, without fuel, with crews who stood at the wall for two years .. who pay a penny .. Well, what would survive? Only at the expense of the strategic nuclear forces and survive! And now not rocket euphoria .. Sarmatians, Barguzins, Daggers, Gauges ..? Well, at least you wouldn’t determine the direction of the military-industrial complex .. otherwise we would have already burned out in the nuclear flame, and you in the Ocean Fleet would have survived us not for long! The nuclear triad is our everything !
      1. Yak28
        Yak28 15 May 2018 07: 13
        +17
        The army took the oath of the USSR and did not defend the Soviet Union, did not throw Gorbachev away, supported the idiot of Yeltsin, for this our army was lowered for about 15 years. The army is to blame for the fact that in the 90s and 2000s, planes did not fly, ships did not sail, military bases and ports supplies abroad were closed, a bunch of planes, ships went under the knife. Our fools destroyed a huge number of planes, and the Americans mothballed at the bases.
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 15 May 2018 07: 54
          +11
          Quote: igorka357
          Sarmatians, Barguzins, Daggers, Gauges ..? Well, at least you didn’t determine the direction of the military-industrial complex .. otherwise we would have already burned in a nuclear flame, and you on the Ocean Fleet would not have survived us for long! The nuclear triad is our everything!

          Barguzins can be deleted from your victorious list. MO turned this "project".
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 16 May 2018 11: 12
            0
            Did you personally report this?
        2. raw174
          raw174 15 May 2018 09: 39
          +5
          Quote: Yak28
          The army took the oath of the USSR and did not defend the Soviet Union, did not throw Gorbachev

          What are you talking about? The army is part of the state, not a separate "organism". The army carries out the commands of the supreme, if the supreme has been replaced, the army submits to the new. Or do you think the generals had to arrange a military coup and take power into their own hands? In some countries they do so ...
          1. Sasha_Sar
            Sasha_Sar 15 May 2018 17: 07
            +1
            There is still a peaceful way, they write a report on dismissal. Under the tsar, the general and officer had the estate through which he lived. In 17, the estates were seized and a civil war broke out. In the 91st, everyone thought how to survive themselves and put the children on their feet, no one was going to die for Gorbachev. Now it is called "soft power", and then "restructuring".
          2. Yak28
            Yak28 15 May 2018 17: 30
            0
            That is, if tomorrow a president comes to the leadership of Russia, who, like Yeltsin, Gorbachev will destroy the country's defense, rob people for the personal gain of himself and his team, then the army that is created to protect the state and its citizens should still follow the orders of this president? Then this army of idiots
            1. igorka357
              igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 26
              +1
              Apparently about the army and service, you know very remotely!
              1. Yak28
                Yak28 15 May 2018 21: 23
                0
                Apparently you are right
            2. raw174
              raw174 16 May 2018 07: 34
              +2
              Quote: Yak28
              the army that is being created to protect the state and its citizens should still comply with the orders of this president?

              Yes, because the army is obliged to obey the president, because he is the supreme commander in chief! If not, chaos will come! Look at Africa, there in some countries the military takes the reins in their hands, with enviable regularity.
              PS: Have you served in the army?
        3. Mih1974
          Mih1974 15 May 2018 10: 05
          +4
          Army - cannot overthrow the ruler. You confuse warm and soft. The army is almost a million People who act on orders, but they all obey the Order and WITHOUT an order — they are just people (not even armed). You can be a military man of almost any rank, but without an order to speak out against the current Head of State, this is Riot !! am negative Crime, violation of the rules of life of the Army. Only senior officers can make such a decision that yes - it will be a rebellion, and often such a decision "first a riot, then a revolution." Unfortunately, in 1991 there were no worthy officers in the Army; there were rags that did not take over. The command was not "drowned in blood" like Pinochet’s Yeltsin’s rebellion and did not save the USSR. negative All the tales that “the USSR itself fell apart” are lies who do not believe in reading “Tiananmen Square”. There, the "Chinese comrades" were not rags and shit, and they saved their country good , they write that there really were mountains of corpses, but don’t think that it was like Pinochet’s, they died a lot from these terrorists, which is similar to the order of the State Department then they tested the “collapse of the USSR”, so there were a lot of dead on both sides.
        4. andj61
          andj61 15 May 2018 10: 57
          +3
          Quote: Yak28
          The army took the oath of the USSR and did not defend the Soviet Union, did not throw Gorbachev away, supported the idiot of Yeltsin, for this our army was lowered for about 15 years. The army is to blame for the fact that in the 90s and 2000s, planes did not fly, ships did not sail, military bases and ports supplies abroad were closed, a bunch of planes, ships went under the knife. Our fools destroyed a huge number of planes, and the Americans mothballed at the bases.

          That is, do you think that the army should have carried out a coup in the best traditions of the Latin American military juntas? If this were so, then it is quite possible that there would be several such juntas, and the Union could fall apart not along the borders of the republics, but along the borders of military districts. It is not yet known which is better!
          And we didn’t cut the planes — we cut the missiles in accordance with the SALT agreements. Airplanes were cut in Ukraine with the warm support and funding of the United States, and there were not thousands, but a few. More precisely - 10 Tu-160 and 24 Tu-95. In 1999-2000, in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement, Ukraine transferred 8 Tu-160, 3 Tu-95MS and 581 X-55 cruise missiles to Russia in payment of Ukrainian debt for supplied natural gas. hi
        5. Tomato
          Tomato 15 May 2018 21: 18
          +2
          Sorry, have you ever read the text of the oath?
          How do you like these words:
          "Unquestioningly comply with all military regulations and orders of commanders and commanders. "
          "I'm always ready for order of the Soviet Government to defend my homeland "
          Or Warrant Officer Putkin decided that they were doing something wrong at the General Staff. Hold the grenade !!!
          The military obey the orders of the political leadership. This is the trouble with authoritarian regimes. Around the next sun-like one concentrated lysoobly, state. institutions do not work.
          This stupid Americans can impeach, the Senate or Congress will call the president to the covet. The Constitutional Court will reverse the decision.
          We will only "warmly applaud" until the flag is lowered.
          1. NN52
            NN52 15 May 2018 23: 12
            +2
            Tomato

            How interesting is the congress of amers to cancel the blow of the tomahawks in Syria? He asked them?
            Which constitutional court?
            You have "lowered" the flag in your Baltic countries for a long time .... You yourself wrote about it ...
            Today you apparently ate little sprat ...
            Eat go ....
            1. Tomato
              Tomato 15 May 2018 23: 27
              +2
              Could not cancel, but initiating the process of impeachment is easy.

              "The US Constitution provides for the dismissal of an official through the prosecution (impeachment in the narrow sense) of House of Representatives and then the conviction by a qualified majority (2/3) of the Senate.
              Let me tell you a secret, the "House of Representatives" is Congress.
              PS calcium will not help you anymore. Pathology. If you still have questions, ask, do not be shy.
              1. NN52
                NN52 15 May 2018 23: 45
                +1
                Tomato

                I don’t understand one thing ... What about America, Trump, Congress?
                Why are you, a refugee from Russia, in the Baltic States, which the Americans do not even see on their maps, tweet?
                And I’ll also tell you a secret (only to anyone ... all the military are following the orders of the political leadership - the President, who is the Supreme Commander)
                1. Tomato
                  Tomato 16 May 2018 08: 35
                  0
                  A predictable turn of the discussion. Follow the link: http://natribu.org/
      2. Stas157
        Stas157 15 May 2018 07: 45
        +8
        Quote: igorka357
        Now come back to the breakup 90s!

        In the next six years of rule, will we also be returning to the 90s? This hour is no longer the 90s! Do you all survive?
        But, in reality, the dashing 90s, Putin’s team arranged. Then the truth the commander was not Putin (Putin was a member of this team), but the one who gave him the baton at the end. But, the team and continuity remained.
        1. kytx
          kytx 15 May 2018 08: 30
          +2
          Putin is not from the Yeltsin team, he is generally from another garden. Although this is not easier
          1. Stas157
            Stas157 15 May 2018 08: 52
            +15
            Quote: kytx
            Putin is not from the Yeltsin team, he is generally from another garden.

            And from which? Cooperative Lake? Do not tell me who appointed him prime minister in the 90s, and then completely transferred all power? And who brought him to Yeltsin, too, not in the know?
            Chubais and Yeltsin brought Putin to power, and brought him precisely as a person of the same team. Hence the sons of gratitude to Yeltsin and the unsinkability of the odious Chubais.
            1. andj61
              andj61 15 May 2018 11: 37
              +2
              Quote: Stas157
              Do not tell me who appointed him prime minister in the 90s, and then completely transferred all power? And who brought him to Yeltsin, too, not in the know?

              And about. Yeltsin appointed him prime minister. But a lot of people “fought” for the laurels of the one who brought Putin to Yeltsin — Chubais, Borodin, Pugachev, and Berezovsky, and even Yeltsin’s son-in-law Yumashev and his daughter Dyachenko were noted. Well, about the role of Voloshin, Abramovich and Aven should not be forgotten.
              In short, as with the famous log of Lenin at a cleanup in the Kremlin, which, judging by the memoirs, was carried by several hundred people, almost the whole country led Putin to power. Some transferred him with a promotion to work in Moscow. Others introduced the Kremlin party. Still others - with Berezovsky. Fourth - with Voloshin and Yumashev, fifth - with Yeltsin. In general, everyone worked hard and made the Prime Minister of the KGB lieutenant colonel! One thing is clear - those who hoped that Putin would be an obedient tool - clearly miscalculated, and were able to verify this from their own experience. In addition, most likely, the Office, that is, the FSB, was implicitly behind Putin, and all these 90s he was an employee of the current reserve. So specific surnames of specific people mean little here. hi
              1. Stas157
                Stas157 15 May 2018 16: 00
                +5
                Quote: andj61
                One thing is clear - those who hoped that Putin would be an obedient tool - clearly miscalculated, and were able to verify this from their own experience.

                It is foolish to expect that a person who gains unlimited power will be someone's obedient instrument. Why then does he need power? The meaning of this achievement is lost. But Putin is strictly observing the agreement. The whole Yeltsin team, close people, although moved away from the fodder places, but nonetheless, everything is in the cage. No one is offended. Everyone has their place in the sun.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 15 May 2018 16: 44
                  0
                  Quote: Stas157
                  It is foolish to expect that a person who gains unlimited power will be someone's obedient instrument.

