Military Review

Broken wings. Will naval aviation revive?

247
There is one fatal flaw in the minds of naval commanders who have emerged from naval personnel: a misunderstanding of the role of the naval aviation... This problem cannot be considered purely Russian, in many fleets the world existed and there is mutual dislike between aviators and sailors. But only in Russia did it take on truly pathological forms, and only for Russia it could be fraught with catastrophic consequences, even the most dire.


Broken wings. Will naval aviation revive?


Aircraft made their way into the fleet for a long time and not easy. The relationship between aviators and sailors was not easy to build. Prim people in beautiful strict form, accustomed to proudly drive large and beautiful warships across the seas, looked cautiously at the desperate people in leather jackets who disappeared in gasoline and threw their flimsy flying machines towards the heavenly elements, realizing that these shelves are now capable of sending to the bottom of their huge armored cruisers and battleships, but not wanting to admit it.

And then the war broke out in the world, completely changing the fleets, aircraft, and the relationship between them.

The aircraft proved to be deadly enemies for surface ships. The list of heavy armored ships sent to the bottom by deck or land based aircraft is very long. But in our country they underestimate the role that aviation played in the war at sea in fact. Usually aircraft carrier battles in the Pacific come to mind, but in reality the role of aviation was greater at times.

It was the aircraft that defeated the German fleet in the battle for the Atlantic. Do not think up the British to launch fighters directly from transport ships using powder accelerators, communication between the United States and Britain would have been broken by "Condors", also by airplanes, by the way. And then escort aircraft carriers, which the USA built more than one hundred units, base patrol aircraft equipped with radar stations and flying boats, entered the business.

Of course, the corvettes and destroyers of the Allies also contributed, but they dealt with the fact that somehow survived air strikes. And Germany also lost surface ships from aviation. The Bismarck received a torpedo from a torpedo carrier, and only then did the ships finish it off. "Tirpitz" sank heavy bombers. The list is long.

But the Axis countries did not lag behind. The Germans did not have exactly naval aviation, but the Luftwaffe effectively operated over the seas. Both the huge losses of our Baltic Fleet, and the sunk destroyers and cruisers on the Black Sea, ships in the Arctic from the polar convoys who died in the Arctic - all this or only aircraft, or, in some cases, mostly they. Then the Allies suffered from the German pilots in the Mediterranean, and the Italians "received" them "at the end of the battle" in the region. There is no talk about the Japanese, they and the Americans became the founders of the new naval doctrines and ideas implicated in air power, starting with Pearl Harbor and drowning Kuantan's Connection Z. The Americans, in addition to the broadest scale carrier-based battles, fought against the Japanese fleet with their army aircraft in New Guinea, and the scale of that war was not much inferior to the carrier-based battles. The strikes of coastal aircraft on convoys and the mining of land bomber harbors cost the Japanese almost more casualties in men than all aircraft carrier battles combined.

And what are we? And the same thing: the USSR was "in trend" here. Of all the German ships sunk on the Soviet-German front, more than 50% were drowned by Navy aircraft, and more than 70% by armed ships.

It was aviation that became the decisive force of the war at sea during that war. The force that determines the winner, and is able to level the lack of warships.

After the war, the USSR intensively developed naval aviation, and also practiced the use of air force against naval targets. Torpedo bombs were built, in the subordination of the Navy there were destructive units. For hunting submarines created flying boats with a long range.

Immediately there was a lag. First, for political reasons, deck aviation did not develop - the USSR did not build aircraft carriers, not even light air defense aircraft carriers. And this is despite the fact that back in 1948, the commission of Rear Admiral V.F. Chernyshev concluded that there are almost no tasks at sea that could be performed without aviation, and that coastal aviation will always be late for the call of surface forces. So it turned out.

Secondly, when the Americans acquired the George Washington-class submarines equipped with ballistic missiles, and when in response to this threat, work began on creating an anti-submarine aircraft capable of finding submarines in a submerged position, it turned out that the domestic radio-electronic industry was unable create a search and targeting system of the desired efficiency. Anti-submarine IL-38, Be-12 and Tu-142 that appeared in the USSR never became a truly effective PLO aircraft.

At the same time, reconnaissance aviation of the Navy was, as they say, at the world level and above, and the sea-launched missile carrier was an unprecedentedly powerful tool that gave the USSR, who did not have large surface forces, the ability to conduct massive attacks by enemy naval formations, and, importantly, to maneuver forces and equipment between fleets - an opportunity that the Navy ships would not have in wartime.

Up to a certain point, the Navy also had its own fighter aircraft, which could prevent enemy aircraft from attacking Soviet ships in the near-sea zone. But even in the Soviet years that were blessed for combat might, the problem that was destined, in the post-Soviet years, to grow into completely ugly forms began to grow.

The pilots, whose planes were the main striking force of the Navy in a non-nuclear war, and the "eyes" of the fleet, and its "fire brigade" capable of arriving on command anywhere in the country in a matter of hours, did not become "their own" in the fleet. The psychological problem suddenly became organizational.

Naval pilots had general military ranks. Their career opportunities were limited in comparison with the crew. On the whole, naval aviation was treated as a subsidiary of the troop of forces with respect to surface and underwater forces. While the Soviet government could “flood” the armed forces with all the resources necessary for them, it was tolerable. But in 1991, the year of Soviet power was gone, and the abscess burst.

