Military Review

In the Russian Federation proposed to build an aircraft carrier-catamaran

89
Krylov State Research Center proposed a project of a light aircraft carrier with a submarine in the form of a semi-tatamaran, transmits TASS.


In the Russian Federation proposed to build an aircraft carrier-catamaran


According to the representative of the center, such a scheme has not yet been proposed for aircraft carriers. The ship model was first presented at the Army-2028 forum.

According to the agency interlocutor, the main feature of this project (I haven’t received the name yet) is the design of the underwater part of the hull, in which the “semi-tamaramara form” is realized.

Polukatamarannaya because two separate hulls (in the stern) to the bow converge into one. This scheme with a smaller displacement allows you to build a wide flight deck, like the ships of the heavier class. As a result, a full-fledged deck wing will be placed on the aircraft carrier, the company representative said.

He specified that the estimated displacement (full) of the ship is 44 thousand tons, the hull length is 304 meters, the width is 78 meters, the estimated draft is 8,5 meters. The speed is up to 28 knots, the range is 8 thousand miles.

The wing can count up to 46 aircraft, including 25-28 Su-33 MiG-29K aircraft, four control aircraft and more than ten Ka-27 family helicopters.

For comparison, the “Admiral Kuznetsov” with a displacement of 59 thousand tons has aviation a group of up to 52 aircraft.
Photos used:
https://ru.depositphotos.com
89 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
    Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 2 October 2018 13: 24
    +11
    There is nothing new in the scheme of a catamaran aircraft carrier, another thing is that the Russian economy will not pull it.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 2 October 2018 13: 41
      +3
      modelers-constructors damn it ... again, "swing for a ruble" ...
    2. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 2 October 2018 14: 26
      +3
      Russia has over $ 460 billion gold reserves, enough for 46 aircraft carriers if necessary ...
      1. Metallurg_2
        Metallurg_2 2 October 2018 20: 19
        +2
        Only all gold reserves by law are the property of the Bank of Russia, and the Bank of Russia is constitutionally a branch of the US Federal Reserve.
        1. Alex1117
          Alex1117 2 October 2018 21: 40
          +1
          3it, the construction of our aircraft carriers will be funded by the US Federal Reserve :))
        2. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 3 October 2018 11: 03
          0
          So there is still a stub fund. Now, after the reform, it is no longer necessary to subsidize pensions from it; at least a whole fleet can be built.
      2. sergeykniaziuk
        sergeykniaziuk 23 October 2018 04: 18
        0
        Unfortunately, as practice shows, the declared gold reserves must be divided by 10 at least.
        Yes, and the Central Bank kicks him to support the course. Another year, 2-3 rubles at 60-80 rubles, and nothing will remain of the gold reserves. In Ukraine, until 2014, they kept the rate fixed, so 17 billion dollars went nowhere
    3. poquello
      poquello 2 October 2018 14: 27
      +14
      Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
      There is nothing new in the scheme of the catamaran aircraft carrier

      correct, in this regard, I propose to do round aircraft carriers and planes to disperse in a circle
      1. Pereira
        Pereira 2 October 2018 14: 34
        +6
        Not in a circle, it’s difficult to steer. In a spiral, spinning up.
        1. Piramidon
          Piramidon 2 October 2018 14: 38
          +6
          Quote: Pereira
          Not in a circle, it’s difficult to steer. In a spiral, spinning up.

          Nothing complicated. Have you seen cord model aircraft? Unwind on a cable, pick up take-off speed, uncoupled and a bullet into the sky. good laughing
          1. Pereira
            Pereira 2 October 2018 21: 14
            0
            Saw how not to see. Just consider handling and overload.
      2. Metallurg_2
        Metallurg_2 2 October 2018 20: 20
        +2
        Well, what, after the Crimean War, they built round battleships - "popovka".
        1. Pereira
          Pereira 2 October 2018 21: 48
          0
          And in vain they built.
    4. Breard
      Breard 2 October 2018 15: 05
      +1
      Hmm ... and what kind of ... "pulls" !?
      1. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 3 October 2018 10: 12
        0
        The most interesting thing is that they write that with a smaller displacement, it will take a full-fledged air wing, and they immediately write that with a displacement of 44 kt, it will take 46 years. app. (Kuzya at 59 thousand tons, takes 52 ...)
        Only I have a problem with arithmetic? 46 is a full wing? If you consider that the drums, take up to a hundred, with a displacement of one hundred.
  2. marlin1203
    marlin1203 2 October 2018 13: 27
    +5
    What is a catamaran aircraft carrier ?! Kuzyu podshamanite first!
    1. Govorun
      Govorun 2 October 2018 14: 00
      +7
      Are you aware that sometimes restoration is more expensive than building from scratch ?!
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 6 October 2018 01: 53
        0
        Now, if KTU is changed to YaSU, then yes, and it’s so easy to replace the old with the new ...
  3. teron
    teron 2 October 2018 13: 30
    +21
    Maybe, for starters, learn how to make escort ships in commodity quantities, and only then an aircraft carrier?
    Not a specialist, and I could be wrong, but it seems so far only frigates can barely master where the aircraft carrier is.
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 2 October 2018 14: 30
      +9
      First, corvettes are built, then frigates, then destroyers, and then aircraft carriers, and not vice versa ...

