So can we or not? NI "doubts" in the ability of the Russian Federation to build aircraft carriers

62
American national magazine The National Interest "doubts" that Russia is capable of building an aircraft carrier with a displacement of at least 2030 thousand tons by the end of the 70-s. About this writes the columnist Dave Majumdar.

So can we or not? NI "doubts" in the ability of the Russian Federation to build aircraft carriers




In his article published on the pages of the publication, Majumdar argues that "the likelihood that Russia will be able to design and build a normal aircraft carrier by the end of the 30-s is very small." Russia has never built ships of this class, and its aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov with a displacement of 55 thousand tons was built in Ukraine during the Soviet era. Modern Russia is not able to build an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 115 thousand tons, since "never built ships of this size and complexity."

The large shipyard of the Zvezda shipbuilding plant under construction in Primorye, in the opinion of the American “expert,” cannot be used to build warships, since its construction “involves foreign capital from South Korea.”

At the same time, says Majumdar, Russia is a continental land power country that does not need large and expensive aircraft carriers, and most likely will rely on large landing ships.

Earlier it was reported that at the beginning of the 2020-s, Russia will have the opportunity to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of thousands of tons in 110-115 in new shipyards in the Far East.
  • Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    28 August 2018 10: 41
    Our trick is fighter aircraft carriers.
    1. +11
      28 August 2018 10: 48
      we can, but we won’t ...
      1. +10
        28 August 2018 11: 19
        it's better than we will, but we won’t be able to lol
        1. +3
          28 August 2018 11: 36
          In recent years, the Russian military-industrial complex has "learned" to surprise the West. Let the new BIG aircraft carrier surprise the skeptics. For this and ... drinks
          1. +13
            28 August 2018 12: 21
            But I’ve been embarrassed to ask everything: Why do Russia need aircraft carriers?

            Russia is unique, the only country in the world that from its territory (from ground airfields) will be able to "get" all of Eurasia, if necessary.
            Neither the USA nor China is inaccessible; there is nothing to say about the possibilities and potential of the rest.
            So maybe that's why Russia and especially the "carrier fleet" is unnecessary?

            The use of AUG in the Second World War was harshly determined precisely by the remoteness of the theater of operations from basing places (from native shores).
            At the present time - the same thing + bright memory winked about all sorts of Midway and the like.
            So maybe it’s not worth it to "monkey"?

            Remember the dreadnought / battleships. They were replaced by aircraft carriers, demonstrating that the most powerful floating artillery platforms are just an expensive pile of scrap metal (with a serious fight).

            So it is now. If a conditional "dagger" (or several "daggers") can sink a carrier, then ...

            Sea wolves wink correct if I am mistaken.
            1. +2
              28 August 2018 14: 32
              Quote: den3080
              Remember the dreadnought / battleships. They were replaced by aircraft carriers, demonstrating that the most powerful floating artillery platforms are just an expensive pile of scrap metal (with a serious fight).

              in general, the fleet, like air defense, should be balanced (layered), a simple example is the American AUG: 1 - 2 AB, a couple of cruisers, for a dozen (or even not one) destroyers, 2 - 3 MAPL (hunters). Now remember how many Tu22M3 regiments had to be burned for its (AUG) destruction?
              1. 0
                28 August 2018 15: 30
                Quote: PSih2097
                Now remember how many Tu22M3 regiments had to be burned for its (AUG) destruction?

                the answer is not at all.
                check out the flight range of air-based anti-ship missiles.
                1. 0
                  28 August 2018 23: 39
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  Quote: PSih2097
                  Now remember how many Tu22M3 regiments had to be burned for its (AUG) destruction?

                  the answer is not at all.
                  check out the flight range of air-based anti-ship missiles.

                  Here you need to familiarize yourself with the range of ICBMs .... Why should we fight with them at sea, when you can drown everyone at once in the port ...
            2. -3
              28 August 2018 16: 54
              Russia needs medium-tonnage aircraft carriers to fight terrorists and display the Flag. Even if Storm alone will not solve the problem, we need 4-6 aircraft with 40-60 aircrafts. And besides, it makes no sense to catch up with the United States. They have 11. But to pin down ISIS or support the interests of Russia in Africa, for example, yes, they are needed, but as I already wrote, the average tonnage.
              1. 0
                28 August 2018 23: 45
                Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
                Russia needs medium-tonnage aircraft carriers to fight terrorists and display the Flag. Even if Storm alone will not solve the problem, we need 4-6 aircraft with 40-60 aircrafts. And besides, it makes no sense to catch up with the United States. They have 11. But to pin down ISIS or support the interests of Russia in Africa, for example, yes, they are needed, but as I already wrote, the average tonnage.