That's what писал former commander of the Air Force and Air Defense of the Baltic Fleet, Lieutenant-General V. N. Sokerin:

10 years of service as generals in the air forces of the Northern and Baltic fleets give me the right to say: over the past several decades, the fleet has developed a stable, handed down from generation to generation, prejudiced, to cynicism, disdainful attitude towards the air forces of the fleets. Everything negative that takes place on ships is smoothed out or hidden altogether. Any small thing in aviation swells from a fly to the size of an elephant. Aviation has long been and remains the "stepdaughter" of the Pope fleet.
... After celebrating their 60 anniversary, in 2002, the real forge of naval aviation personnel and the last in the Navy aviation, 5-I Kirkenes Red Banner Naval Rocket-bearing Air Division, which had been brought to destruction, was disbanded, because before the disappearance of its personnel from 24 the commanders of the ships did not carry out a single one, not even an export flight, and that was on the Tu-22М3 aircraft. In fact, due to the absence of kerosene, it did not exist for many years at the “zero” level of pilot training. Back in the beginning of the 90s, there were plans for its transfer to the 37 th VAHK, if they were realized, I am sure that the division, which included some of the newest (by production years) Tu-22М3 aircraft, did not disappear would go to oblivion.


Or this fragment:

There is a meeting of the Military Council of the Navy. A slide is displayed with data on the aviation shelves of the Navy, in which there are operational aircraft on 3 – 4. One of these regiments is part of the Baltic Fleet Air Force, which I then commanded. And this is the famous regiment named Pokryshkina. Commander-in-Chief Kuroyedov looks at the slide and says: "It is too expensive to contain aviation, I have no money for it." After a pause, he adds: "To bring the nominal number of these regiments in line with the number of serviceable aircraft." We, the commanders of the Air Force of all four fleets, are depressedly silent and just look at each other, but suddenly one of my colleagues speaks in a mighty whisper to the floor of the hall: "In, well done, he himself finished, he himself reduced!"


So it was everywhere, in all fleets, all the long 90-e, which in fact did not end for naval aviation. While in VKS such problems went into non-existence even in 2000-s, then for aviation units of the fleet, similar episodes were the norm in 2015-th year. Perhaps this is the norm now.

The Navy practically “killed” its main thing with its own hands weapon.

The second misfortune was a break in the development of technology for naval aviation. Even in the 90-s, some money was allocated for research on promising ships, and the construction of combat ships began with the 2000-s. But almost nothing was invested in the development of naval aviation. With the exception of updating several assault air regiments and a certain amount of research and development by means and methods of anti-submarine warfare, no major work was done to create new aircraft for the fleet in Russia.

This hit was especially hard on anti-submarine aviation, which was "unlucky" even under the USSR.

On this issue, we dwell in more detail.

As you know, our chips were the largest in the world. The unpleasant truth was hidden behind this joke: the domestic electronics industry was lagging behind the enemy in the element base, and this was all for it - the lag in mass-dimensional characteristics, the lag in communication, in the reliability of electronics, in information processing media.

It began to relate to antisubmarine aviation as soon as it became necessary to begin using radiohydroacoustic buoys (RGAB), receive signals from them, process them and record. And our buoys, and signal transmission, and methods and means of processing were very far behind the Americans. As a result, “contacts” with foreign submarines were a whole event in the life of the anti-submarine aircraft crew. This problem was never solved, until the beginning of the work on the topic “Window” mentioned earlier.

Another one has never been solved - a vicious approach to the design of aircraft in general.

A passive buoy reacts to noise. But the sea has a natural level of noise, which also depends on the excitement. He is variable. And if the buoy is adjusted to noise, corresponding to, for example, two points, and the excitement at sea turned out to be four, then the buoy will respond to the natural sound of the sea, and not to the sound of the submarine that exceeds it. The search will be thwarted.

And in the IL-38, and Tu-142 crew access to the buoys in flight is absent. Having set up buoys on the ground, then nothing can be changed. Buoys are fixed in the weapons bay horizontally, like bombs. And if the weather turned bad, that's all. Disruption operation

In contrast to our planes, in the American Orion, the buoys are located in a separate compartment, in inclined launch pits communicating with the inhabited compartment, and the crew members have the opportunity to tune them during the performance of the combat mission. This alone multiplied the effectiveness of the combat departure of the aircraft.

In the USSR, something similar could be done in the Be-12, which has the ability to pass through the entire aircraft, including the weapons compartment, through, through the bulkhead doors. Of course, this would require a recomposition of the compartment, and a finalization of the airframe. But no one has been puzzled by it so far.

Also in Orion, the crew retains its combat effectiveness much longer - there are places for rest (even cots) in the plane, low noise, more comfortable working conditions. For comparison, in the Be-12, the noise level in the cockpit over time leads to hearing impairment. The computers on board, used to process the signals from the buoys, were superior to ours by the era.

In total, with the best LTH and significantly better buoys in design, it was still in the late seventies that ensured the total superiority of the Orions in search operations on domestic machines. And then the Americans introduced a radar search for perturbations of the water surface caused by a submerged submarine, introduced the possibility of setting the field from the buoys and ensuring their joint operation, low-frequency buoys that increased the detection distance of the underwater object at times, and the gap was simply endless. So he now remains.

Modernization of aircraft in Soviet times gave a minimal effect. R & D “Window” could be a breakthrough, but in the late USSR innovations found a place for themselves under the Sun with great difficulty, and as a result, nothing really happened, although it was easier to find American submarines on retrofit planes hundreds of times (!) to accumulate "several" contacts "per week, and in a month of combat work to find more foreign submarines than during the whole previous life.