      All delays in the construction of our ships are associated with the fact that the requirements for them are constantly changing and all developments are carried out in parallel with the development of weapons that will be on these ships ...

      Now everyone will establish and begin to produce both frigates and destroyers like hot cakes, and there are UDCs and aircraft carriers ...
      1. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 2 October 2018 15: 32
        +5
        If the engines cannot be mastered by frigates, then what kind of aircraft carriers ..., The second question, why buy an elephant, is there a need, or just a whim, to dream big, especially when the pants are slipping because of thinness ...
        1. Grits
          Grits 3 October 2018 03: 15
          0
          The second question, why buy an elephant, is there a need, or just a whim, to dream big.
          With the competent organization of labor, a decent flock of woodpeckers can kill the middle elephant to death. Therefore, while corvettes and frigates. Despite the fact that I really want UDC and an aircraft carrier.
      2. sergeykniaziuk
        sergeykniaziuk 23 October 2018 04: 14
        0
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        First, corvettes are built, then frigates, then destroyers, and then aircraft carriers, and not vice versa ...


        First, they put things in order on existing lands, and then they add new ones. I'm about the new peninsula
  4. Sonet
    Sonet 2 October 2018 13: 31
    +9
    The designers, apparently, want the aircraft carrier more than the military :) I suggest that you don’t stop on the catamaran and immediately take up the space carrier :)
    1. Pathos
      Pathos 2 October 2018 14: 06
      +8
      And it’s better to immediately create an aircraft carrier laughing
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 2 October 2018 14: 47
        +1
        Quote: Paphos
        Aircraft Carrier Nose Carrier

        Something like a nesting doll? laughing
  5. Salavatsky Ministry of Emergency Situations
    0
    Krylov State Research Center - right center for generating ideas. What do not offer, especially all sorts of aircraft carriers. True good is - zero. Although they are building an offshore pool in their territory
    1. Alex1117
      Alex1117 2 October 2018 21: 41
      0
      The model of a catamaran aircraft carrier was shown by R. Trotsenko when he headed the USC.
  6. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 2 October 2018 13: 32
    +1
    What's this? Is a semi-tamaran a v-shaped bottom? Nose one and two poop? It is doubtful somehow ... On the other hand, now the calculations are a lot of things going. Maybe there is something interesting found
  7. CentDo
    CentDo 2 October 2018 13: 35
    +4
    Where are they going to build this monster? We frigates in 5 thousand tons barely barely master. The project is wonderful of course, but where is the shipyard that is able to implement it?
    I don’t want to talk about security ships.
  8. badboy453
    badboy453 2 October 2018 13: 35
    +6
    The ship model was first presented at the Army-20 forum28».

    I don’t look so far ... wink
    1. Rader
      Rader 3 October 2018 00: 15
      +2
      Quote: badboy453
      The ship model was first presented at the Army-20 forum28».

      I don’t look so far ... wink

      As one titan of thought said: "Today is tomorrow
      not only everyone can look in ... "
      wassat
  9. NEXUS
    NEXUS 2 October 2018 13: 36
    +7
    Dreams of dreams, ... feeding another feed of the Russian inhabitant. In fact, what was laid and what are we building? We give birth to corvettes, 7 years old. Catamarans-shmakarans ... pah ...
    1. Piramidon
      Piramidon 2 October 2018 14: 47
      +2
      Quote: NEXUS
      Dreams of dreams, ... feeding another feed of the Russian inhabitant. In fact, what was laid and what are we building? We give birth to corvettes, 7 years old. Catamarans-shmakarans ... pah ...

      The main thing is to knock out the money for the project from the treasury. And then you can say: "Well, I didn't, I didn't." request
  10. Vita vko
    Vita vko 2 October 2018 13: 38
    +4
    Although a catamaran, even a classic look, in any case, this is too large and a vulnerable target for modern weapons. That in other matters, the United States has repeatedly proved by sending aircraft carriers to countries that practically do not numb their fleet.
    The main factor in a modern war between relatively equal opponents is the stealth and surprise of striking in any of the spheres of confrontation.
    Therefore, the optimal solution in this case is submarine aircraft carriers, the first projects of which were created in Japan.