                  With EBN, this scenario is quite a ride. In addition, those who set the GDP. It was hoped that the unemployed who was pulled out of St. Petersburg (after losing Sobchak to Yakovlev in the elections) would be grateful to them for a long time. But it did not grow together ... smile
                  Quote: Stas157
                  The whole Yeltsin team, close people, although moved away from the fodder places, but nonetheless, everything is in the cage. No one is offended.

                  Oh yes ... to whom they presented a scarf, to whom a set for sewing canvas gloves. smile
                2. andj61
                  andj61 15 May 2018 17: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: Stas157
                  Putin is strictly observing the agreement. The whole Yeltsin team, close people, although moved away from the fodder places, but nonetheless, everything is in the cage. No one is offended. Everyone has their place in the sun.

                  And where, let me ask you, is Berezovsky the same? Pugachev? These were generally kicked out of the country! What about Voloshin? He is not in power, although younger than Putin. True, he got a good job, but not by the standards of the late 90s - the beginning of the zero - nothing at all. Like Yumashev. Borodin is a bit old by age - 74. But now, too, no one has a lot of money. And these in a clip? Let me disagree with you - they were taken out of the cage, but, except for the first two, they are not touched: they just forgot for a while. Who hasn't mentioned yet? Of those who are in the cage, perhaps only Chubais can be remembered. This one is really unsinkable. Also - Kiriyenko, whom Nemtsov brought, and even made Prime Minister in due time. And that’s it! hi
        2. igorka357
          igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 29
          0
          You transferred my post to the plane of politics .. come on, I’ve talked in the military-technical sphere! You’ve gotten so sick .. Putin leave sobchake come .. bulk come order navi .. yes I wanted to sneeze on politics right now! I talked about the fleet and rockets!
      3. New Year day
        New Year day 15 May 2018 10: 08
        +4
        Quote: igorka357
        The nuclear triad is our everything!

        those. Do you need a surface fleet? Oh well! Fools were under the Union, for some reason they built Kuznetsov and laid Ulyanovsk.
        The AUG of the Americans includes both submarines and surface ships.
        With regards to aviation. How do you imagine a war without air support?
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 31
          0
          I imagine a war with the USA, and it’s even very real .. we don’t need aviation there, and it is clearly stated in our doctrine, take an interest at your leisure .. and for Papuans like ISIS or other women, we have aviation and navy for our eyes !
  4. raw174
    raw174 15 May 2018 06: 35
    +4
    My personal opinion is that an aircraft carrier is an aggressor’s weapon. It is not needed for countries with a defensive strategy, it is needed for those who attack. Russia does not need. China needs to demonstrate, China wants to become an advanced military power, the question is how far it will go in Soviet developments, they are still becoming obsolete ...
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 15 May 2018 07: 12
      +7
      Weapons, by definition, cannot be aggressive or offensive or defensive. A weapon is just a weapon and how to use it depends on the owner of the weapon
      1. raw174
        raw174 15 May 2018 09: 51
        +3
        Quote: Nehist
        as well as offensive or defensive.

        RGD-5 - offensive grenade, F-1 - defensive ... bunker - defensive structure ...
        For the defense of its territory, an aircraft carrier is not needed, its own developed ground-based aviation and coastal defense systems are needed (by the way, they are just defensive).
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 15 May 2018 12: 42
          0
          What RGD that Fka that Dot with equal success can be used both in defense and in the offensive
          1. raw174
            raw174 15 May 2018 13: 05
            +4
            Quote: Nehist
            What RGD that Fka that Dot with equal success can be used both in defense and in the offensive

            Yes, if you wish, you can hammer a nail with a microscope and strangle the shoe with a cord, but the initial role of the weapon is determined by its performance characteristics. An aircraft carrier is a projection of power anywhere in the world, far from its shores. Its initial role is as follows, and when defending its shore, it is almost useless, because more efficient aviation operates at its borders.
            1. SETTGF
              SETTGF 8 July 2018 10: 37
              0
              raw174! Sofa strategist! Do not write nonsense! Events in Syria such as you, did not teach anything ?! Wouldn’t Khmeinim and Tartus be - and it could be, Isil would destroy fly from Russia? You are simply many fools !!!
              1. SETTGF
                SETTGF 8 July 2018 10: 41
                0
                raw174! Go learn your lessons and do not write nonsense! No head - no knowledge ... one trash and no more!
              2. raw174
                raw174 9 July 2018 06: 07
                0
                Quote: SETTGF
                Wouldn’t Khmeinim and Tartus be - and it could be, Isil would destroy fly from Russia?

                Can't you read? I clearly said:
                An aircraft carrier is a projection of power anywhere in the world, far from its shores. His original role is

                If we had no bases in the SAR, we would not be there. In the SAR we are not because of ISIS, we are there for the sake of influence in the region, for the sake of these very bases, for the sake of influencing oil and gas fields.
                PS: do not be rude to strangers, this you only emphasize your ignorance and not a high level of intelligence.
          2. Division DON-100
            Division DON-100 15 May 2018 13: 08
            +11
            Nehist (Alexander) Today, 12:42 ↑
            What RGD that Fka that Dot with equal success can be used both in defense and in the offensive
            Yeah, especially the bunker ... i.e. long-term firing point. I can just imagine how pillboxes attack enemy infantry slowly moving around the battlefield ... laughing
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 15 May 2018 17: 36
              0
              Nothing is simpler, with the help of long-term fortification, you can increase the width of the front of a unit / unit / compound defense without losing strength, ceteris paribus, allowing you to concentrate more troops on the offensive site.
              1. igorka357
                igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 36
                +2
                Volodenka, there is a clear definition of DOT .. well, what are you smarting about!
          3. igorka357
            igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 37
            +2
            Yeah, only the efki do not take the offensive for some reason, that’s fools .. they’d take rgdshki and efki ..
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 May 2018 16: 46
          0
          Quote: raw174
          Bunker - defensive structure ...

          And if the SD with the bunker is being built to cover the concentration of forces before the offensive - so that the enemy does not thwart the aggression with his preemptive strike? wink
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 34
            +2
            The bunker as a fire structure will remain defensive anyway, namely for the defense of the concentration of troops! Don’t bring nonsense to Aleksey!
          2. raw174
            raw174 16 May 2018 07: 37
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And if SD with bunker is built to cover the concentration of forces before the offensive

            You yourself answered: "for cover" ...
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 15 May 2018 19: 59
        +1
        Quote: Nehist
        A weapon is just a weapon and how to use it depends on the owner of the weapon

        Essentially, and most importantly - to the point! good
        In addition, there are purely defensive and purely offensive systems (air defense / missile defense / anti-aircraft defense). Although, under certain conditions, they can be used in two ways. Dialectics, her mother ... yes
    2. New Year day
      New Year day 15 May 2018 10: 37
      +3
      Quote: raw174
      aircraft carrier - weapon of the aggressor

      is a knife a defensive or offensive weapon? Is a sapper blade a weapon or a trench tool?
      1. andj61
        andj61 15 May 2018 11: 46
        +5
        Quote: Silvestr
        Quote: raw174
        aircraft carrier - weapon of the aggressor

        is a knife a defensive or offensive weapon? Is a sapper blade a weapon or a trench tool?

        The wrong associative row was chosen. And a knife and a shovel in general may not be weapons. Anti-tank missiles, air defense systems, coastal missile systems with anti-ship missiles are uniquely defensive weapons. Aircraft carriers, strategic nuclear forces - definitely offensive. It makes little sense to use an aircraft carrier to defend your shores - it’s better to use stationary aerodromes for this — cheaper anyway. hi
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 May 2018 17: 09
          +2
          Quote: andj61
          Anti-tank missiles, air defense systems, coastal missile systems with anti-ship missiles are uniquely defensive weapons.

          About defensive ATGM - This is you tell the Egyptians. And the Israelis too. In 1973, the Pomnitsa, ATGM famously used in the offensive through Suez, during the breakthrough of the Israeli defense - to destroy tanks at strong points.
          And about defensive coastal missile system you can tell our BRAV, who recently conducted exercises on the use of coastal anti-aircraft missile systems as land-based missile defense systems for ground targets (feint ears bypassing the INF Treaty).
          And about defensive air defense systems tell the naval. Thus, who fired on Georgian boats in the war 08.08.08 with the help of the Osa-M air defense system.
          1. andj61
            andj61 16 May 2018 10: 07
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            About defensive ATGMs - you tell the Egyptians. And the Israelis too. In 1973, the Pomnitsa, ATGM famously used in the offensive through Suez, during the breakthrough of the Israeli defense - to destroy tanks at strong points.

            Do not distort - when breaking through the channel, the Egyptians used Tu-16 attacks, then heaps of fighter-bombers, then a massive artillery strike, and then forcing the channel. To reflect the expected Israeli counterattack the Egyptians equipped the first wave of their advancing troops with an unprecedented number of portable anti-tank mounts: RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launchers and the more advanced Malyut anti-tank missiles, which later proved to be good in repelling Israeli tank counterattacks. Every third Egyptian soldier carried one of the anti-tank weapons. So anti-tank weapons were used not as a means of attack, but as a means of defense.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            .
            And about the coastal defensive missile system, you can tell our BRAV, which recently conducted exercises on the use of coastal anti-aircraft missile systems as ground-based missile launchers for ground targets (feint ears bypassing the INF Treaty).