And finally, a tactical question: NATO and the Americans almost always knew that the Russians had sent their anti-submarine to a sortie. The location of the radar in Europe and Japan, as well as sophisticated means of RTR always allowed them to detect the fact of the departure of the aircraft in "their" direction in advance. And almost always, when in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the Barents or the Mediterranean, our crews had something to look for, they had enemy fighters on their tail. In fact, the crews of PLO planes were suicide bombers - in the event of a real clash, there would be no one to protect them during the combat departure - the USSR fighter aircraft did not have planes with sufficient range, or an in-flight refueling system to escort the anti-submarine, and could not they protect it in the absence of their DRLO aircraft.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the anti-submarine aircraft came a timelessness. Work stopped on the amphibian A-40. Somehow, work was carried out on the new Novella complex, the possibility of building a PLO aircraft on the basis of the Tu-204 was discussed sluggishly, some kind of research was being carried out ... This did not give a practical result, and the fleet of aircraft was continuously decreasing. Less and less IL-38, Be-12 and Tu-142М remained, and the new aircraft were not even really designed. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies made a breakthrough as a submarine, making it even less noisy, and in the case of its allies - Germany and Japan - by introducing air-independent power plants onto their diesel-electric submarines.

The situation in our aviation PLO would be very sad if the complex "Novella" had not appeared. However, it must be understood that it would not exist if it were not for the export contract with India for the modernization of the IL-38 previously supplied to IL-38SD Sea Dragon.

In the 2010s, a ray of light flashed in the gloomy dying realm of naval aviation - the modernization of the Tu-142М3 in the М3М version and the Il-38 in the Il-38Н version with the Novella complex began. But the number of planes remaining in the ranks is such that they can be safely "put out of the brackets" in any serious conflict.

We will not speculate on how effective the Novella complex is and what is installed on board the Tu-142М when it is turned into the M3M variant. This topic is very sensitive. Let's just say - we are still very far from the USA and Japan.

But anti-submarine aviation is critical to protect the country. The United States and the Allies have a huge submarine, and most importantly, it is precisely on the submarines of the United States and Great Britain that most of the Anglo-Saxon nuclear arsenal is located. Neither the defense of the country from a hypothetical nuclear strike, nor a preventive nuclear blitzkrieg, if it turns out to be necessary, is possible without destroying at least some of the strategic submarines of the United States, because otherwise the losses of the Russian civilian population are simply prohibitively large. But, even bypassing (so far) the question of finding these submarines in the ocean, it must be admitted that even part of them cannot be destroyed without modern anti-submarine aviation. And it is not. It is hard to believe in this, but the lack of a submarine hunter in Russia may eventually cost the lives of most of our people. Such is the reality, unfortunately.

And this is all the more insulting because all the technologies needed to create a modern anti-submarine are already in Russia today ...

At present, Russian naval aviation is an extremely strange conglomeration of various combat and transport squadrons, often brought together in regimental regiments, which, due to different even for the purpose of the planes in the composition, even really will not be able to command. The number of aircraft of each type in service with the Navy is calculated in units of aircraft, but the types of aircraft are greater than those of the US Navy (minus their carrier-based aircraft). This is similar to the naval aviation of some Third World country, but interspersed with anti-submarines and interceptors left over from the dead civilization, which, however, are rapidly becoming obsolete.

Attack aircraft is represented by old Su-24МР and new Su-30СМ, which are reduced to two assault regiments, where they replaced Su-24. MRA with its missile carriers remained in the past forever. Coast-based fighter aviation is represented by a modest number of Su-27 and MiG-31, approximately two regiments in size. Anti-submarine - less than fifty machines of all types - IL-38, IL-38H, Tu-142M, MR, M3M, Be-12, of which at least seven can be used to combat submarines, and, possibly, , twelve Tu-38. But it is at least something and somehow.

For comparison: Japan has more than ninety aircraft, each of which simply infinitely surpasses any of ours in efficiency - this also applies to the Orions assembled in Japan, and to the monstrous Kawasaki P-1, which, apparently, are the most advanced aircraft PLO in the world at the moment.

The fleet does not have its own aircraft aircrafts and DRLO airplanes, if they are needed, they will have to be “asked” from the VKS through the General Staff or higher command in the theater, and it’s not a fact that they will be given in a big war.

For reconnaissance, there is only the same low-speed and defenseless Tu-142М and a handful of Su-24МР, which cannot fly far without tankers.

In general, the Navy does not show any particular interest in having naval aviation, and news that it will be transmitted in the army of the Air Force and Air Defense, did not cause any response in the naval environment.

As if they don't need airplanes at all.

Separately, it should be said about the ship aviation. Kuznetsov's campaign in the Mediterranean Sea to the glorious pages of the military stories can not be attributed. But, at least, the naval aviation gained at least some experience, albeit a negative one. We will immediately say that the experts had warned in advance that the air group was not ready to carry out combat missions, and the ship itself was not constructively designed to perform percussion missions. So, before Syria, even the weapons cellars had to be refined to ensure there is the possibility of storing bombs in large quantities.