    1. Faceless
      Faceless 2 October 2018 13: 52
      +11
      Submarine aircraft carriers ... an interesting move. The creation of submarine aircraft carriers, the aircraft of which will be with crews, is inexpedient either economically or militarily. There is no money here to make a normal one, but you say the airfield is also drowned under water. This is all, of course, cute, but it will remain so at the level of layouts. As for "submarine aircraft carriers" with unmanned strike aircraft, they have long been created: any cruise missile is essentially unmanned (unmanned) aircraft.
      1. TAMBU
        TAMBU 2 October 2018 14: 03
        +4
        Considering the number of "minor" emergencies with the ignition of fuels and lubricants and other delights of the aviation theme on surface ships, it will be even more fun to extinguish and fix it under water ...
      2. geniy
        geniy 2 October 2018 18: 09
        -2
        You do not understand that any cruise missile is a very expensive and also one-time weapon! But how will you bomb ordinary trenches? Or single trucks? or small wooden concrete bunkers - are they also cruise missiles? No, here we need ordinary front-line aviation with ordinary cheap bombs, which means we need an aircraft carrier, preferably an underwater atomic carrier, which can easily pass the floor of the world’s ocean and suddenly emerge, bomb everything you need and dive, disappearing into the World Ocean.
        1. TAMBU
          TAMBU 2 October 2018 18: 21
          +2
          yeah ... nobody understands anything. Well, since we are talking about money, no one understands for example this: one torpedo for $ 2000 (?) Destroys in an instant the billions (hundreds of billions?) Of dollars spent on such a project along with cheap bombs for front-line aviation ...

          PS when the city "suddenly" pops up, it is a war against the natives ...
          1. geniy
            geniy 3 October 2018 07: 23
            0
            Well, since we are talking about money, no one understands for example this: one torpedo for $ 2000 (?) Destroys in an instant the billions (hundreds of billions?) Of dollars spent on such a project

            Against this, personally, I can offer three types of passive constructive anti-torpedo protection (not counting the active types - anti-torpedo). 1 Anti-torpedo boules, 2. Pre-installed adhesives, 3 rubber inflatable pontoons.
            1. TAMBU
              TAMBU 3 October 2018 13: 30
              0
              if that 1 Los Angeles class submarine has 26 torpedoes, in addition to tomahawks and harpoons ... considering that according to the Americans’ calculations, only 5 harpoons are needed to sink an aircraft carrier, it’s enough to force an underwater carrier to float very quickly ... then you think 26 attempts not enough to damage such an underwater city to make it emerge? And we are talking about obsolete technology, because as soon as the underwater airdrome project becomes known in the usa they will begin to develop modern means of dealing with them, and given that their economy is many times greater than ours, then all this does not look very promising ...
              1. geniy
                geniy 3 October 2018 16: 07
                0
                You see, in your opinion you do not take into account the degree of brainlessness of those who make such calculations, and on the other hand, the mindlessness of those who design ships. For example, remember that the huge aircraft carrier Eagle was sunk by just one torpedo. And the reason for this was not at all in the high power of an ordinary German torpedo, but in the fact that the designers combined all the chimneys of all boiler rooms too low into one pipe. And the water just poured from one boiler room to all the others.
                So - on a large (class battleship or aircraft carrier) ship of the order of two to three thousand separate rooms (mostly small cabins. That’s who would personally explain to me: how is it possible to fill with water such a number of rooms, each of which can be closed almost hermetically ?
    2. Vkd dvk
      Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 14: 19
      +1
      Quote: Vita VKO
      Although a catamaran, even a classic look, in any case, this is too large and a vulnerable target for modern weapons. That in other matters, the United States has repeatedly proved by sending aircraft carriers to countries that practically do not numb their fleet.
      The main factor in a modern war between relatively equal opponents is the stealth and surprise of striking in any of the spheres of confrontation.
      Therefore, the optimal solution in this case is submarine aircraft carriers, the first projects of which were created in Japan.


      Complete nonsense. The free volumes of the rooms of this monster will not allow drowning. J. Verne's project with his "Nautilus" was criticized in the fifth grade of high school. It is because of its halls. That's why any submarine is cramped inside.
      1. Faceless
        Faceless 2 October 2018 14: 25
        +6
        Quote: Vkd dvk
        Complete nonsense. The free volumes of the rooms of this monster will not allow drowning. J. Verne's project with his "Nautilus" was criticized in the fifth grade of high school. It is because of its halls. That's why any submarine is cramped inside.


        Nothing is impossible. The "Shark" type PLAB was also called a triumph of technology over common sense at one time. If you try hard, you can do anything you want, the question is - why? - when the same tasks can be solved by other, cheaper means.