            Both anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems are provided for surface shooting. But this cannot be considered a bypass of the INF Treaty - the range of the complexes does not fall under medium-range missiles.
            Regarding the use of "Wasp-M" - there was such a thing. But there, mainly, the Malachite KR were involved.
            From the report of the commander of the Mirage IRC to the flagship: “Of the five targets, one is destroyed, one is damaged, and three left the battlefield. Missile consumption: anti-ship - two, anti-aircraft - one, no casualties among personnel. No Damage to the Ship
      2. igorka357
        igorka357 15 May 2018 19: 34
        0
        Are you trying to be smart, or something ... I don’t understand something!
    3. Sasha_Sar
      Sasha_Sar 15 May 2018 17: 18
      +1
      aircraft carrier is the weapon of the aggressor.
      Just like a thesis from the time of the CPSU Central Committee! But on one point, one can agree that aircraft carriers are outliving their age, as the "dreadnought battleships" have outlived. Examples of World War II in the Pacific Theater showed weak armor and large caliber in front of aircraft. So now, AUG becomes weak over time before the IOS at hypersonic speed. But the example of Syria has shown that the time of the end of the AUG has not yet come.
    4. strannik1985
      strannik1985 15 May 2018 17: 44
      +2
      We take the USSR, the conflict on ETVD. The task of isolating Europe from the receipt of reserves from the United States. Defense? And the fleet should carry it out, and the capabilities of the submarines for these tasks are very limited.
    5. SETTGF
      SETTGF 8 July 2018 10: 28
      0
      raw174! You wrote nonsense about the aircraft carriers that the FUELS were hiding in the USSR, and because of this we lagged behind the fleet of other countries in terms of the power and flexibility of our fleet ... Syria has demonstrated this well!
  5. Yak28
    Yak28 15 May 2018 06: 55
    +4
    Quote: raw174
    My personal opinion is that an aircraft carrier is an aggressor’s weapon. It is not needed for countries with a defensive strategy, it is needed for those who attack. Russia does not need.

    Yes, an aircraft carrier is an attack weapon, but as you know, the best defense is an attack, plus an aircraft carrier is a demonstration of strength and technology. This was also understood in the USSR by building heavy aircraft carriers such as Kiev, Minsk. Would Russia own an aircraft carrier in Syria prevented Russia? Is it really bad when a group of ships anywhere in the ocean always has its own planes and air support? As I think Russia needs an aircraft carrier and not one, but 7 pieces, but of course it is clear that an aircraft carrier in Russia is unlikely to give birth, we will look at Chinese and American ships. wink
    1. LMN
      LMN 15 May 2018 08: 00
      +7
      Quote: Yak28
      Quote: raw174
      My personal opinion is that an aircraft carrier is an aggressor’s weapon. It is not needed for countries with a defensive strategy, it is needed for those who attack. Russia does not need.

      Yes, an aircraft carrier is an attack weapon, but as you know, the best defense is an attack, plus an aircraft carrier is a demonstration of strength and technology. This was also understood in the USSR by building heavy aircraft carriers such as Kiev, Minsk. Would Russia own an aircraft carrier in Syria prevented Russia? Is it really bad when a group of ships anywhere in the ocean always has its own planes and air support? As I think Russia needs an aircraft carrier and not one, but 7 pieces, but of course it is clear that an aircraft carrier in Russia is unlikely to give birth, we will look at Chinese and American ships. wink

      Where will we look at them?) On TV?)
      And what did their aircraft carriers give the Americans a “moment of glory"? what or debts of $ 21 trillion? We still need to see what will happen to the USA in the future ..

      In our conditions (economic) we do not need an aircraft carrier, IMHO.
      Here is the "fattening" .. laughing
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 15 May 2018 10: 39
        +2
        Quote: LMN
        In our (economic) conditions, we don’t need an aircraft carrier,

        I agree, but we are promised improvement, we will soon enter the top 5 developed economies in the world .... maybe. Why not dream up.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 15 May 2018 20: 44
          +2
          Quote: Silvestr
          Why not dream up.

          Manilism is harmful to health! mental, and after him - and bodily ... AHA ..
      2. Division DON-100
        Division DON-100 15 May 2018 13: 14
        +3
        LMN (Maxim) Today, 08:00 ↑
        In our conditions (economic) we do not need an aircraft carrier, IMHO.
        Here is the "fattening" .. laughing
        That is, in our conditions it is better to have more nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines of various purposes. As for the AUG, then for every Amerzos AUG we have put into service the MIG-31 with the "Dagger".
        Another thing is that we need to re-equip corvettes and diesel-electric submarines to counteract Arly Burke-type EMs, which are really too many.
    2. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 15 May 2018 08: 01
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      Is it really bad when a group of ships anywhere in the ocean always has its planes and air support?

      Of course this is not bad.
      But when a country does not have the ability to create as many aircraft carriers as a partner, it creates daggers. And "the dagger balances all this.)
      1. andj61
        andj61 15 May 2018 12: 02
        +3
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        Quote: Yak28
        Is it really bad when a group of ships anywhere in the ocean always has its planes and air support?

        Of course this is not bad.
        But when a country does not have the ability to create as many aircraft carriers as a partner, it creates daggers. And "the dagger balances all this.)

        But will the Dagger balance everything? Judging by the published information, this is an airborne variant of the Iskander missile. And there the missile is by no means cruise, and it’s not painful to control ballistic and even pseudo-ballistic in flight. At a cruising speed of 20 knots (37 km / h) in 1 minute, the aircraft carrier passes more than 600 m. That is, during the flight of the rocket (and this is more than a minute), the aircraft carrier can go quite far. That is why no one was impressed by the Chinese ballistic anti-ship systems, although this is clearly a hypersonic weapon - getting out of them into an aircraft carrier is an extremely difficult task.
        Of course, at the “Dagger”, in addition to the missile stage, it is possible to make the head stage in the form of an ordinary anti-ship missile system with the corresponding “brains” and means of target detection, but at the same time it is unlikely to be just a hypersonic weapon. And with a decrease in speed when approaching, such a rocket also becomes vulnerable. hi
        1. Romulus
          Romulus 15 May 2018 12: 09
          0
          Quote: andj61
          Of course, the "Dagger"

          Andrey, don’t sprinkle YOU - salt for sugar .. stop
        2. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 15 May 2018 23: 36
          0
          With guidance, I think everything is fine there, it's still not a NURS.
          The winged “dagger” is not winged, hyper sound or not is not important.
          A speed of 10m makes it, to put it mildly, a difficult target for an air defense / missile defense ship and warrant.
        3. SETTGF
          SETTGF 8 July 2018 10: 54
          0
          andj61! Do not take our designers for fools and write nonsense ... The dagger is controlled throughout its flight and does not slow down!
      2. Yak28
        Yak28 15 May 2018 21: 28
        +1
        And if the partner tomorrow will have daggers, and aircraft carriers, and aircraft carriers with daggers, then who will?
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 15 May 2018 23: 29
          +1
          Quote: Yak28
          And if the partner tomorrow will have daggers, and aircraft carriers, and aircraft carriers with daggers, then who will?

          And tomorrow we’ll come up with something else. (WITH)
    3. KERMET
      KERMET 15 May 2018 08: 17
      +6
      Russia will be strong and rich (in reality, and not on TV) - it will have aircraft carriers
      1. kapitan92
        kapitan92 15 May 2018 08: 49
        +7
        Quote: KERMET
        Russia will be strong and rich (in reality, and not on TV) - it will have aircraft carriers

        One of the few objective posts. good Whatever our people say, however much we make excuses, but to date, the Russian Federation does not have the financial, technological capabilities to build ships of this class. Alas, this is a fact! hi
    4. raw174
      raw174 15 May 2018 10: 02
      +3
      Quote: Yak28
      An aircraft carrier is a demonstration of power and technology.

      Undoubtedly! But this is an expensive demonstration, is it needed? The defense industry is the most high-tech industry, missiles are also a demonstration of technology.
      Quote: Yak28
      Would a Russian aircraft carrier in Syria hinder Russia?

      And it wouldn’t help ... Ground aviation outperforms deck, in almost all respects; having ground airfields in the region, decks are not needed (my opinion).
      Quote: Yak28
      Is it really bad when a group of ships anywhere in the ocean always has its planes and air support?

      Not bad, but a well-developed air defense / missile system, a well-developed system of satellite navigation, target designation and reconnaissance are better ...
      Quote: Yak28
      Russia needs an aircraft carrier and not one, but 7 pieces

      Jobs again ... (notes of sarcasm)
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 15 May 2018 10: 14
        +4
        Quote: raw174
        Ground aviation wins the deck, in almost all respects; having ground airports in the region, no decks are needed

        indisputably, but if there are no ground airports or friends?
        Quote: raw174
        but a developed system of air defense / missile vessels, a developed system of satellite navigation, target designation and reconnaissance are better ...

        again, no doubt, but there is a certain causal relationship, many components, each of which may fall out of the chain. The simpler the design, the more reliable.
        I don’t know if an aircraft carrier is needed or not, but if we now destroy carrier-based aviation, then returning to it will be very long and expensive.
        1. raw174
          raw174 15 May 2018 10: 33
          0
          Quote: Silvestr
          but if there are no ground airfields or friends?

          So the ambassadors do not work well. The foreign ministry should work out the issue of providing infrastructure for our aerospace forces in those regions where there are our interests, if they did not, then it means there are no our interests.
          Quote: Silvestr
          The simpler the design, the more reliable.

          The satellite system is just simpler. A developed system, and not one or three satellites ... Like it or not, any military intelligence and target designation system has weaknesses ...
          1. New Year day
            New Year day 15 May 2018 10: 47
            +4
            Quote: raw174
            So the ambassadors do not work well

            the world respects strength and authority. If this is not, the ambassadors will do nothing. For loans, perhaps, and then they will not be returned. A strong economy is primary in military affairs. Everything dances from her.
            Quote: raw174
            Satellite system is just easier

            I do not mind. In the navigator, I wanted to sign up for GLONAS, nevermind. Does not catch the infection. But GLONAS is connected to autolocalization!
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 15 May 2018 17: 25
            +1
            Quote: raw174
            So the ambassadors do not work well. The foreign ministry should work out the issue of providing infrastructure for our aerospace forces in those regions where there are our interests, if they did not, then it means there are no our interests.

            Do the ambassadors also have to change the bottom relief? We have the right flank of the "bastion" of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea is 600-650 km from our nearest airfield. The nearest land, both on the mainland and on the islands, belongs to a NATO member country.
            1. raw174
              raw174 16 May 2018 07: 48
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              We have the right flank of the "bastion" of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea is 600-650 km from our nearest airfield.