Nevertheless, in comparison with reconnaissance or anti-submarine aviation, ship in some gains. If in Russia it is now impossible to produce an anti-submarine aircraft at all (there is no design that could be put into production), then aircraft for ship-based aviation, MiG-29K, are produced for themselves. But, unfortunately, the Ka-27 and Ka-29 helicopters are not produced. Just as with anti-submarine aircraft, with radio intelligence aircraft and jammers, the loss of each unit will be irrecoverable.

As for the ship fighters, the 279-th cruiser is still limited in combat capability. Perhaps sometime when the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is restored, and the deck crews are equipped and trained as they should (for example, they will have a cutting tool for quickly dismantling the torn arrestor cable and will be trained to replace it quickly), we will see and training drums with the maximum possible number of combat missions per day to attack missions, flights to the tasks of armed air reconnaissance over the sea, working out air defense tasks of ship formations, hitting the entire air group (as the Americans say “alpha a-strike "), the work of the aviation regiment's headquarters to organize long and continuous combat missions in different" modes ", and the interaction of shipboard aircraft with the coastal ... so far there is nothing like that. Nevertheless, at least the lost aircraft can be repaid, which is already good, whatever they may be. Still aircraft carrier "to compensate" ...

At the moment, the situation in naval aviation is as follows.

1. Specialized reconnaissance aviation. In fact, almost absent, there are several Su-24МР. The long-range exploration tasks are carried out by airplanes of various classes, mainly Tu-142M.

2. Specialized coast attack aircraft. Two regiments on the Su-30CM and Su-24M, modern and trained connections, but do not have long-range CRPs. Against the same US Navy, these regiments will last for a couple of sorties. But they can even sink someone in a fight with the US Navy. The best part of AI in its state and combat capability; dangerous for any opponent.

3. Anti-submarine aircraft. About forty cars, somehow capable of performing anti-submarine missions. Of these, about twenty are completely outdated and, prior to the upgrade, their combat value against a full-fledged enemy is strictly zero. New aircraft in the Russian Federation are not made, any loss of the PLO aircraft is irreparable.

4. Ship aviation. Small: one incomplete fighter regiment and several dozen helicopters. Resides in an incomprehensible status after the start of repair of the aircraft carrier. It is limited in combat effectiveness precisely as a ship. Anti-submarine and amphibious assault helicopters are not mass-produced, the loss of each such helicopter is irreparable. Also, ship training aircraft are not produced, although their production can be restored. Ka-52K naval attack helicopters are being produced, but their role in the naval weapons system is unclear.

5. Fighter aircraft. About two regiments, one each in the Northern and Pacific fleets. On the 2015 year, the attitude towards the shelves as a suitcase without a handle, no fuel was allocated for flights. In 2018, press reports were published in the press about the transfer of naval fighter aircraft to the newly created Air Force and Air Defense armies. At 2018, the year has increased the number of reports of flights of the MiG-31 from Yelizovo to Kamchatka, while the aircraft carry symbols of the Navy.

6. Transport Aviation. About fifty aircraft belonging to eight different types (An-12,24,26 different modifications, Tu-134, 154 in passenger variants, IL-18, An-140). It is combat-ready, but mainly consists of airplanes that are discontinued. The tasks of parachute landing of parts of the Special Forces and Marine Corps are only possible on a limited scale.

There are several new Mi-8 helicopters of various modifications and several training aircraft.

This is not the naval aviation with which you can defend the country in a big war, not the aircraft with which the fleet can call itself combat-capable, and not the aircraft with which the navy can be an instrument of foreign policy influence that can be used in countering the enemy. And, worst of all, no one sounds the alarm about this.

There have been rumors lately that the situation with anti-submarine aircraft may straighten out somewhat. Back in 2017, Major General I. Kozhin, commander of naval aviation, said the following: ““ Work on the creation of anti-submarine patrol aircraft of the new generation for naval aviation of the Russian Navy is nearing completion ”. Observers are unanimous in that the Major General had in mind a patrol and anti-submarine aircraft based on the IL-114.

The layout of the aircraft was shown at the exhibition of weapons and military equipment KADEX-2018 In Kazakhstan.



It is noteworthy that the portholes go along the entire side, and, perhaps, the problem of adjusting the sensitivity of the RGAB during a combat departure on this aircraft can be solved. Also noteworthy is that in the drawings the plane carries the anti-ship missile X-35. Earlier, the Navy refused to install them both on the Tu-142 and on the IL-38Н (although they cost on an Indian export aircraft). Photos of the IL-114 flying laboratory with a fairing under the fuselage radar "Kasatka-S", produced NGO "Radar-MMS".



The network immediately appeared alternative fantasies on the future development of combat aircraft on this platform.



Is the IL-114 a good plane if we consider it as a base for PLO aircraft? Do not say that much. Far from ideal. But bezrybe and cancer fish. Even such a plane to infinity is better than none, and if such planes are really built, then this should only be welcomed.

At the same time, we must not forget that the future of such a platform as IL-114, basically questionable.

Also at the beginning of 2018, the expert community was stunned news on the preparation of the modernization of the Be-12. These planes are less than ten units, and presumably about ten boards can be found in storage. As a result, you can get 14-16 machines. We must immediately say that this is an extremely irrational and expensive solution that makes sense only in one case - if the need to massively use anti-submarine aircraft will arise before the new aircraft is ready. Similar thoughts arise from news of a similar impending (supposedly) revitalization of the PLO Mi-14 helicopters. Do you really have any data on a war that is about to start soon? Or is the new plane so "zero" that it came to the "resurrection of the dead"?