        There were references to submarine aircraft carriers of the Japanese Imperial Navy. God bless him that they carried no more than 5 "whatnot" -seaplanes, even in the design version, but it's not just that all the world's fleets, including the American one, abandoned this idea. They could afford any military whim on their own navy economically.
        1. Vkd dvk
          Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 14: 45
          +2
          Quote: Faceless
          Quote: Vkd dvk
          Complete nonsense. The free volumes of the rooms of this monster will not allow drowning. J. Verne's project with his "Nautilus" was criticized in the fifth grade of high school. It is because of its halls. That's why any submarine is cramped inside.


          Nothing is impossible. The "Shark" type PLAB was also called a triumph of technology over common sense at one time. If you try hard, you can do anything you want, the question is - why? - when the same tasks can be solved by other, cheaper means.

          There were references to submarine aircraft carriers of the Japanese Imperial Navy. God bless him that they carried no more than 5 "whatnot" -seaplanes, even in the design version, but it's not just that all the world's fleets, including the American one, abandoned this idea. They could afford any military whim on their own navy economically.

          It is unfortunate that you have not heard of Archimedes and his law. Calculate the free volume needed to accommodate 50 non-packaged airplanes, of course with complete disassembly, and estimate the mass of displaced water by this volume. How to neutralize these millions of tons of ballast?
          1. geniy
            geniy 2 October 2018 18: 25
            0
            But let's count. Millions of tons speak? Yes, the MiG-29 weighs even 18 tons in overload, that is, 50 aircraft - less than 1000 tons !!! And consider that most of the aircraft have variable cargoes: fuel and ammunition, then about 500 tons. This is with a displacement of an underwater aircraft carrier of about 40. Yes, you can easily replace this cargo with ballast water. And fuel for planes is a liquid cargo in external tanks, that is, it weighs almost nothing, because it displaces by itself almost as much as it weighs itself.
            1. Vkd dvk
              Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 19: 37
              +3
              Quote: geniy
              But let's count. Millions of tons speak? Yes, the MiG-29 weighs even 18 tons in overload, that is, 50 aircraft - less than 1000 tons !!! And consider that most of the aircraft have variable cargoes: fuel and ammunition, then about 500 tons. This is with a displacement of an underwater aircraft carrier of about 40. Yes, you can easily replace this cargo with ballast water. And fuel for planes is a liquid cargo in external tanks, that is, it weighs almost nothing, because it displaces by itself almost as much as it weighs itself.

              And the volume occupied by this airplane? If 18 cubic meters, then the balance is observed and its presence does not help and does not interfere with drowning when necessary. Moreover, the volume is not of the aircraft body, with wings, keel, but a rectangular "container", described around the overall size. Passages - driveways. Lifting mechanisms. Gas tanks. He, after all, is somewhat lighter than water. And it helps with its presence (when even they are full), to emerge. Not to mention the case when they are empty. You can't fill them with water for ballast. And not because the dviguns do not like water, but the pressure at depth will force the tanks to be made of tank armor thickness. But what is there to consider, everything has been calculated for you for a long time. Compare the volume of a surface aircraft carrier with its displacement. Does the ratio bother you? Since such is the surface, then the underwater ratio simply must be close. What's the difference - what are the dimensions of your car - on the highway, on water, under water, it will move? For convenience and life, inside it should be very similar.
              1. geniy
                geniy 2 October 2018 22: 37
                0
                Moreover, the volume is not of the aircraft body, with wings, keel, but a rectangular "container", described around the overall size.

                This is your and everyone else's main mistake, as if the volume of an aircraft on a submarine aircraft carrier should be measured by its overall dimensions. On the contrary - only along the "body", that is, along the fuselage! To do this, you need to make fully folding wings, a folding stabilizer, folding keels, and retracted landing gear, and move the aircraft on special very low carts (only 20 centimeters high).
                Passages, driveways. Lifting gear

                And no passages and driveways! because there will be one central elevator in each compartment, and the movement of aircraft only to the right and left of the elevator along special guides. That is, the aircraft itself should be extremely compressed and all its movement inside the submarine should be minimal - without any turns and turns.

                Tanks with gasoline. He, after all, is somewhat lighter than water. And it helps with its presence (when even they are full) to emerge. Not to mention the case when they are empty. They, after all, cannot be filled with water for ballast. And not because the dviguns do not like water, but pressure at a depth will force them to make tanks armored thick.