              I’m talking about this and I need a strong shore. Isn’t it better to build a full-fledged airdrome than to wreck aircraft carriers?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 16 May 2018 09: 52
                +1
                Quote: raw174
                I’m talking about this and I need a strong shore. Isn’t it better to build a full-fledged airdrome than to wreck aircraft carriers?

                Where to build an airfield? Where and how in the open sea, more than a kilometer deep, to build an airfield? belay
                I wrote that the nearest land, which does not belong to a NATO member, is 600 km from ships in need of cover.
                1. raw174
                  raw174 16 May 2018 09: 59
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  I wrote that the nearest land, which does not belong to a NATO member, is 600 km from ships in need of cover.

                  I misunderstood you ...
                  Well then, can it develop rocket cover? Again, based on economic opportunities ...
          3. SETTGF
            SETTGF 8 July 2018 10: 58
            0
            raw174! Sofa strategist! Do not write nonsense! Events in Syria such as you, did not teach anything ?! Wouldn’t Khmeinim and Tartus be - and it could be, Isil would destroy fly from Russia? You are simply many fools !!!
        2. Mih1974
          Mih1974 15 May 2018 10: 42
          +1
          Let's put the question differently - how much does it cost to build mm, let's say 5 aviks, + their maintenance for the entire service time. And then we’ll take a look at this monstrous little figure and see if it’s enough to “buy” bases in different places of the World or local leaders in order to have “friendly” countries that will be allowed to use their airfields !!! fool Understand that there are at least few places in the world where Russia may need to bomb someone, just as there probably is no such place (prom Syria) where you have to bomb and clog “ten calibers” !! Now once again look at the figure about the cost of Aviks and think again - which is more profitable and useful for Russia.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 15 May 2018 17: 39
            +2
            Quote: Mih1974
            Let's put the question differently - how much does it cost to build mm, let's say 5 aviks, + their maintenance for the entire service time. And then we’ll take a look at this monstrous little figure and see if it’s enough to “buy” bases in different places of the World or local leaders in order to have “friendly” countries that will be allowed to use their airfields !!!

            Tell me, from whom can I buy an airfield in the Barents or Norwegian Sea? wink
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 15 May 2018 21: 04
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              and who can buy an airfield in the Barents or Norwegian Sea?

              How is anyone !? Neptune or Poseidon of course ...
              That's just a pity recourse they, along with the myths of the ancient Greeks and Romans, have sunk into oblivion ... crying
        3. Romulus
          Romulus 15 May 2018 12: 12
          0
          Quote: Silvestr
          I do not know

          Force .. I'm starting to get confused in you .. mdy ..
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 15 May 2018 20: 54
        +4
        Quote: raw174
        having ground airfields in the region, decks are not needed (my opinion).

        There are two opinions: MY ... and wrong. (with)
        Do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs! You won’t be tempted to land any carving over the “water” without landmarks! Marine, and especially ship pilots, are the elite of the Air Force of any country!
        The second question: and beyond the radius of 600 miles, what do you order to do with the air force cover?
        So sometimes it's better to chew than talk! (with) bully
        1. raw174
          raw174 16 May 2018 07: 57
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          You won’t be tempted to land any carving over the “water” without landmarks!

          Here are those times ... I did not serve in aviation and I don’t know the local order, but I think that you are wrong ... What do you mean you won’t be lured? And giving orders is no longer in vogue? And preparation for what? But what about on-board navigation? Somehow, our infantry will refuse to run on the sand, and tankers will not move off the highway ...
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Marine, and especially ship pilots, are the elite of the Air Force of any country!

          This is clear, but the rest should also be ready to perform all types of tasks assigned.
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          and beyond a radius of 600 miles, what do you order to do with an air force cover?

          What are they doing now? But isn’t it cheaper to build support and defense ships with developed air defense, missile defense, anti-aircraft defense systems? Isn't it better to cover the main caliber of the strike group with such means?
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          There are two opinions: MY ... and wrong.

          This does not apply to me, I have my own opinion, but I also listen to my opponents, especially in such controversial issues hi
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 16 May 2018 09: 58
            0
            Quote: raw174
            What are they doing now?

            Carriers are being built - like China itself. smile
            Quote: raw174
            But isn’t it cheaper to build support and defense ships with developed air defense, missile defense, anti-aircraft defense systems?

            No. Since the range of any air defense systems is limited by the radio horizon (except for the case of sophisticated missiles with ARLGSN, which still need an external control system to correct the trajectory). That is, the same S-300F and S-400 at extremely low altitudes operate at a maximum of 35-45 km.
            Actually, this is precisely why the Navy has been asking for normal AB for half a century already - in order to stretch the air defense defeat zone beyond the horizon of ship systems and fight not with the consequences (RCC). and with the reasons (their carriers - IBA).
            1. raw174
              raw174 16 May 2018 10: 41
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Carriers are being built - like China itself.

              I mean our Navy ... Than our hiding now
              Quote: Alexey RA
              No. Since the range of any SAM is limited by the radio horizon

              Well, isn’t it better to develop this area. It is clear that we have trouble with target designation, it needs to be developed, and not sprayed onto large and expensive floating airfields ...
    5. Mih1974
      Mih1974 15 May 2018 10: 20
      +2
      Why the hell do we have Aviki? fool If you don’t stupid and google what and how the Merikas bombed, then an awesome picture will be drawn - almost EVERYWHERE the Aviks were "on the drain" from, well, or we look at our "blacksmiths" from Syria. We’ll even “forget” about torn cables and two sunken planes - he didn’t do anything there. Well, the worst thing, but not mentioned in the article, is if Aviks are set “near” the coast, less than 100 km (And this is likely to be closer fly), then now you can arrange a raid of “cheap” UAVs on it and at least 82 mm mine good , something like what was on Khmeimi. Yes, now only a couple of countries can do this, because here you need firstly your own satellite intelligence, and secondly, satellite positioning. The Americans have already done this against us, then soon the Chinese (and we) will be able to do this. So AUG is already far from being such a safe platform. And notice how the unmanned topic is growing and progressing, I'm not only about flying, but also about underwater.
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 15 May 2018 10: 34
        0
        Quote: Mih1974
        Why the hell do we have Aviki?

        honestly, I don’t know. Why do we need admirals? Let them think
        1. max702
          max702 15 May 2018 10: 53
          0
          Quote: Silvestr
          honestly, I don’t know. Why do we need admirals?

          But this is the right question! Really for what? Look at the 404th darkness of the admirals, but to the point ...
    6. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 15 May 2018 20: 39
      +2
      Quote: Yak28
      an aircraft carrier in Russia is unlikely to give birth,

      Don’t be so afraid! In the new GPV, the expenses for the new Avifnes carrier ship and the plane of shortened / vertical take-off and landing are clogged. yes
      1. bugagich
        bugagich 8 June 2018 09: 13
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        short / vertical take-off and landing aircraft

        as for me, it’s not very good news ... to plunge into the old Ustinov’s flat recourse
        it seems riding inadequacy request
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 15 May 2018 08: 08
    0
    The US military leadership has repeatedly expressed fears that Washington so far has no opportunity to intercept hypersonic missiles.
    ... The keywords "not yet" ... And there will be ... aircraft carriers in China will be ordered ...
  7. Abram
    Abram 15 May 2018 08: 10
    +6
    the message is clear - stupid but rich Chinese and Americans riveted aircraft carriers because they are not able to comprehend their worthlessness. and the Russian Federation is smart! but poor, so she hung Iskander under the plane and shouted out of all the cracks what a superweapon it was smile It is very similar to the story of the "having no analogs" of the s-400, which covered the whole of Syria with an "umbrella" on television. until the Tomahawks flew winked
    1. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 15 May 2018 08: 43
      +4
      Tomahawks (smart) neatly flew around the S-400 areas. And indeed they proved to be quite ineffective weapons. The “armor” and the Buki have quite well established themselves ... No need to “puff” ... But the irresistibility of the “Dagger” is a reality. How are such rockets dung? Well, who will tell you top secret data? There are satellites, there are long-range reconnaissance aircraft ... Homing systems at the final stage. Well, and "special ammunition" - why pity them? For such a purpose as an aircraft carrier wassat
      1. Abram
        Abram 15 May 2018 09: 01
        +4
        "irresistibility" Dagger is your imagination inspired by similar articles smile how could the Tomahawks fly around "s-400 areas of operation" if this area, if you believe the TV, all of Syria with a hook? smile
      2. New Year day
        New Year day 15 May 2018 10: 55
        +4
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        compelling "Dagger"

        it is not known to us. As we were told, so we repeat
      3. Romulus
        Romulus 15 May 2018 12: 16
        +3
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        Tomahawks (smart)

        I love .. when the mountain shooters - talk about everything ..))
        sure, understanding comes .. tomahawks are smart ... lol
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 15 May 2018 21: 16
          +1
          Quote: Romulus
          sure, understanding comes .. tomahawks are smart ...

          That Trampule thinks so. If they were “smart,” they wouldn’t have been so much added for one batch ...
          And if you believe the head of the State Educational Institution of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, then, according to Sergei Fedorovich, one of the wise men turned off the brains and landed without detonation, for the purpose of a long excursion to the Moscow Research Institute of lobotomy of such "wise men." bully
  8. Old26
    Old26 15 May 2018 08: 35
    +4
    Quote: G A_2
    "The Russian hypersonic anti-ship weapon of the new generation can be a decisive argument in favor of the Russian Federation abandoning its own aircraft carrier fleet"
    Rocket euphoria had already passed, cruisers on the stocks were cut. Can we repeat?

    As removed from the tongue. I just wanted to write. We are stepping on the same rake, making another “wunderwaffe” out of a certain weapon.

    Quote: raw174
    Quote: G A_2
    Rocket euphoria had already passed, cruisers on the stocks were cut. Can we repeat?

    But indeed, it is better for missile defense, they are cheaper and easier to manufacture. The main question is the real effectiveness of the application, so that on day "D", the propelled rocket does not turn out to be a dummy ...

    For defense? Quite possible. But do not forget that our opponent will not sit still. If now he does not have an air defense system with speeds of 10-12M, this does not mean that they will not appear. And again there will be an eternal race of “sword and shield”, “shell and armor”. The statement of the question that the "Dagger" makes it unnecessary to build in the future aircraft carriers IMHO is short-sighted and stupid.