Anyway, in the field of anti-submarine aviation, some behind-the-scenes movements clearly began, and God forbid that they end up with something good, because the situation is truly intolerable.

In general, with the current attitude of the Navy to naval aviation, it is not possible to expect any dramatic changes for the better. Neither in anti-submarine aviation, nor in shock, nor in reconnaissance, nor in auxiliary. Timelessness in naval aviation continues.
Author:
Photos used:
NGO "Radar MMS", Navy Recognition, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Articles from this series:
Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse
247 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. Phil77
    Phil77 10 November 2018 05: 51
    +13
    With time, when the authorities have a desire to revive, and not * reform *!
    1. kjhg
      kjhg 10 November 2018 07: 07
      +16
      Quote: Phil77
      Will be reborn!

      It can not be in any other way wink It is only a pity that we begin to revive only after destroying everything to the ground. Enough to reform, it's time to revive the army and navy! From the day of the collapse of the USSR to this day, with the word reform, I have been associated only with tearing, plundering and shrinking.
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 10 November 2018 10: 34
        +15
        The experience of the Great Patriotic War shows that it was naval aviation, especially in the first period of the war, that showed its effectiveness and combat effectiveness. Why, when the renaissance of the armed forces is going on now, and nobody pays attention to naval aviation, remains a mystery to me. Thanks to the author for the article. hi
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 November 2018 10: 59
          +13
          The reason is in the old and very rotten traditions of the command of the Navy.
          1. Proxima
            Proxima 10 November 2018 13: 24
            +8
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The reason is in the old and very rotten traditions of the command of the Navy.

            Let the command of the Navy just remember the "rotten traditions" of naval aviation in the Great Patriotic War, for example, when land aviation was in full ... me, the naval bombed Berlin.
            1. timokhin-aa
              10 November 2018 16: 46
              +5
              Yes, they do not care, it seems.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 11 November 2018 14: 00
              -1
              In what place is it marine, when it is distant and what is happening on the fronts was parallel to it. They wouldn’t even write nonsense.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 12 November 2018 14: 13
                +2
                Quote: EvilLion
                In what place is it marine, when it is distant and what is happening on the fronts was parallel to it. They wouldn’t even write nonsense.

                It was the naval air forces that launched the raids on Berlin. Dalniki pulled themselves up later.
                And about parallelism ... both sailors and long-range targets were actively used instead of the beaten-down front and army aviation. With a predictable result - 1 mtap seriously battered over Dvinsky, dalnikov - over Berezina.
                1. Proxima
                  Proxima 12 November 2018 19: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  In what place is it marine, when it is distant and what is happening on the fronts was parallel to it. They wouldn’t even write nonsense.

                  It was the naval air forces that launched the raids on Berlin. Dalniki pulled themselves up later.
                  And about parallelism ... both sailors and long-range targets were actively used instead of the beaten-down front and army aviation. With a predictable result - 1 mtap seriously battered over Dvinsky, dalnikov - over Berezina.

                  Thanks Alexey! It is difficult for one to fight off the ignoramuses who are also trying to be rude hi
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 10 November 2018 07: 33
      +6
      Quote: Phil77
      When the authorities have a desire to revive, and not * reform *!

      Simply put, never.
      1. timokhin-aa
        10 November 2018 11: 00
        +3
        Well, the Air Force is reformed, Syria is an example. And in the Ground Forces the situation is not much better than before. And only the fleet has some incomprehensible problems.
        1. Phil77
          Phil77 10 November 2018 17: 16
          +1
          And let's call it transformed? Otherwise the word was reformed, it throws into trembling! hi hi
        2. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 10 November 2018 19: 03
          +7
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Well, the Air Force has reformed, Syria is an example

          What is an example? An example of how, under ideal conditions, with almost complete absence of ground countermeasures, tasks for direct infantry support are carried out at WWll level? Or an example of how to give merits of artillerymen to their own? Wow, they succeeded in that.
          1. timokhin-aa
            10 November 2018 21: 18
            0
            You're just not in the subject, apparently.
        3. NordUral
          NordUral 11 November 2018 11: 00
          -1
          Blessed is he who believes!
    3. silver169
      silver169 10 November 2018 11: 06
      +8
      Of course it will be reborn. Just do not live up to this happy time, neither to me nor to you.
    4. URAL72
      URAL72 10 November 2018 12: 12
      +4
      Of course, the IL-114 is not an alternative to the Tu-142, but for the Black Sea and Baltic, just right. The Be-200 is certainly better, but more expensive. But the distant patroller, in doubt, the MS-21 is not bad, but with refueling, and this is a minus. Can a new bomber be adapted? A large series will favorably affect the price of both, and the preservation of shock functions will give a serious increase in shock potential at long ranges. Do not respond to comments - let me dream ...
      1. timokhin-aa
        10 November 2018 13: 02
        +6
        On the MC-21 you can install an in-flight refueling system. It is better to bet on it, this is the mass and price reduction of the series at the expense of civilian technologies, and there are large volumes inside, there is where to place equipment and weapons.
        1. vik669
          vik669 10 November 2018 18: 28
          +4
          And the oars like galleys!
        2. Grits
          Grits 11 November 2018 01: 45
          +2
          Before constructing a new aircraft, they always scratch their turnips - but will there be demand? Will any overseas third-rate buyer buy our new passenger or transport aircraft? Say - it is unprofitable, so we will not build. Here is the answer to the question - in addition to the civil aviation's own needs, it is quite possible to use these aircraft for conversion to anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft. Or our designers, when they think about its direct purpose, do not take this into account?
        3. DenZ
          DenZ 12 November 2018 14: 34
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          An in-flight refueling system can be installed on the MS-21. It’s better to bet on it, it’s both the mass character and the cheapening of the series due to civil technologies