                This is your general misunderstanding. Although aviation kerosene is really lighter than water, but this problem was solved long ago in the Second World War. The fact is that aviation kerosene, like any liquid, is an incompressible substance! Just like diesel fuel for diesel engines. And the Germans guessed with diesel fuel to fill the external tanks of their submarines. And so you know - the thickness of the casing of these tanks is not at all like that of tank armor, but almost like paper - only 3-4 mm thick. Because the fuel is incompressible! And by the way, when the fuel from these tanks ran out, these tanks were easily filled with water! And this is in the absence of modern materials - for example, thick polyethylene, waterproof bags from which can be placed inside the water tanks of the main ballast.
                And in addition - the aircraft carrier must carry a supply of aircraft weapons: bombs, missiles, and always inside a strong body, and this ammunition has a decent weight, although less than the weight of jet fuel. It would seem - to compensate for the weight of ammunition on an underwater aircraft carrier, you need to have a displacement margin - but no! because kerosene in external tanks creates positive buoyancy and compensates for the weight of ammunition. That is, when kerosene and ammunition are used up, the total weight of the submarine remains approximately the same as at the beginning of the voyage! And this fundamentally distinguishes a submarine from a surface aircraft carrier, in which both the weight of jet fuel and the weight of ammunition only increase the displacement of the ship in cargo.
                1. Vkd dvk
                  Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 22: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: geniy
                  Moreover, the volume is not of the aircraft body, with wings, keel, but a rectangular "container", described around the overall size.

                  This is your and everyone else's main mistake, as if the volume of an aircraft on a submarine aircraft carrier should be measured by its overall dimensions. On the contrary - only along the "body", that is, along the fuselage! To do this, you need to make fully folding wings, a folding stabilizer, folding keels, and retracted landing gear, and move the aircraft on special very low carts (only 20 centimeters high).
                  Passages, driveways. Lifting gear

                  And no passages and driveways! because there will be one central elevator in each compartment, and the movement of aircraft only to the right and left of the elevator along special guides. That is, the aircraft itself should be extremely compressed and all its movement inside the submarine should be minimal - without any turns and turns.

                  Tanks with gasoline. He, after all, is somewhat lighter than water. And it helps with its presence (when even they are full) to emerge. Not to mention the case when they are empty. They, after all, cannot be filled with water for ballast. And not because the dviguns do not like water, but pressure at a depth will force them to make tanks armored thick.

                  This is your general misunderstanding. Although aviation kerosene is really lighter than water, but this problem was solved long ago in the Second World War. The fact is that aviation kerosene, like any liquid, is an incompressible substance! Just like diesel fuel for diesel engines. And the Germans guessed with diesel fuel to fill the external tanks of their submarines. And so you know - the thickness of the casing of these tanks is not at all like that of tank armor, but almost like paper - only 3-4 mm thick. Because the fuel is incompressible! And by the way, when the fuel from these tanks ran out, these tanks were easily filled with water! And this is in the absence of modern materials - for example, thick polyethylene, waterproof bags from which can be placed inside the water tanks of the main ballast.
                  And in addition - the aircraft carrier must carry a supply of aircraft weapons: bombs, missiles, and always inside a strong body, and this ammunition has a decent weight, although less than the weight of jet fuel. It would seem - to compensate for the weight of ammunition on an underwater aircraft carrier, you need to have a displacement margin - but no! because kerosene in external tanks creates positive buoyancy and compensates for the weight of ammunition. That is, when kerosene and ammunition are used up, the total weight of the submarine remains approximately the same as at the beginning of the voyage! And this fundamentally distinguishes a submarine from a surface aircraft carrier, in which both the weight of jet fuel and the weight of ammunition only increase the displacement of the ship in cargo.

                  Well, a collapsible airplane, capable of flying at supersonic sounds ... Don’t bring the projects here, it doesn’t color you.
                  With preparation for a half-shift flight. Yes, even with tight driveways, where one by one and dragging ..... Squadron on the second or third day fly?
                  I stop talking with you. Uncomfortable arguing with .....
              2. geniy
                geniy 2 October 2018 22: 44
                0
                The volume of the surface carrier compare with its displacement. Value does not bother? Once such a surface, then the underwater ratio simply must be close.

                And this is also your general delusion! Because although the volume of the surface carrier is really very large compared to the displacement, it is only because the designers are mediocrity, and they give gigantic volumes to airplanes with unformed wings. And they do this mainly to raise the flight deck as high as possible above the surface of the sea. But this is also due to erroneous design! The fact is that the keel pitching of a ship is very dependent on speed - because at a high speed the pitching is much stronger than at a low speed. And during WWII, planes from aircraft carriers took off without any catapults, and they needed as high speed as possible. For this, aircraft carriers developed high speed, and strong keel pitching. Now you can refuse this technique, but everyone’s brains are already rigid,
        2. geniy
          geniy 2 October 2018 18: 21
          +1
          But because the Japanese were fools. The fact is that their underwater aircraft carriers carried seaplanes. A seaplane is certainly worse than a wheeled one. But the piquancy is that it was possible to build aircraft without a landing gear at all! That is - take-off on a cart from a catapult, and landing on water in the fuselage! The fact is that immediately after the WWII the biplanes did not land on the deck at all - but directly on the water, and they were pulled out from there by a crane. And if for carrier aircraft both boats and wheels are abandoned, then they will become easier and more maneuverable, and faster and at a higher altitude and range!
          1. Vkd dvk
            Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 19: 52
            +2
            Quote: geniy
            But because the Japanese were fools. The fact is that their underwater aircraft carriers carried seaplanes. A seaplane is certainly worse than a wheeled one. But the piquancy is that it was possible to build aircraft without a landing gear at all! That is - take-off on a cart from a catapult, and landing on water in the fuselage! The fact is that immediately after the WWII the biplanes did not land on the deck at all - but directly on the water, and they were pulled out from there by a crane. And if for carrier aircraft both boats and wheels are abandoned, then they will become easier and more maneuverable, and faster and at a higher altitude and range!