                What the hell? A base is being built, an airfield and all .. If someone says that suddenly the allies will not be there? then the question is, what the hell are we doing there without allies and others? What are we there for? You can simply wipe them off the face of the earth with other means, and since air support (most likely ground forces) was needed, then interests and allies were in place, and remove territories under bases and so on ..
            3. +1
              28 August 2018 17: 12
              Quote: den3080
              But I’ve been embarrassed to ask everything: Why do Russia need aircraft carriers?

              Russia is unique, the only country in the world that from its territory (from ground airfields) will be able to "get" all of Eurasia, if necessary.
              Neither the USA nor China is inaccessible; there is nothing to say about the possibilities and potential of the rest.
              So maybe that's why Russia and especially the "carrier fleet" is unnecessary?

              The use of AUG in the Second World War was harshly determined precisely by the remoteness of the theater of operations from basing places (from native shores).
              At the present time - the same thing + bright memory winked about all sorts of Midway and the like.
              So maybe it’s not worth it to "monkey"?

              Remember the dreadnought / battleships. They were replaced by aircraft carriers, demonstrating that the most powerful floating artillery platforms are just an expensive pile of scrap metal (with a serious fight).

              So it is now. If a conditional "dagger" (or several "daggers") can sink a carrier, then ...

              Sea wolves wink correct if I am mistaken.

              In the Pacific and Northern Fleets it is useful for collecting tribute. lol
            4. 0
              28 August 2018 17: 41
              I will correct. Submarine aircraft carriers-catamarans will replace conventional aircraft carriers - similarly to the design of the Akula-class nuclear submarine with the number of aircraft possible up to 200 MiG-41 fighters.
          2. 0
            28 August 2018 14: 55
            At one time, the tsar-rag was convinced of the extreme necessity of battleships for Russia. The result is a shortage of ammunition for the front and the crowd of a revolutionary sailor (the "brothers" wanted courage from idleness). Now Russia is being pushed to build aircraft carriers ... A scam of the SDI type.
      2. -1
        28 August 2018 12: 03
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        0
        we can, but we won’t ...

        It will be necessary - we will.
        1. 0
          28 August 2018 23: 26
          The absence of an AHU state, first of all, speaks of its poverty, and not of some special, specific vector of construction of the Navy! hi
          1. +1
            29 August 2018 11: 19
            Germany and Japan do not have an AUG. The UAE and Luxembourg, too. Doesn't fit in with the logic?
      3. The comment was deleted.
  2. +10
    28 August 2018 10: 42
    Yes, I also doubt it, because there is no coherent program on shipbuilding. Neither the number of required aircraft carriers has been properly voiced, nor the scope of their application, nor their location. Statements from military and civilian officials come in the most controversial, which suggests complete contention in this matter, as with landing helicopter carriers.
    And the fact that it is possible to translate into metal is beyond doubt, the task would have been set, not such pianos were repaired, as they say. There are also stocks. No decision is made, that’s the problem.
    1. +4
      28 August 2018 10: 48
      Despite the claimed possibilities, life puts everything in its place.
      Earlier it was reported that at the beginning of the 2020-s, Russia will have the opportunity to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of thousands of tons in 110-115 in new shipyards in the Far East.

      Earlier it was reported that we will build helicopter carriers. But Denis Manturov sobered everyone. And what he meant is not clear.
    2. +5
      28 August 2018 10: 57
      Your arguments are understandable. hi And Majumdar’s article resembles complacency amid the fact that China is already experiencing its new aircraft carrier. Yes
      1. +4
        28 August 2018 10: 58
        That’s how we would not have to order an aircraft carrier from China over time. what
        1. +2
          28 August 2018 11: 06
          Quote: barclay
          That’s how we would not have to order an aircraft carrier from China over time. what

          I hope that if they decide at the top about the need for an aircraft carrier, then:
          1. +3
            28 August 2018 11: 21
            Pasha, hi
            and you still need to think, maybe you can order a body in China too, but put your stuffing?
            1. +3
              28 August 2018 11: 31
              Hello there! hi
              Quote: novel xnumx
              and you still need to think, maybe you can order a body in China too, but put your stuffing?