    Quote: raw174
    My personal opinion is that an aircraft carrier is an aggressor’s weapon. It is not needed for countries with a defensive strategy, it is needed for those who attack. Russia does not need. China needs to demonstrate, China wants to become an advanced military power, the question is how far it will go in Soviet developments, they are still becoming obsolete ...

    You repeat the words of the unforgettable Nikita Sergeevich. He also said that aircraft carriers are weapons of aggression, but he also wanted to have a nuclear missile fleet. And what would cover this fleet in distant battles he was not interested in. And then, just as bashfully, we called our aircraft carrier projects “aircraft cruisers”, just not to pronounce the word “aircraft carrier”
    An aircraft carrier needs, regardless of strategy. Needed exclusively to create fleet stability. No, of course, if we do not pretend that Russia is a world power, and we agree to the role of a third-rate one, then the aircraft carrier is really not only unnecessary, but harmful. But if we position ourselves as one of the main players in the world arena, we will need a tool.
    You write that the carrier is needed for those who attack? Brazil and Argentina attack someone, and Italy or Thailand?
    To demonstrate, you need one aircraft carrier, as we have now. But China is not going to stop on the second built. And India does not stop at the redone "Gorshkov"
    1. max702
      max702 15 May 2018 11: 02
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      To demonstrate, you need one aircraft carrier, as we have now

      Demonstrations of what? A much larger demonstration is the ashes on the site of a palace or residence of some over-priced prince or president. And this can be done TODAY and now without the AUGs with much greater efficiency .. We don’t have anyone to fight with the AUGs, either these countries are under the USA, or we can do it by orders of magnitude less, China has many tasks for them, even based on geography, and we first need to master everything at home we all have at home .. It's like if you need to hang a shelf in the kitchen, then instead of a penny perfo you go to buy a diamond drilling system from hilt. Likewise, AUG for our country is cool, beautiful, but completely unnecessary ..
  9. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 15 May 2018 09: 10
    +2
    Yuri, it’s hard to suspect you of any liberalistic addictions. And your previous materials showed a well-balanced, patriotic position. But the current opus somehow does not fit into the already established framework! Firstly, about the Dagger. This story is very reminiscent of the confrontation between ATGMs and tanks. Once, the ATGMs that appeared appeared to put an end to the further development of tanks, and, in general, sent them to the dustbin of history, but! Time goes by, tanks change, ATGMs too, but none of them have ever gone to the landfill! Moreover, in Syria, tanks have once again proved their relevance (well, who doubted this at all? What kind of enemy!). So, Kenzhik is certainly a super-duper, but he gives us an advantage only for a while! But are we not going to fight with mattresses today? And tomorrow, quite possibly, the balance will be restored. This has happened more than once or twice in our history! And again we will return to the aircraft carrier theme, begin to procrastinate it, twirl, twist? And time is running out! And this has already happened in our history more than once or twice! Do we have a street that consists of a single rake? As soon as it does not fit in some heads, that aircraft carriers are a type of weapon ?! The same as: tanks, guns, planes, cruisers, submarines, etc.! Well, let's stick thousands of tanks because of the addiction of some idiot, but we won’t pay attention to the guns! Or vice versa! The consequences are obvious!
    I already got tired in my comments (given that I’m typing them on my smartphone on my knee!) To give arguments in favor of aircraft carriers. In the ship-PKR confrontation, for a long time ago, the ship’s dimensions did not matter at all! At least five football fields, at least the size of the shell! It will be found and destroyed if there is no greeting from Cortik, Fort, Carapace, etc. Therefore, the argument about the dimension of the ship can already be sent to the scrap! It remains to consider only its effectiveness. And here the advantages of aircraft carriers are many times greater than that of any other type of ship! Whoever is not lazy, let him count himself! And I will insist that the path of the universal ship, and not the floating airfield, which was chosen back in the USSR, is the most correct and promising! This is the second!
    And the third, it's like in the story with the Terminator! First, take it into service, and then the strengths and weaknesses will be revealed (I generally think that he didn’t get a complete set of weapons! It seems that they took the rest from the warehouse!).
    And last, study world history! Only marine superpowers can dictate their will on the world stage! Once upon a time, even the tiny Portugal was a figure on the world stage! It is now remembered about her only if it comes to football!
    1. max702
      max702 15 May 2018 11: 06
      +1
      And tomorrow, quite possibly, the balance will be restored. This has happened more than once or twice in our history! And again we will return to the aircraft carrier theme, begin to procrastinate it, twirl, twist? And time is running out!
      And we’ll sit on the stove and slurp soup with soup. Yeah .. We’ll come up with an answer similar to the dagger efficiently and not expensive .. Why do you “partners” allow us to come up with an answer to our call, but we don’t? what kind of inferiority complex?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2018 19: 33
        +4
        Quote: max702
        Why do you allow the “partners" to come up with an answer to our challenge, but we don’t? what kind of inferiority complex?

        Because the Americans never ran into a wunderwaffe. And they didn’t shout: “We have the F-15, it will tear everyone, the rest of the aircraft go to the dustbin of history !!!” They created a good fighter - they continued to develop lighter cars, Patriots modified, in general, they never put all the eggs in one basket.
        In the USSR, the development was wave-like - we’ll come up with something that will be stronger than the state’s - they come up with something that will smooth the situation or vice versa, first they, and then we, but on the whole kept in parity.
        Therefore, on the Dagger (which, incidentally, is not invulnerable today, but a formidable weapon) they will also find this very one ... with a screw.
        You understand one thing of "effective and inexpensive" decisions against the AUG of the USSR I thought, thought, but did not invent. And the "Dagger" is also not a child prodigy and is not a panacea
        1. max702
          max702 16 May 2018 00: 51
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You understand one thing of "effective and inexpensive" decisions against the AUG of the USSR I thought, thought, but did not invent. And the "Dagger" is also not a child prodigy and is not a panacea

          The AUG never really scared the USSR that they were eating that they weren’t there, minuten, perching, and others, yes, but AUG didn’t! The USSR is a self-sufficient country that doesn’t care for anyone who swims somewhere, naturally the AUGs were prevented from carrying their ideas on planet earth, but this is a level of a completely different order, and the government of Russia is categorically not up to such heights (houses of care above the roof) ..
          and at the expense of a panacea or not, time will tell if there is enough fortress in Faberge and suddenly we’ll drown a boat which, in principle, could not be drowned by classical means .. then everyone would seriously think about it (there were a lot of skeptics to the caliber), but for now yes .. worry about it ..
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 May 2018 10: 15
            +2
            Quote: max702
            AUG never really scared the USSR

            I'm afraid you wishful thinking. The USSR put a lot of money on the opposition of the AUG.
            1. max702
              max702 16 May 2018 13: 09
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I'm afraid you wishful thinking. The USSR put a lot of money on the opposition of the AUG.

              Naturally, no one has canceled the Navy’s lobby, it’s necessary to prove yourself to be the country's saviors, and for one you’ll master the means, the more sworn funds the higher the prestige of the department .. And again, the USSR carried its ideology around the world and he had to solve the problem of the sea the enemy’s component is very far from its shores, modern Russia doesn’t have such tasks in the coming decades .. And of course we need 40–50 years with the ideal development of the ACG country, but by then there is a much greater probability of AUG conceptions from the word completely .. Space, aviation, rocket science are much more effective .. From the fleet there will only be an underwater component and attack ships up to 10 tons maximum .. And that’s all a big question ..
  10. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 15 May 2018 09: 59
    +3
    According to the expert, the Dagger is able to destroy with one blow even the largest enemy ship from a distance of 2 thousand kilometers.
    M-d-ah! All "calculated"? "Vobla on 3, crayfish on 5 rubles .....!" ... Yes, here's a "catch"! I, a tea is not young ..... and in my life I have often bumped my forehead about a factor: home calculations often do not agree with the market price! The author is direct “paint of the civil war” (!): “They didn’t study at the academies! Checkers are bald! And forward!” It is painfully primitive. The author imagines a naval battle of the 21 century (!) .... like: "garbage is floating on the river from the village of Kukuev... (that is, the US fleet in a warrant moves to the shores of our Motherland ...) and then suddenly they met: "trynda flew unknown metal" (that is, the MiG-31 rise with the "Daggers") ... Puff-puff! As a result:"well, let the iron piece KuKueva go to the bottom... "Three cheers ..." Thunder of victory, be heard! "Disassembly of flights .... distribution of orders ... distribution of trophies ... Like in a movie! But in life, not like in a movie! According to plan, it can turn out" smoothly, "as on paper, but in practical execution" suddenly "appears" stumps "," notches "... No one can guarantee that a" big "war (or conflict) with the United States will begin with a" naval battle " and it will end! The top military leadership of the country has "indicative" plans for warfare (including for the initial period) .. and it is not for us "couch strategists" to give "serious forecasts" !
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 May 2018 17: 47
      +4
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      The author imagines a naval battle of the 21st century (!) .... like: "garbage is floating on the river from the village of Kukuev ... (that is, the US fleet in a warrant moves to the shores of our Motherland ...)

      Moreover, continuously informing us of their whereabouts and the position of the ships in the warrant. Remember the marvelous story - how the AB swapped places with the KKS, and our reconnaissance aircraft barely found this huge carcass? Or how has our intelligence lost at its side, off the coast of Norway, a whole AUG? smile
  11. Vladimir Kazakov
    Vladimir Kazakov 15 May 2018 10: 20
    +4
    I do not agree with the author about the design and scientific base, and the possibilities of building an aircraft carrier. People still remain, bye. But there is no base for development or construction capacity. This must be created and more than one year. This is money that could go to 22386, 22350, 22160, etc., to the fleet, which urgently needs to be updated.

    And most importantly, we do not have:
    - escort ships to create an AUG
    - bases with developed logistics for AUG
    - free access to the ocean, except through the Arctic.
  12. Old26
    Old26 15 May 2018 10: 35
    +2
    Quote: dsk
    Quote: Bastinda
    Who will find him and how

    All hope for satellite reconnaissance and guidance. You can’t hide such a “megatzel” in camouflage nets.