            Such planes were with the Japanese. They dropped the chassis after takeoff. And these kamikaze pilots were called. Translated into Russian, this means
            "Sacred Wind". Once, in history, a storm saved Japan from the Mongol invasion. She destroyed the aggressor's fleet. This is what they called this saving wind. Only one difference - they did not land at all (splashed down). They rammed American ships. Filled with bombs or torpedoes, they believed that ramming was a more accurate attack than bombing.
            1. geniy
              geniy 2 October 2018 21: 28
              0
              Once again, I personally tell you. Immediately after the First World War, biplanes did not yet know how to land well on deck. That was around 1920. AND Wheeled planes landed at sea! Moreover, they were not Japanese at all, and not kamikaze, but quite ordinary British and Americans! You certainly do not know about this, as do most "experts" in military history. And imagine that this was a common practice, though not for long. And even the Germans designed their own aircraft carrier and for it the Ju-87 with retractable landing gear, so that in case of anything they could land on the water.
              1. Vkd dvk
                Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 22: 33
                +1
                Quote: geniy
                Once again, I personally tell you. Immediately after the First World War, biplanes did not yet know how to land well on deck. That was around 1920. AND Wheeled planes landed at sea! Moreover, they were not Japanese at all, and not kamikaze, but quite ordinary British and Americans! You certainly do not know about this, as do most "experts" in military history. And imagine that this was a common practice, though not for long. And even the Germans designed their own aircraft carrier and for it the Ju-87 with retractable landing gear, so that in case of anything they could land on the water.

                Do I argue? Have you been? Yes, let them be. Parachutes, too, were not invented from the first flight. Landing in more or less modern airplanes is a one-time activity. Do not know why it is abandoned such a balancing act? The best is the enemy of the good, because.
                1. geniy
                  geniy 3 October 2018 07: 19
                  0
                  Get into the water
                  The planes of the 1920s landed on the water. And this only means that the 1940 submarine aircraft could well do the same.
                  Do not know why it is abandoned such a balancing act?

                  And I really do not know for what reason they refused it. Maybe, you know? But I would ask for a documented answer, not your personal point of view.
                  And modern short takeoff and landing aircraft may well land on the deck of a submarine.
          2. MANITU
            MANITU 2 October 2018 23: 48
            +1
            Large aircraft carriers are just right for "normal" aircraft, autonomy, crew comfort and unsinkability. Tell us how to hang something like a rocket on an airplane standing on a 20cm trolley using your proposed option, who and how will service and repair them lying down (for example, replacing pneumatics? pull out on deck?
      2. Vita vko
        Vita vko 2 October 2018 14: 30
        +3
        Quote: Vkd dvk
        Complete nonsense. The free volume of the premises of this monster will not allow to drown.

        It was necessary to tell this to the Japanese, who built two such aircraft carriers in the Second World War. laughing

        I advise you to pay attention to why the Americans were afraid when they captured one of these aircraft carriers and chose to flood it.
        1. Vkd dvk
          Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 14: 47
          +2
          Quote: Vita VKO
          Quote: Vkd dvk
          Complete nonsense. The free volume of the premises of this monster will not allow to drown.

          It was necessary to tell this to the Japanese, who built two such aircraft carriers in the Second World War. laughing

          I advise you to pay attention to why the Americans were afraid when they captured one of these aircraft carriers and chose to flood it.

          A seaplane discharged into the water, a maximum of two, is, of course, a terrible threat, even in those distant years. Stacked in the tank on the upper deck. With preparation for one-way flight for 20 hours. You think a little.
          1. Cetron
            Cetron 2 October 2018 16: 08
            0
            The Japanese planned to drop bacteriological weapons from the United States on these planes. So they got scared.
        2. Winnie76
          Winnie76 2 October 2018 17: 38
          0
          Quote: Vita VKO
          It was necessary to tell this to the Japanese, who built two such aircraft carriers in the Second World War.

          Victim of modern education. A competent person clearly explained everything to you. Compare the internal volume of the same Kuznetsov and modern square.
          1. geniy
            geniy 2 October 2018 18: 28
            -1
            Compare the internal volume of the same Kuznetsov and modern square.