              This (as well as the decision on the need for an aircraft carrier) at the top will be decided ...
      2. +6
        28 August 2018 11: 13
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        Majumdar's article recalls complacency

        Well, let them self-complacent. We will stay (for now) a land power.
    3. -2
      28 August 2018 11: 33
      What are the aircraft carriers? Here the frigate for ten years can not be put into operation. Strongly swung
    4. +2
      28 August 2018 12: 05
      Quote: inkass_98
      there is no clear program on shipbuilding.

      In my opinion, there is, and it is clearly defensive with a bias in support of ground operations.
  3. +7
    28 August 2018 10: 43
    We can build! But is there any sense in them for Russia? We are kind of not going to bomb any Papuans, and attack too.
    1. +5
      28 August 2018 10: 50
      We will return Alaska. O))))
      1. -2
        28 August 2018 14: 26
        Quote: Ascold1901
        We will return Alaska. O))))

        Well then, just a bridge!
        1. 0
          28 August 2018 15: 02
          "Well then, only a bridge!"
          So we already practiced in Crimea about)))) Now, it seems, on Sakhalin we should hone our skills and speed ...
  4. +1
    28 August 2018 10: 44
    As the classic said - less is better, but more. what Probably, it makes no sense to chase the size. It is important that the aircraft carrier is effective.
  5. +2
    28 August 2018 10: 45
    Russia, if desired, will build and master everything .. Would there be money .. And there will be money when they stop filling pockets at the top and engage in real production ... but with current leaders this is not possible.
    1. +2
      28 August 2018 11: 50
      Quote: Svarog
      There would be money.

      money in the country - the sea! the budget was laid out from 40 bucks per barrel, and for almost 2 years the barrel has stood for 70 bucks = 2 budgets in the country are spinning in bins - they are not allowed into business, they are only buying up gold, the question is why?
      1. +2
        28 August 2018 13: 08
        the question is why?

        Because shipyards are being built and modernized. As they finish with them, it will be necessary to load with their work - that’s where they will start building ships. IMHO, of course.
    2. 0
      28 August 2018 14: 27
      Quote: Svarog
      And the money will be when they stop stuffing pockets at the top

      you surprise me, why did they come to power then? It's impossible
  6. +3
    28 August 2018 10: 55
    The National Interes either praises the Russian army, frightening the Americans and Europeans with its capabilities, or "sincerely" doubts the capabilities of our military-industrial complex. It is time to make up our minds, and not to adapt to the current situation. And it is not for this media to decide what Russia can and what cannot. And this shocked
    Russia is a continental land power
    But what about the enormous length of the exit into two oceans and many seas?
    1. +9
      28 August 2018 11: 09
      So MUjamur with geography, as I understand it, is not okay. Probably skipped classes at school. Or around the globe studied us.
      1. +4
        28 August 2018 11: 42
        His geography is generally sour, because claiming that
        Russia has never built ships of this class, and its aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" with a displacement of 55 thousand tons was built in Ukraine
        a person signs his own illiteracy, or he has severe sclerosis, since he does not remember that Kuzyu was not built by Ukraine, but by the Soviet Union fool
        1. +9
          28 August 2018 11: 47
          Quote: Nashensky town
          Kuzyu was not built by Ukraine, but by the Soviet Union

          This is not geography. This paranoia mixed with insanity .. request
          1. +2
            28 August 2018 13: 13
            Borisych, welcome hi Everything is in order with insanity and paranoia. He just fulfills denyuzhku for the order. Therefore, it produces such pearls.
            This is me about Dave Majumdar, and not about our members of the forum, if that. Yes
            1. +5
              28 August 2018 13: 21
              Hello, partisan underground! soldier

              Quote: Svarog51
              fulfills denyuzhku for the customer.

              But how else is that? But, you must admit that in order not to look like a complete IDEA, geography needs to be known at least a little bit.
  7. +2
    28 August 2018 11: 02
    Well, of course, aircraft carriers are not needed to a regional land power! And to the point of them, if they are only needed against the Papuans! And it doesn’t matter that with the new anti-ship missiles the FA-18 will cover the range of the return launch of our anti-ship missiles without entering the air defense range of our ships. Not our chip and all. The Union did not build aircraft carriers. Ulyanovsk does not count. Just think there, China lowered its new Avik. They themselves do not know why he is to them. And stupid England built two new Aviks from fat. Our country is poor. For us, the bridge across the Lena is a megastructure. It is interesting what our VKS would do if the Soviet base were not yet in Syria? Avik then. From the Caspian Sea they would only use bullets from boats, but the carcasses drove over Iran and the whole operation. No, aviks are not needed.
  8. +3
    28 August 2018 11: 17
    Construction is a matter of pure expediency. It will be necessary, we will build it. In my opinion, it is not necessary. And it is necessary, multi-purpose submarines and medium-tonnage cannon-gun platforms.
    1. 0
      28 August 2018 11: 35
      We can’t put the frigate into operation for ten years - what avik?
  9. +7
    28 August 2018 11: 30
    Well, what can I say? To discuss Majumdar - not to respect yourself. If Ukraine already built Kuznetsova ...
  10. +1
    28 August 2018 11: 35
    . Majumdar, Russia - Continental Land Power,