          Of course, this is all true, but what about import substitution, I think that in the MS-21 there are a lot of imported components and it is still problematic to make a pure military board out of it.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov 10 November 2018 16: 11
      +10
      The main headquarters of the Navy gouged its fleet and its naval aviation in the 90s, and many admirals also fed up on the sale and decommissioning of ships and ships, on the removal of aircraft from flights and retirement of aviation and naval personnel, on rotting repair and modernization capacities ... And they succeeded with absolutely impunity, if only the same Kuroyedov was punished for example ... Since the death of the Kursk, the crisis has been identified, but classified, and on specialized Internet resources such as "Made with us" the former admiralty feeds on banning any criticism, bringing the matter to indignation. The Outrageous Situation with the Fleet and Maritime Aviation is a FACT!
      1. timokhin-aa
        10 November 2018 16: 47
        +3
        Yes, the bulk of the blame is on the naval command.
        1. Severok
          Severok 10 November 2018 18: 16
          +13
          And what about the Navy? They don’t have caplets and they, accordingly, are doing well. Well, the commander-in-chief we have is so-so, commander-in-chief. An amateur, a liberal, a proponent of banking, a defender of the thieves' incomes from the Forbes list, a fighter passenger, a carrier of a sea cap, a connoisseur of German, and a Russian squander ...
          On MC21, the bet is to do it down. Too import-dependent. Of the modern anti-aircraft guns, the most normal A40 looks like it is only necessary to make an upgrade to the existing electronic search base, install armaments, and supplement with the air refueling function. As tankers, the IL-76 is quite normal and can be based on almost all naval aviation aerodromes.
          A deck-based PLO aircraft is urgently needed by the country, just like a normal modern aircraft-carrying cruiser, for these needs the An-38 could be suitable after appropriate revision.
          But after all, we have effective iPhones in power, they have nothing to do except their very close ones! And therefore, in which case, in this case, we are prepared for death.
          1. timokhin-aa
            10 November 2018 19: 27
            0
            A-40 is unreal - Taganrog will build their 60 years, and it is expensive to make a specialized aircraft.
            1. Severok
              Severok 10 November 2018 22: 48
              +10
              The government is expensive for us, that’s what it is! If the A40 is too expensive, then let's not build another c400 and c500! Too expensive! Not?
              1. timokhin-aa
                11 November 2018 10: 41
                0
                No.
                There is the necessary expenditure, and there is in vain. A-40 is rather the second, than the first, there are cheaper solutions.
            2. Grits
              Grits 11 November 2018 01: 49
              +4
              A-40 is unreal - Taganrog will build their 60 years, and it is expensive to make a specialized aircraft.
              Let Taganrog give all its orders to other aircraft factories. Which we have enough and which are idle without orders. And let him fully work on the A-40 and Be-200. Or A-50, A-100 has nowhere else to produce besides Taganrog?
              1. timokhin-aa
                11 November 2018 10: 40
                +1
                It is necessary to transfer the equipment and teach people. Anyway, amphibians are meaningless. It is necessary to look for more budget solutions based on a civilian liner, for example. Oh, that the Americans are rich, and that is not so chic.
                Although it may be from this and the rich ...
                1. Severok
                  Severok 11 November 2018 14: 16
                  -1
                  That is, you want to say that at the ocean theater of action, which is the Barents Sea and other seas of the Arctic Ocean, an amphibian is not needed. So?
                  Are you even aware of how "developed" the airfield network at this theater is?
                  I suggest that you think about the vastness of this region, about its conditions, think carefully how to become different from officials who cannot distinguish a turboprop engine from a turbojet bypass, but they understand foreign cars and brandies.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 12 November 2018 14: 26
                    +2
                    Quote: Severok
                    That is, you want to say that at the ocean theater of action, which is the Barents Sea and other seas of the Arctic Ocean, an amphibian is not needed. So?
                    Are you even aware of how "developed" the airfield network at this theater is?

                    Are we still discussing an anti-submarine amphibian? Or some abstract amphibian in general?
                    For refueling, re-equipment, and most importantly - maintenance of amphibian submarines, ground-based infrastructure is needed. And an ice-free bay. In fact, the cost of building a hydroaerodrome is as little as the usual aerodrome. And without an equipped base to base a GS PLO is just to kill their resource and reduce combat capabilities.
                    By the way, the standard project of the hydro-aerodrome of the Moscow Region five years ago included a concrete strip - precisely in case of freezing of the water part.
                    That is, the HS has no advantages in terms of basing. But the flaws - a dime a dozen. And the main one is the design features to ensure the possibility of landing on water and take-off eat up the weight of fuel and combat load and force designers to refine their position and ensure the tightness of the arms compartments in the underwater part of the machine (especially taking into account shock loads during take-off / landing). Amphibian PLO is less effective than a comparable PLO aircraft based on a conventional Pax.
                    1. Severok
                      Severok 12 November 2018 18: 34
                      -1
                      Let's go first to the places of basing. In the Barents Sea basin, floating ice in winter appears very far from the coastline of the Kola Peninsula and Novaya Zemlya. Thus, on the coast, in convenient places for this, it is enough to make a descent into the water and a platform for servicing cars, which will solve the problem of servicing amphibian aircraft in the Arctic. Moreover, for the delivery of materials for the base location by sea, such an arrangement will not be a problem. Machines designed only for onshore basing need to maintain a wider ground infrastructure, which at high latitudes is a serious problem in many places due to the large volumes of materials needed to create such points, and to further maintain them in working condition .
                      We go further, modern technologies make it possible to provide a lower mass of both the fuselage and the airframe of an A40 machine with the necessary strength. In combination with modified engines and avionics, it is possible to get a very good machine that, in addition to the PLO tasks, will be quite capable (with normally created equipment) to solve not only the PLO problems.
                      In addition, amphibian aircraft are also able to use ice airfields in winter conditions along with ravines, streaks, etc.