            A modern aircraft carrier is pure madness. There are huge losses of unused volumes. Designers of aircraft carriers just need to put in rows to the wall and shoot from machine guns.
            1. Vkd dvk
              Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 22: 43
              +1
              Quote: geniy
              Compare the internal volume of the same Kuznetsov and modern square.

              A modern aircraft carrier is pure madness. There are huge losses of unused volumes. Designers of aircraft carriers just need to put in rows to the wall and shoot from machine guns.

              Thank God, there is one normal designer who understands that extra space for a ship is a luxury. And that the reduction of these volumes will lead to the complete sinking of the aircraft carrier, when necessary and when not needed. Which would be very useful in the design of an underwater aircraft carrier. Then, perhaps, evaluate the metacentric height of this vessel, halving its displacement? And how will it affect its stability during pitching and rolling? Will he not drop his airplanes already with a three-point pitching? And finally, what do you think to sit on such a deck? Once, or twice?
              1. geniy
                geniy 3 October 2018 00: 04
                0
                extra space for the ship is a luxury. And that the reduction of these volumes will lead to the complete sinking of the aircraft carrier, when necessary and when not needed.

                You probably don’t understand a squirrel in matters of survivability and unsinkability of ships, probably not a naval officer. The fact is that the volume of the ship does not so much increase its unsinkability. That is, we do not consider an intact ship. Namely, the ship received damage in battle. The fact is that after receiving several torpedo hits, any ship receives a roll, almost regardless of its displacement and the magnitude of the freeboard volume, and after receiving a roll, the freeboard openings enter the water, and even a large or huge ship will easily tip over and sink. You probably don’t know anything about how the huge Lusitania liner died - from just one torpedo. And I could cite as an example a lot of small tugboats and minesweepers who did not drown when they exploded in one mine or a dashboard. But they are a hundred times less than Lusitania in terms of displacement.
                And you certainly don't know how the Britannic liner (the sister ship of the well-known Titanic) died - from just one mine, and then the open windows entered the water and it sank.

                Then, perhaps, evaluate the metacentric height of this vessel, halving its displacement?

                Personally, unlike you, I know well what a metacentric height is, how it is calculated and what it depends on. And this value is completely non-linear. That is, a large vessel may have a small Metaz height, and a small one may have a large one.
                And the less this metacentric height is, the more smooth and calm the ship’s pitching is. you probably don’t know the answer to a simple question: which ship has a calmer pitching - loaded or empty? So here is the answer: with a laden one, because deck cargo reduces the metacentric height.
                already with a three-point pitching?

                "Three-point pitching" is an idiotic expression that no professional sailor would say. Simply because even if we bear in mind the three-point excitement, then different ships may have different pitching. And the main negative factor is the speed of the storm wind, not the pitching.
                And as I said - keel pitching very much depends on the speed of the ship against the waves. if the speed is small, then even with a gale, the pitching will be moderate. And at a high speed of about 30 knots, like with destroyers, any ship will begin to bury its nose into the wave, so they reduce the speed to 10 knots.
        3. MANITU
          MANITU 2 October 2018 23: 51
          +1
          This is not an aircraft carrier, this is a shortage with under-planes. And with enormous price and size - with incomparable combat effectiveness
  11. Larum
    Larum 2 October 2018 13: 47
    0
    Well done. !!! Fair.!
    IMHO, It is best to spawn more projects, calculate logistics, and then do nothing.
    So we will train designers, and we will save money. All the same, there is no money, no planes to the deck, no escort, no opportunity to swim somewhere.
    1. Irokez
      Irokez 2 October 2018 15: 48
      0
      Well, you are so criticized. Kuznetsov had a lot of escort when he rolled to Syria? That someone touched him in a relatively peaceful time, and he performed the task quite military and quite successfully. He smoked at the foggy albion and didn’t drown him and they didn’t even capture him for such sacrilege before the queen.
      In wartime, aircraft carriers are destroyed as the highest priority in the first place, regardless of their protection and escort
  12. Troll
    Troll 2 October 2018 13: 49
    +6
    There are two similar words in Russian: Project и Project. In this case, based on today's realities, the Krylov State Scientific Center confused these two words.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. BVS
    BVS 2 October 2018 13: 59
    +4
    Quote "The model of the ship was first presented at the Army-2028 forum." Probably the date -2028 is that Freudian mistake.
    1. HAM
      HAM 2 October 2018 14: 19
      +1
      No, just not everyone can look so far .. and they already have a time machine, the layout is still there ...
  15. ZVS
    ZVS 2 October 2018 13: 59
    -1
    There are 20 million beggars in the country, and we are going to build an aircraft carrier ?!
    Let's take off the last one, but "let's hammer the Axis tanks"? When will these cheap show-off of our leadership end?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 2 October 2018 19: 20
      -3
      The problem of 20 million beggars will never be solved, since this is already a psychological way of life, the same as chronic poverty.
  16. RL
    RL 2 October 2018 14: 02
    -1
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0
  17. K-50
    K-50 2 October 2018 14: 04
    +5
    In the Russian Federation proposed to build an aircraft carrier-catamaran