    A satellite can detect, of course, such a target. But taking into account our satellite constellation, this region, where it is detected by the AUG, the satellite will be able to watch a couple of times a day. Well, he spotted, for example, AUG 4 thousand kilometers from our coast. He transferred the data to the ground and, accordingly, to the Dagger carrier, in order to get to the place where he could launch the MiG would need several hours. Where will the AUG go in this time? Satellite detection is certainly good, but it will not give the desired target designation ...

    Quote: Alexey Sommer
    But when a country does not have the ability to create as many aircraft carriers as a partner, it creates daggers. And the "dagger balances it all.

    We really are not able to create the same number of aircraft carriers as in the United States, even in the long term. But this is not necessary. But the fact that the “dagger" balances all this is, for the most part, a fairy tale ...

    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    But the irresistibility of the “Dagger" is a reality. How are such rockets dung? Well, who will tell you top secret data? There are satellites, there are long-range reconnaissance aircraft ... Systems

    It’s not worth explaining everything only with secrecy. The question is asked correctly. Long-range reconnaissance - look at how many such aircraft Russia has in total. The compelling “Dagger” is so far exclusively virtual. We start talking from all the media about a little bit of success, but we are silent about the fact that this product in real life got into something. And at the declared range. So the "Dagger" is so far only a virtual weapon with unknown effectiveness ...

    Quote: Abram
    "irresistibility" Dagger is your imagination inspired by similar articles smile how could the Tomahawks fly around "s-400 areas of operation" if this area, if you believe the TV, all of Syria with a hook? smile

    Yes, what is all of Syria. Look at the performance characteristics of the missiles of this complex and do not forget that there is such a thing as a radio horizon. About all of Syria, the speech is not even close, well, except perhaps in media reports
    1. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 15 May 2018 11: 13
      0
      Quote: Old26

      Yes, what is all of Syria. Look at the performance characteristics of the missiles of this complex and do not forget that there is such a thing as a radio horizon. About all of Syria, the speech is not even close, well, except perhaps in media reports

      That is, according to external target designation, for example, from airplanes, can’t air defense work?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 May 2018 17: 50
        +3
        Quote: Vol4ara
        That is, according to external target designation, for example, from airplanes, can’t air defense work?

        Only in the presence of SAM with ARLGSN.
        All other missiles work only if the radar of the SAM itself sees the target.
    2. max702
      max702 15 May 2018 11: 29
      +2
      But taking into account our satellite constellation, this region, where it is detected by the AUG, the satellite will be able to watch a couple of times a day.
      So can increase satellite constellation? By increasing the number and quality of intelligence? For the price it will be clearly cheaper than 5-6AUG (less makes no sense) .. And do not forget that the areas from which the AOG can threaten our country long ago were calculated and plotted on a map, respectively, taken under control .. We are not in danger of the AOG, but bases in the circle of our country, and this ring is compressed at an accelerated pace, a dagger and other hypersonic weapons are primarily the prospect of zeroing the US Navy around the world, if we face the truth, the United States is not afraid to wipe off the face of the earth more than once, but Well, let’s appear at the same (suddenly) Yemen hypersomnia ukov RCC coastal or at the same Kim or Iran, and why? What then to do with the expensive US fleet and comrades? While this is not (maybe) but it will be! progress cannot be stopped .. And by the way, if the “Dagger” was adapted for the MIG-31 then why not hang it on the MIG-25 of which there are still quite a few. Replace avionics and go ..
  13. Tolik_74
    Tolik_74 15 May 2018 11: 12
    +1
    Take and test one dagger on the pend.ostanovsky ship. Let them then investigate how he went to the bottom. Maybe it will cool the fervor of the shabby hawks in the pintagon
  14. Gust
    Gust 15 May 2018 11: 23
    +2
    Here was a balanced position - aircraft carriers are needed, but in the dimension of Kuzi to cover the strategic deployment area. Three pieces. It is quite capable and really needed.
    Everything else in the form of a Storm is unrealistic and not necessary. It is important to push the Tomahawks beyond the radius of the defense of our shores with the help of various complexes (reconnaissance + missile defense + carrier + weapon), which is now being decided.
    This is much easier, cheaper, and more stable than fighting the storms.
  15. kakvastam
    kakvastam 15 May 2018 11: 33
    +1
    “Assuming that hypersonic anti-ship weapons are truly irresistible to the enemy,” many other things can be assumed. Including the fact that the enemy is able to manufacture something similar, and launch on our ground targets from aircraft based on aircraft carriers.

    In any case, reducing the defense to a defensive defense obviously dooms to defeat, so it would be better not to reproduce Khrushchev's idiocy.
  16. nikvic46
    nikvic46 15 May 2018 11: 35
    +2
    I completely agree that Daggers are a powerful weapon against missile defense, enemy warships. Question. How to determine
    finding a goal? Many users are puzzled by this question. Every powerful weapon needs highly trained
    personnel. This is the flight crew, and those services that serve it. But the main thing is intelligence, space, ground. Space satellites must restore their former status. Not one submarine should disappear just because its coordinates
    precisely identified by a satellite with an autonomous engine.
  17. Larum
    Larum 15 May 2018 11: 44
    +2
    The author is powdering her brains. Carriers do not build because of their cost + escort + service staff.
    And "daggers" - if nuclear, then do not care where to get. If non-nuclear, then aircraft carriers are quite tenacious because of their size.
  18. Е2 - Е4
    Е2 - Е4 15 May 2018 11: 55
    +1
    We have been waiting for a long time, good news, finally we can completely annul all the US Navy and NATO
  19. flicker
    flicker 15 May 2018 12: 27
    +1
    It would seem that such a dagger against an entire aircraft carrier laughing ordinary modest knife, against a huge iron monster, with a hundred modern aircraft fellow ... but ... it turns out, you just need to learn how to cook these "Daggers" laughing
  20. NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 May 2018 13: 12
    +1
    what about Washington while there is no way to intercept hypersonic missiles.

    And when such an opportunity arises, then what will we do? Remember that we need to build aircraft carriers? A dagger is not a panacea for all time from American AUGs. Sooner or later, mattresses will develop an antidote to the Dagger.
    At the same time, the development of drones also does not stand still and an aircraft carrier with an air wing of 200 shock drones, for example, is a very formidable argument.
    1. Shadow shooter
      Shadow shooter 15 May 2018 13: 37
      0
      For the aircraft carrier, again, a large retinue is needed. That drones submarine is power good
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 15 May 2018 13: 38
        0
        Quote: Shadow Shooter
        For the aircraft carrier, again, a large retinue is needed

        This is called the fleet.
        Quote: Shadow Shooter
        That drones submarine is power

        Which will be one of the strike units of this fleet.
  21. tank66
    tank66 15 May 2018 13: 26
    +3
    Point the dagger to the radiation of the microwave oven in the galley. The ex-cook Steven Seagal knows the meal schedule. The spare frequency is the radiation of the apparatus with sasasola cans in the wardroom.
  22. Shadow shooter
    Shadow shooter 15 May 2018 13: 34
    +1
    Instead of aircraft carriers, it would be more expedient to invest financial means in creating a new Dagger carrier, and so that it would be 5-10 pieces in size, and of course in the mass production of these Daggers. Unless of course we have these funds wink
    1. genius-f
      genius-f 17 May 2018 14: 01
      0
      Not a plane that takes off slowly for a long time, but a missile like an ICBM with several daggers? So the time of striking will be significantly reduced ...
      10 pieces in one rocket is probably enough for the entire AUG if you hit the main ships?
  23. sevtrash
    sevtrash 15 May 2018 14: 18
    +3
    Now Russia cannot build an aircraft carrier such as Nimitz, Ford and even Queen Elizabeth. Not to mention the AUG, without which the carrier is without arms. There are no catapults, no AWACS, no experience in the construction of such mastodons, personnel, and places, is there theoretically. And most importantly, there are not enough funds and resources. Which the Chinese and Americans have enough for themselves, they will build.
  24. Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. 15 May 2018 15: 01
    +2
    Here are those who comment and many journalists make a mistake, carefully read the transcript of Putin’s speech or watch the video, and he said the following: “the distance is MORE than 2 thousand km., And the speed is MORE than 10 mahs, this is more important, since more implies from 1 km to 999 km, and more flights from 11 to 19 flights, in such a situation, the situation immediately changes, despite the fact that our military usually underestimates the technical characteristics.
  25. Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant 15 May 2018 15: 30
    +3
    I must say that contrary to advertising, the "Dagger" is not a hypersonic aircraft, because He develops 10M in near space. ICBM warheads also develop high speeds in near space, and no one considers them hypersonic. The concept of “hypersonic aircraft”, as well as “supersonic” and “subsonic”, makes sense only in relation to flight in the atmosphere, and not in airless space. This does not mean that the “Dagger" is bad and it is easy to defend against it. But what is not, is not.
    Nothing is said about the dagger guidance system in open sources, at least I don’t know any details about this. Indirectly, this system can be judged by the recent speech of the doctor of military sciences, captain of the first rank Konstantin Sivkov, who believes that about 10 “Daggers” will be required for a reliable defeat of an aircraft carrier, of which maybe three will hit the target.
  26. Outsider
    Outsider 15 May 2018 15: 52
    +1
    - Suppose that Russian specialists were able to somehow verify the current coordinates of the aircraft carrier (via GPS) and via satellite communication enter them into the “Dagger” to correct the trajectory.
    But who said that “Aegis”, which does not have a “dead zone” funnel above its head (a viewing and capture zone in elevation from 0 ° to 90 °) and which is already capable of shooting down satellites, will not be able to detect and shoot down a “Dagger” - like any other ballistic missile ?!
    1. Newone
      Newone 16 May 2018 00: 51
      +2
      Probably because the Dagger is not a ballistic missile, because in the final section it does not move along a ballistic trajectory.
  27. Outsider
    Outsider 15 May 2018 16: 03
    0
    Quote: Senior Lieutenant
    I must say that contrary to advertising, the "Dagger" is not a hypersonic aircraft, because He develops 10M in near space.

    - And the target falls at a speed of "just" 5M-6M. So this is hypersound ...
    ICBM warheads also develop high speeds in near space, and no one considers them hypersonic.