                      If we consider aviation PLO at high latitudes comprehensively, then at many points there should be landing sites for both helicopters and land-based aircraft, hydroaerodromes with service stations and gas stations for both amphibians and helicopters should be equipped. The locations of such sites should be within shorter than the maximum radius of action of helicopter equipment, equipped with modern means of communication and navigation. Only in this way will it be possible to provide coverage of our northern territories with aircraft-based anti-aircraft defense systems.
                      1. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 12 November 2018 19: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: Severok
                        Thus, on the coast, in convenient places for this, it is enough to make a descent into the water and a platform for servicing cars, which will solve the problem of servicing amphibian aircraft in the Arctic.

                        We are talking about an amphibian weighing 90 tons with a wingspan of more than 40 meters. Crammed with sophisticated electronics and mechanics. And carrying the means of destruction of submarines, up to special ones.
                        Yeah, to service and prepare for the departure of such an aircraft in the Arctic just make a descent into the water and a platform for servicing cars. smile
                        Quote: Severok
                        In addition, amphibian aircraft are also able to use ice airfields in winter conditions along with ravines, streaks, etc.

                        Yeah ... the point is small - to find a 2 km long ravine completely free from ice. Or there is a big chance to bring down the float or get a hole in the hull from a suddenly discovered ice floe.
                        Quote: Severok
                        We go further, modern technologies make it possible to provide a lower mass of both the fuselage and the airframe of an A40 machine with the necessary strength.

                        The same is true for conventional Paks PLO machines. And again, it turns out that the load mass of the amphibian is lower.
                      2. Severok
                        Severok 14 November 2018 21: 43
                        0
                        You about Thomas, and you about Yeryoma. Where do you live? Is it in the Krasnodar Territory?
                        The mass in the history of examples of the fact that something was lost due to the lack of necessary equipment. Indeed, in the same comments examples are given about the imperfection of the airborne search equipment for PLO aircraft, with real regret about closed or curtailed R&D.

                        When you have to read the terms of reference, you probably often manage to catch yourself on the fact that:
                        - But why is this point in the task, because there is unlikely to be this and it may not be needed at all?
                        - But is the mass here not too high, because then it will be difficult to do something later on with this?
                        - why is such a load-carrying capacity necessary here, because there are already trailers !?

                        If our designers thought in this vein, we would never have had the M-50, Mi-26, MiG-21, Tu-144, An-124, ekranoplanes and nuclear submarines. Yes, and radio electronics in the country also could not be.

                        And then someone paints the NEED for amphibious aviation completely forgetting about its advantages. Let us at the Black Sea Theater and in the Ministry of Emergencies give up completely the existing Be-200s !? It's expensive! And the boat will fall under the float !? How much repair! Not necessary!

                        Yes, exactly, for amphibious aircraft, even of such sizes, it is enough to equip a platform with launching, since the construction of a full-fledged runway will cost many times more, and there are not so many actions in the northern theater of places suitable for a 1.5-km-long strip.

                        You just need, definitely need to visit the Arctic, at least on the Kola Peninsula, both in summer and in winter. And always on the coast. And view the cards. Simple. Geographical. With a ruler in his hands, measuring on the map the distance from coast to coast, analyzing the line of floating ice by season.
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 12 November 2018 19: 26
                  +1
                  and what amphibian is fundamentally more expensive than non-amphibian?
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 13 November 2018 10: 18
                    +1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    and what amphibian is fundamentally more expensive than non-amphibian?

                    The fact that for an ordinary aircraft there is no need to ensure the strength of the bottom, sufficient for landing on water on a wave (especially in the area of ​​the weapons compartment and its wings). There is no need to compromise between aerodynamics and hydrodynamics. There is no need to make the engines as high as possible.
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 13 November 2018 11: 38
                      +1
                      Thanks for the answer, the strength of the bottom and the entire body of the aircraft should provide a difference in air pressure at altitude and on the ground, which greatly exceeds the load of water spray although small amplifications may be needed, for example, mounting the aircraft chassis experiences significantly greater loads. Aerodynamics and hydrodynamics are generally one science, and in principle there is no need to add something there, an airplane does not need an underwater keel if there are a couple of engines and this is not a sailing ship. So, there is practically no additional cost of weight for a flying boat, but saving the crew, and in calm weather, taking off from the water is a considerable advantage. By the way, flying boats are in demand on the world market, for example, firefighters, so you can do more than one aircraft a year if you have money and orders. High-ranking officials are generally good, for example silt 76, what is worse than that 134? I am for the A40.
                      1. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 14 November 2018 16: 04
                        +2
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        the strength of the bottom and the entire body of the aircraft should provide a difference in air pressure at altitude and on the ground, which significantly exceeds the load of water spray

                        What splashes? The seaplane lands and takes off in the "fuselage on water" position. At a speed of 200 km / h, a 60-ton car plunges into the water, and this water is not an ideal plane, but a bumpy surface with waves. Those who flew on seaplanes described takeoff and landing as follows: as if the boat was being dragged along a cobblestone pavement.
                        In fact, the fuselage of a seaplane has to withstand regular belly landings.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        Aerodynamics and hydrodynamics are generally one science, and in principle there is no need to add something there, an airplane does not need an underwater keel if there are a couple of engines and this is not a sailing ship.