    Are there docks and other infrastructure to maintain technical suitability? No! Well, why, let it be forehead, wrinkle? Type a lot of smart? fool
    Everything had to be built for the Mistrals and was not useful. Their nuclear cruisers and aircraft carrier are still without berths, they stand on the raids on barrels. Now the “clever men” were found a dozen yards of “greenery” to build something else and toss it again among the bays. When will they calm down?
    Maybe they just tuned in for the next budget dough? am angry
  18. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 2 October 2018 14: 23
    +2
    If the idea is worthwhile, then the USSR would have built it, and we are not pulling even simpler projects on time. I was especially annoyed by the mention of "... four control planes in the air wing."
  19. kig
    kig 2 October 2018 14: 37
    0
    They all offer planes on deck to arrange, or what? Ingenious.
  20. duchy
    duchy 2 October 2018 14: 49
    0
    The author is clearly from the future:
    was first presented at the Army-2028 forum.
    . And we need to live up to 10 years before that. It will be seen far to embodiment. But the idea is beautiful. wink
    1. Vkd dvk
      Vkd dvk 2 October 2018 23: 10
      0
      Quote: duche
      The author is clearly from the future:
      was first presented at the Army-2028 forum.
      . And we need to live up to 10 years before that. It will be seen far to embodiment. But the idea is beautiful. wink

      Why not develop the idea further? TRIMARAN !!!! Separately constructed hulls, in relatively small shipyards that already exist. Assembly on the water, floating cranes, tugboats .... A wide deck, without lowering and raising airplanes. How many are there - a hundred? Preparation for the departure of all at once, three takeoffs. Three minutes and all on a mission.
  21. jeka424
    jeka424 2 October 2018 14: 58
    0
    The ship model was first presented at the Army-2028 forum.
    1. Irokez
      Irokez 2 October 2018 15: 57
      0
      Quote: jeka424
      The ship model was first presented at the Army-2028 forum

      Well, enough to laugh at the children's illnesses of editors, broadcasters and correspondents, they are still learning and not quite up to date, but also in a hurry, and they are also probably not checked by the editor-in-chief.
      I heard a case when they described hole conduction in semiconductors and the woman typing this text replaced the word "holes" with the correct "hole", and you clung to 2028.
  22. Elephant
    Elephant 2 October 2018 17: 34
    +1
    Again there will be only another layout. Something needs to be done with the economy in the country!
  23. Curious
    Curious 2 October 2018 17: 46
    +1
    "The ship's model was first presented at the Army-2028 forum.
    “And today, tomorrow, not everyone can watch. Rather, not only everyone can watch, few can do it ”
  24. loginovich
    loginovich 2 October 2018 19: 10
    0
    Not science fiction. Patriots sleep peacefully. Money plundered at the design stage
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 2 October 2018 19: 22
      0
      Who steals - the funds for the defense order are now being monitored, with a strict audit.
  25. YarSer88
    YarSer88 2 October 2018 19: 37
    +2
    Even better is a supersonic aircraft carrier aircraft that can land an aircraft carrier in any body of water as a psychological attack. For example, in a pond in Union Square (this is which is in front of the Capitol). wassat And what? Also nothing so project feasible!
  26. Catfish
    Catfish 2 October 2018 22: 07
    -1
    Quote: loginovich
    Not science fiction. Patriots sleep peacefully. Money plundered at the design stage


    And it won’t get to the design - they’ve already taken it away! bully
  27. HMR333
    HMR333 2 October 2018 23: 00
    0
    and what is the meaning of the planes less and Kuznetsov has rockets
  28. Tishka
    Tishka 3 October 2018 00: 48
    0
    But would Krylovtsy not immediately wave to the trimaran! And what, the deck, even more, under the deck space, is still spacious, and you can put three reactors. And there, if they give money, you can also equip hydrofoils, and he will fly! But for now, beyond the coastal zone, ships do not go out, and those with Chinese engines. So, you need to master the money, and take it to offshore, and Krylovtsi, let them continue to dream!
  29. gridasov
    gridasov 3 October 2018 09: 46
    -1
    It is surprising that there are no basics in creating new floating assets. Movers and the principles of interaction with the environment themselves are not thought out even at the level of invention of the first historical boats. Power plants of outdated structures. Hence the whole concept of the ship.
  30. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 3 October 2018 11: 06
    0
    And what is the advantage of such a scheme? Less displacement and internal volumes means less hangar, air group, and the amount of fuel and ammunition for it. Why then a 300 m deck?