    - It’s not essential, it’s not important.
    The concept of “hypersonic aircraft”, as well as “supersonic” and “subsonic”, makes sense only in relation to flight in the atmosphere, and not in airless space. This does not mean that the “Dagger" is bad and it is easy to defend against it. But what is not, is not.

    - What is, what is: do not play with words, - we are talking about the technical capabilities of the air defense system / air defense system to intercept a missile whose speed at the final stage really hypersonic. And did she fly before in the atmosphere (where hypersonic aircraft fly, the density of the atmosphere is ~ 1/1000 of the ground). or flew in space, where the vacuum is practically not important for the SAM system, which should intercept it, and for the missile system, which should have time to reach the calculated meeting point.
    Nothing is said about the dagger guidance system in open sources, at least I don’t know any details about this. Indirectly, this system can be judged by the recent speech of the doctor of military sciences, captain of the first rank Konstantin Sivkov, who believes that about 10 “Daggers” will be required for a reliable defeat of an aircraft carrier, of which maybe three will hit the target.

    - It will not hit, it is very likely that not one, - the majority will miss, one or two will hit Aegis ...

    The use of optics at the final stage is unlikely, although in principle it is possible - with proper development.
    1. Newone
      Newone 16 May 2018 00: 58
      +1
      Quote: Outsider
      te]
      - And the target falls at a speed of "just" 5M-6M. So this is hypersound ...
      .

      Why do you think so? Is your surname Putin?
  28. Retired2012
    Retired2012 15 May 2018 16: 15
    +2
    And why didn’t they stick to the aircraft carriers ..... There is nowhere to operate them ..... Neither in the Black Sea, nor in the Extreme North (I’m not talking about the Baltic) ..... Far East, except .... So no place .....
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Outsider
    Outsider 15 May 2018 16: 23
    +1
    Quote: Old26
    If now he does not have [SAM] air defense systems with speeds of 10-12M, this does not mean that they will not appear. And again there will be an eternal race of “sword and shield”, “shell and armor”.

    - Learn materiel:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altit
    ude_Area_Defense
    Weight - 900 kg
    Length - 6.17 m
    Diameter - 34 cm
    Engine - Single-stage rocket
    Operational range> 200 km
    Speed ​​- Mach 8.24 (2.8 km / s)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Mi
    ssile_3
    Weight 1.5 t
    Length 6.55 yrs
    Diameter 34.3 cm for Block I missiles
    53.3 cm for Block II
    Operational range - 700 km Block IA / B
    2,500 km Block IIA
    Speed ​​3 km / s (Mach 10.2) Block IA / B
    4.5 km / s (Mach 15.25) Block IIA
  31. Outsider
    Outsider 15 May 2018 16: 27
    +2
    Quote: nikvic46
    I completely agree that Daggers are a powerful weapon against missile defense, enemy warships.

    - Against the ABM of the warships of Honduras. But are you like going to fight with US Navy there?
    1. Newone
      Newone 16 May 2018 01: 03
      +1
      So far, the US air defense is showing itself not very well. In Saudi Arabia, it can’t cope with the Hussite ballistic missiles, which are 4 generations behind the Dagger.
  32. Outsider
    Outsider 15 May 2018 16: 32
    +3
    Quote: Tolik_74
    Take and test one dagger on the pend.ostanovsky ship. Let them then investigate how he went to the bottom. Maybe it will cool the fervor of the shabby hawks in the pintagon

    - In the event of an unexpected strike - it is indeed possible to sink a US ship (especially a ship anchored). But how much in revenge will they sink Russian ships and submarines?
    Unlike you, Putin represents this. Therefore, the maximum that the capable Russian Air Force - trolling Americans - fly over another US ship, showing incredible show-offs ... lol
  33. klm-57
    klm-57 15 May 2018 17: 29
    +1
    Perhaps the author is right. There is no point investing in yesterday’s technology. "See" must be in the future.
  34. weksha50
    weksha50 15 May 2018 21: 19
    +1
    “With regard to the availability of state funding for such projects, we should not forget that only one percent of the Russian billions invested in American securities is more than enough for the planned construction of an aircraft carrier fleet"...

    Is that ... bang? lol
    Well ... Now we’ll fill up all the adversaries with “Daggers” and kill them both at sea and on land ...
    Somehow we forget that we (and not only them) are far from being in serial production, implementation, equipment and development ...
    And as for the aircraft carriers ... Yes, I envy the Chinese, the way they produce large-scale military equipment and equip the army ... But they also have goals - no less than the United States: to become a world hegemon ... This can be seen without any microscopic eyeing ...
    And Russia, frankly speaking, is not up to aircraft carriers now ... We would have to restore our economy and the Armed Forces in such a way that no country would even look askance in our direction ... hi
  35. ratcatcher
    ratcatcher 16 May 2018 00: 36
    0
    As an author, carelessly about the Chinese, who are already armed with the world's first ballistic anti-ship missile “Dongfeng” DF-21D. Specially designed to destroy aircraft carrier groups.
  36. ratcatcher
    ratcatcher 16 May 2018 00: 43
    0
    At the same time I remembered an old joke. The Soviet Navy is mainly suitable for destroying the US Navy.
    That’s the “dagger” missile — which is suitable for destroying an aircraft carrier in a direct (we emphasize just direct) military clash with the United States. But an aircraft carrier can still do a lot of things if there is no such collision. An aircraft carrier is a means of projecting force in Syrian-type conflicts and preserving the US military hegeomony. That is, a broad-based tool. And the "Dagger" is a highly specialized weapon, "I can plow - I can not plow."
    It’s good that we have it. And they don’t have it yet. But when they will have it, and at the same time the possibility of counteraction. That carrier formations we do not appear. Let's not get into euphoria.
  37. strannik1985
    strannik1985 16 May 2018 18: 24
    0
    Quote: igorka357
    Volodenka, there is a clear definition of DOT .. well, what are you smarting about!

    Does the definition contradict what is written?
  38. strannik1985
    strannik1985 16 May 2018 19: 33
    +1
    Quote: ratcatcher
    As an author, carelessly about the Chinese, who are already armed with the world's first ballistic anti-ship missile “Dongfeng” DF-21D. Specially designed to destroy aircraft carrier groups.

    It was tested by firing at a ground, fixed target in the dimensions of the runway of an aircraft carrier. Moreover, evil tongues argued what was the first, hit or target.
  39. Old26
    Old26 16 May 2018 20: 15
    0
    Quote: max702
    Demonstrations of what?

    That we have it (or who else). But if you need a tool - one can not do

    Quote: max702
    A much larger demonstration is the ashes on the site of a palace or residence of some over-priced prince or president. And you can do it TODAY and now without AUG with much greater efficiency ..

    How? If this residence is within the reach of land aircraft - I agree. Well, if this residence is somewhere in southern Africa or on islands in the Indian Ocean? What then. Can we guarantee that the states lying between them and us will let our aircraft pass through their airspace and give permission to use their airfields as jump airfields? Not sure. The most recent example is Iran. Twice he gave a shot to the Kyrgyz Republic from the Caspian, once allowed to use his air base for refueling. And that’s all ... Now we are forced to drive the same “Buyans-M” into the Mediterranean Sea and keep there submarines with 4-6 Caliber missiles. From the Caspian, it would be easier. He shot back, went into the base, replenished the ammunition and again to the position.
    The airbase in Syria is limited in capacity. What, it would be superfluous to have in the Mediterranean aircraft carrier in fifty attack aircraft ???? And it is at hand. And if you have to "show" your fist somewhere else, what then

    Quote: max702
    We stupidly have no one to fight with the AUGs, either these countries under the United States, or you can do it by orders of magnitude less, this is China's full of tasks for them, even based on geography, and we must first master everything we need at home ...

    If there was a tool, there would be someone to fight with. In addition, you should not think that we are demanding an aircraft carrier tomorrow and in an amount equal to American. But counting on the same Dagger complex ALREADY multiplied all American AUGs by zero - frankly, it's stupid. "Dagger" is still something so virtual, a thing in itself

    Quote: Vol4ara
    That is, according to external target designation, for example, from airplanes, can’t air defense work?

    They can. But the range of AWACS aircraft is not unlimited

    Quote: max702
    So can increase satellite constellation? Increasing the number and quality of intelligence?

    This is easier said than done. Even in the days of the Union, when we launched the Cosmos once a week, we did not have full coverage of the surface of the globe. Moreover, when it came to radar reconnaissance satellites - there we could look at a specific area for about 1 / 3-1 / 4 days.
    In order to have 100% coverage, you need to have such a number of satellites that even such a rich country as the United States is not capable of. In addition, the same radar satellites have a capture width of about 150-200 km. When the next satellite comes up (even if they inspect it three times a day), the AOG will go so far that it might just not fall into the field of view

    Quote: max702
    For the price it will be clearly cheaper than 5-6AUG (less makes no sense) ..

    Not quite correct comparison. The satellite constellation should be regularly replenished, which means new satellites, plus the cost of output, plus the ground infrastructure for this satellite constellation. Of course, less than 5-6 AUG, but quite a lot

    Quote: max702
    And do not forget that the areas from which the ACG may threaten our country have long been calculated and mapped, respectively, taken under control ...

    What is taken under control? The number of long-range reconnaissance aircraft has been reduced many times. And if the same AUG approaches our territory from the ocean, try to find out at which point it will approach the border with a total length of a couple of thousand kilometers. The search for AUG by aviation has always been a very difficult task ... For the scout had to be taken to a specific point, but where it is - HZ. They say that the hunter has one way, the game (the beast) that the hunter hunts has hundreds.

    Quote: max702
    The danger is not the AUG, but the bases in the circle of our country, and this ring is compressed at an accelerated pace,.

    Just at AUG there is a factor of spatial uncertainty. Ground bases are known and more controlled

    Quote: max702
    a dagger and other hypersonic weapons are primarily the prospect of zeroing the US Navy around the world.

    The prospect of zeroing the American fleet is still zero. What is it and how effective is this weapon so far no one can say. Moreover, they will find countermeasures quickly enough. And so far we have only experienced combat duty, in which all the jambs are identified and will be revealed. What will be the rocket after the completion of this stage no one knows. Already, the “Dagger" looks different from the one that was shown to us on March 1. There were no starts to the maximum range yet. as there was no shooting at target ships. It is not known how target designation will be carried out for this complex, because the range of the radar on the aircraft itself is limited, and who will give such target designation at a distance of 2000-2500 km is unknown. How unknown are such details, what possibilities will the homing system have when capturing a target when the “Dagger” loses its speed to supersonic. It is not known how target designation will be carried out at hypersonic speeds. And many more, many questions. Up to the size of the lateral maneuver ...