    Ltd. Here, even it is not clear.
  11. +2
    28 August 2018 11: 43
    Russia could not do much. We could not prevent the collapse of the USSR and the looting of the national economy and property. We could not prevent the bombing of Yugoslavia. We could not prevent the destruction of the statehood of Iraq and Libya. We did not intervene in the coup in Ukraine. We did not respond to the humiliation of WADA and all sorts. We look through our fingers at our own nouveau riche oligarchs. We do not respond to provocations and express concern ...
    stop THEN, WHICH DUKE IS WE ALL AFRAID OF, THAT EVEN GETTING TO FIGHT WITH US GOING ONLY FOR THE WHOLE GAMBOZ? YOU, THE STRONGEST AND POWERFUL! WE DO NOT ENTER SANCTIONS AGAINST YOU, ATTENTION AND THERE IS ANYTHING TO RESPOND TO SO LITTLE SEEK. WE ARE NOT CONFIGURING THE WHOLE WORLD, SCARYING IT TO RUSSIAN BEAR. And IF YOU NEED, LET YOUR AUG GO TO THE BOTTOM EXACTLY ALSO AS HERE:
  12. +3
    28 August 2018 11: 51
    Russia can build a lot of things. Here we must first ask the question - is it so necessary for us or not? In other words, what do MO specialists think about this matter ... And what do they think - no one will speak openly and that’s right. For secret. As a rule, any problem can be solved by different methods. So, until the Moscow Region decides on its goals and objectives, it makes no sense to break spears. Well, the Americans also say a lot, and as always, depending on the next goals, the tone of the statements changes ... Summarizing - if it is written in the middle ...
  13. 0
    28 August 2018 12: 10
    Russia can do anything !!! And the aircraft carriers we have will be no worse than the American ...
  14. 0
    28 August 2018 12: 11
    The National Interest let me see the money.
  15. +2
    28 August 2018 12: 16
    Why do we need an aircraft carrier for 115 thousand tons? This time ... Wouldn't the Americans build an ice chick with a turf power plant? Well, what would we finally "humiliate". These are two.
  16. +2
    28 August 2018 12: 18
    But in general, the question remains the question: why do we need a large aircraft carrier? It is impossible without a large fleet of cover. Why do we need to inflate the Navy unnecessarily?
  17. +1
    28 August 2018 12: 50
    You can order the trough yourself in China .... start by yourself.
  18. 0
    28 August 2018 12: 53
    You never know what Americans think. Russia has always been a unpredictable country. The mind cannot understand Russia; its arshin cannot be measured.
  19. +1
    28 August 2018 13: 10
    So we do not need aircraft carriers with our doctrine ... Why build them if they are immediately sunk?
    1. +1
      29 August 2018 10: 24
      Oh brother, I've tried several times to get it done, it's useless. He is needed, he is prestige, and the question of where and what will he do to me only sculpted the cons and not one answer
  20. 0
    28 August 2018 13: 53
    and the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" with a displacement of 55 thousand tons was built in Ukraine during the Soviet era.

    Oops! Did not know! Nicely
    1. 0
      28 August 2018 17: 23
      All the big ships were built in Nikolaev ....
  21. 0
    28 August 2018 15: 53
    Maybe they would build it (But which Thief will allocate money for this business? wassat
  22. 0
    28 August 2018 16: 10
    Dave Majumdar - All Dave's "gift" from his head went to "Majum" Of course, of course we can! But not in "majum".
  23. 0
    28 August 2018 20: 55
    In general, in the current conditions, RUSSIA cannot build anything from a class of 20000 tons. I’m afraid that even a destroyer of 13000 tons will not be able to
  24. 0
    29 August 2018 10: 22
    Let the battle of commentators begin. NEEDED / NEEDED

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"