    Quote: max702
    if we are to face the truth, the United States is not afraid to wipe off the face of the earth more than once.

    Well, the US is not Kim with his dozen charges. For us, he will work just as well. And our country will also lie in radioactive ruins ....

    Quote: max702
    but let’s appear at the same (suddenly) Yemen coastal hypersonic anti-ship missile or at the same Kim or Iran, and why ?.

    But nothing. These countries have no carriers from the word at all, and the coastal launcher will do little if there is no the same target designation. Moreover, unlike Russia, the United States all these countries simply trample, like a mammoth. Not once after the Gulf War against Iraq did the Americans use the entire arsenal of countermeasures. That is, within a radius of a couple of hundred kilometers, ground-based radars will allow the same Yemenis, Iranians, North Koreans to detect the AUG, but do not consider the Americans as stupid as M. Zadornov said. And they don’t have the means to detect these targets at long range, or if there are any, they will be suppressed in the first place.

    Quote: max702
    What then to do with the expensive US fleet and comrades? While this is not (maybe) but will be! .

    The question is posed incorrectly. What the US fleet with partners will do with these countries in the event of a conflict

    Quote: max702
    And by the way, if the “Dagger” was adapted for the MIG-31, then why not hang it on the MIG-25 of which there are still quite a few. Replace avionics and go ..

    According to open data for 2018, 0,00 MIG-25 aircraft were in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces. The last 10 MIG-25RB aircraft were decommissioned back in 2014


    Quote: Outsider
    Quote: Old26
    If now he does not have [SAM] air defense systems with speeds of 10-12M, this does not mean that they will not appear. And again there will be an eternal race of “sword and shield”, “shell and armor”.

    - Learn materiel:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altit
    ude_Area_Defense
    Weight - 900 kg
    Length - 6.17 m
    Diameter - 34 cm
    Engine - Single-stage rocket
    Operational range> 200 km
    Speed ​​- Mach 8.24 (2.8 km / s)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Mi
    ssile_3
    Weight 1.5 t
    Length 6.55 yrs
    Diameter 34.3 cm for Block I missiles
    53.3 cm for Block II
    Operational range - 700 km Block IA / B
    2,500 km Block IIA
    Speed ​​3 km / s (Mach 10.2) Block IA / B
    4.5 km / s (Mach 15.25) Block IIA

    What's the point? You cited as an example anti-aircraft systems with a kinetic interceptor and capable of operating at altitudes above 40-50 km. The fact that there are anti-aircraft missiles with such speeds I know. But they are only able to work either in the upper layers of the atmosphere or in space. If the target will go at altitudes of less than 40 km, the GOS of these kinetic interceptors simply will not hit it ...
  40. mva
    mva 17 May 2018 08: 41
    +1
    Quote: Vlad.by
    Well, the slow-moving Caliber is a bit from another opera. In Syria, targets were motionless with previously known coordinates.
    But! The dagger is most likely not to fly 2000 km, half of this range it will rest under the belly of a carrier (Mig-31), which is quite capable of receiving command from reconnaissance assets from the shore. And for the passage of the remaining 1000 km he will need no more than 10 minutes. This is at a speed of 5M. What is the speed in his real life - only Krishna knows. Yes, and is there a possibility of correcting the guidance point in flight - only the Buddha knows for sure, but I think there is.
    And to pay a visit to the largest and shimmering radiation "Christmas tree" - 100% the designers taught him! otherwise, what is the point of all this going on.

    The point is to start a direct one - to receive a dough, as having done a prodigy for wunderwafl only to upgrade a rocket from Iskander.
  41. mva
    mva 17 May 2018 08: 49
    +1
    Or can someone explain to me why the "Dagger" is called hypersonic? Judging by the lack of thermal protection and a radio-transparent cap, he develops the declared 10 M only at high altitude (judging by the color of the sky in the video, it is clearly more than 20 km, and most likely 50..80 km). With the same success, the FAU-2 can be called hypersonic, it also gave more than 5M at an altitude of 80 km.
  42. Outsider
    Outsider 17 May 2018 21: 41
    0
    Quote: Old26
    [
    Quote: Outsider
    Quote: Old26
    If now he does not have [SAM] air defense systems with speeds of 10-12M, this does not mean that they will not appear. And again there will be an eternal race of “sword and shield”, “shell and armor”.

    - Learn materiel:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altit
    ude_Area_Defense
    Weight - 900 kg
    Length - 6.17 m
    Diameter - 34 cm
    Engine - Single-stage rocket
    Operational range> 200 km
    Speed ​​- Mach 8.24 (2.8 km / s)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Mi
    ssile_3
    Weight 1.5 t
    Length 6.55 yrs
    Diameter 34.3 cm for Block I missiles
    53.3 cm for Block II
    Operational range - 700 km Block IA / B
    2,500 km Block IIA
    Speed ​​3 km / s (Mach 10.2) Block IA / B
    4.5 km / s (Mach 15.25) Block IIA

    What's the point? You cited as an example anti-aircraft systems with a kinetic interceptor and capable of operating at altitudes above 40-50 km. The fact that there are anti-aircraft missiles with such speeds I know. But they are only able to work either in the upper layers of the atmosphere or in space. If the target will go at altitudes of less than 40 km, the GOS of these kinetic interceptors simply will not hit it ...

    - ?? I repeat the sentence: we learn materiel. Aegis is a universal complex, it has ALL types of missiles, operating from a height close to zero - to the near space. Of course, they differ in the guidance system at the final stage.
    THAAD had several quite successful, as they called them "low-atmospheric" interceptions, - as I understand it, this is in the lower stratosphere, 11+ km. Put on the same THAAD missile launcher another GOS, for example, an active millimeter-wave RSSG (which is more than easy and simple) - and the problem of the altitude range is solved, it will be from zero to 100 km. Instead of kinetic, you can put warheads like ERINT missiles, for example, something between a kinetic and a fragmentation ...
    1. noct
      noct 18 May 2018 17: 15
      0
      about THAAD'a generally not clear. since the Americans themselves recognized the falsification of the tests. those. a charge fell into the missile and was blown up by timing. although the missile was flying the other way. this is a minus of "private traders" in state protection they need to sell
  43. ser56
    ser56 18 May 2018 16: 56
    +2
    the author is right in the main - there is no reason to bear such expenses for the creation of the ACG for Russia! To carry out operations to protect the interests of certain groups of our citizens across the seas, 1-2 normal helicopter carriers a la Mistral, well, a modernized Kuznetsov, are enough ... Can it be wiser to use this money specifically for the accelerated development of breakthrough technologies? Let the USA and China increase the tonnage of AB ... bully
  44. noct
    noct 18 May 2018 17: 11
    0
    Quote: Bastinda
    According to the expert, the Dagger is able to destroy with one blow even the largest enemy ship from a distance of 2 thousand kilometers.

    Only question. Who and how will he be found at such a distance, and who will direct the "Dagger"?

    Well, yes, he’s “blind.” In essence, LDCs, huh? Is it true that there is a network analogue of GLONASS. Yes, and in fact, our shells have the ability to direct themselves by satellite or by their radio emission. Or by radio emission from, for example, a plane-gunner. so. just by the way? "The Russians are simply physically incapable of creating something effective" old ... the dagger has been adopted. and is already in the army. albeit in small numbers. and there ... "come on, try it"
  45. Engineer
    Engineer 22 May 2018 12: 54
    0
    The Russian hypersonic anti-ship weapon of the new generation can be a decisive argument in favor of the refusal of the Russian Federation from its own aircraft carrier fleet.

    Firstly, this is an excuse for rogues, secondly, I don’t see the logic in this phrase, thirdly, aviation from aircraft carriers with daggers can control any part of the world's oceans, and MiG-31 only the northern and Far Eastern borders of Russia, well, Fourth, Russia does not have the technology, experience and ability to build large surface ships and will not have such logic.
  46. Stoler
    Stoler 22 May 2018 22: 23
    0
    reminds Khrushchev’s insanity _ when, apart from rockets, there was no need for other weapons ... Well, that's right, fuck us fleet ... we’ll sink all of us so far !!!! GLORY TO RUSSIA!!! HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  47. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 25 May 2018 09: 07
    0
    I would like to ask the author a question: "... and whose will you be ...", it painfully echoes the Amerov "tats with tambourines" that began after the presentation of the GDP of our new systems! The only thing left to offer is to let the Dagger taste!
  48. wisealtair
    wisealtair 25 May 2018 15: 16
    0
    Quote: Titsen

    EW funds are unlikely to allow Knjal to hit the target by flying 2-3,5 thousand. km

    Yes, and the Goal will not wait ...


    EW against the "Dagger" is completely useless. Like any air defense. Even the super-super-mighty C 500 will not be able to bring down the "Dagger".
  49. Outsider
    Outsider 26 May 2018 15: 44
    +2
    Quote: wisealtair
    Quote: Titsen

    EW funds are unlikely to allow Knjal to hit the target by flying 2-3,5 thousand. km

    Yes, and the Goal will not wait ...


    EW against the "Dagger" is completely useless. Like any air defense. Even the super-super-mighty C 500 will not be able to bring down the "Dagger".

    - What stupid nonsense ...
  50. NordUral
    NordUral 16 July 2018 15: 22
    0
    The third and most important question: why then Russia does not build aircraft carriers? Moreover, the experience of the same China, which rushed in pursuit of the United States in this field, seems to speak in favor of the undoubted need for such ships as part of the Russian fleet.

    The author, well, to hell with us, these budget eaters without a cause to the ice-free oceans. This is necessary - one to maintain global dominance, the other - to provide access to the ocean open spaces to protect trade routes. Why do we need this, we are a mainland country, for us ocean domination is an unnecessary and burdensome burden. Even the Union did not pull carrier groups. And our techies have something to do for the defense of the country, without expensive crazy projects.