                        Have you seen the seaplane fuselage drawings? Here is the A-40:

                        The keel, ridges and redan on the bottom undoubtedly do not affect aerodynamics. laughing
                      2. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 15 November 2018 09: 23
                        0
                        Redan and crests did not land,
    7. NordUral
      NordUral 11 November 2018 10: 58
      +4
      I doubt it. These only know how to destroy, as proved over the past decades. Something scary becomes for the children, and not even for the grandchildren even.
      The latest articles about the state of our fleet, now the fleet’s aviation, and the rest on this subject, are driven into gloomy pessimism.
      And these all shout from each iron, which we are very advanced in technical terms. Only the facts are stubborn, as always, and speak otherwise.
    8. goose
      goose 11 November 2018 16: 46
      +2
      Quote: Phil77
      Over time, when the authorities have a desire to revive, and not * reform *!

      The situation is serious. Already now, thanks to the accelerated growth of performance characteristics, base aviation is the main real force of the fleet, and further the gap will only grow. Maintenance of aviation will be a big saving for the budget, compared with the fleet.
      For the universalism of everything that flies, for a huge country I do not even speak.
      1. Phil77
        Phil77 11 November 2018 16: 51
        +2
        That's right. If it is serious today, then tomorrow it will be even more serious. But how to make it understood forever up there ?!
    9. Alber
      Alber 14 November 2018 14: 02
      +1
      Quote: Phil77
      With time, when the authorities have a desire to revive, and not * reform *!

      "Broken wings ..."
      Unfinished reformers, together with dull-headed rulers and foolish legislators, broke not only the wings, but also the arms with the feet of our industry (having plundered and sold machines and equipment across the country) to the defense industry, education and agriculture
  2. Cheldon
    Cheldon 10 November 2018 06: 37
    +7
    Well, there is such a thing - in the aviator fleet they call cormorants. An acquaintance talked about the service on "Kuznetsov" - he never spoke about the problems between sailors and aviators.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 11 November 2018 11: 54
      +6
      The country's problem is at the top and in the ugly merchant-feudal and thieves.
  3. svp67
    svp67 10 November 2018 06: 37
    +2
    The production of IL-114 will be revived, and the possibility of its conversion into a PLO aircraft will appear.
    Do not forget about the Be-200. God himself ordered it to be used in naval aviation.
    Well, and most importantly, now there is talk about the revival of ekranoplanes, which are also not bad "platforms" for PLO equipment
    1. kjhg
      kjhg 10 November 2018 07: 01
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Do not forget about the Be-200. God himself ordered it to be used in naval aviation.

      And what is the Be-200 capable of, which the Il-114 cannot? Get on the water and take off? I can hardly imagine this in the open sea or ocean, where even in calm weather there is excitement.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 10 November 2018 07: 32
        -2
        Yes. The Be-200 crew is splashed in stormy weather, it will not take off.
      2. svp67
        svp67 10 November 2018 15: 16
        +1
        Quote: kjhg
        And what is the Be-200 capable of, which the Il-114 cannot?

        What? Do not use land runways, but mean it is located in areas where PLO aviation is not expected.
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 November 2018 16: 48
          +4
          This plus does not cover the cons of the Be-200, the main of which is the production rate of no more than 1 aircraft per year.
        2. faiver
          faiver 10 November 2018 17: 06
          +3
          Only the flight range of the Be-200 is two times less than that of the Il-114 ...
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 10 November 2018 07: 44
      +17
      - They will revive the production of IL-114-

      A promising, promising manager of the new formation, Alexei Rogozin, took up this task. Talented. Having a philological education, he defended his Ph.D. in chemistry. On a topic that even an educated chemist can not afford.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 11 November 2018 10: 15
        +2
        About deleted comments: probably they are the most interesting, and the admin himself read it, but didn’t give us.
    3. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 11: 01
      +3
      According to IL-114, everything is still unclear, it will probably not be produced yet.
      Be-200 hardly make one plane per year, besides, it is not rational to make an PLO plane from an amphibian.
      WIG is just a cut of money and nothing more.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 10 November 2018 14: 01
        +2
        As for A. Rogozin, he was ironic. The number of ekranoplanes agree.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 11 November 2018 10: 18
          +1
          Some people understood your comment literally so that Rogozin is a super-duper specialist of a wide profile. I will add that his basic education is a journalist. And the fact that there is no sense from him, I agree. And from whom is there any sense?
      2. Hadastus
        Hadastus 12 November 2018 21: 12
        +1
        And why can’t a PLO airplane be made on the basis of IL-76? In Voronezh, the production, design and chassis are restarted, the arch-reliable and internal volumes are larger than those of the MS-21, not to mention the IL-114- you can cram everything. There will be our analogue to the Japanese Kawasaki R-1.
  4. Dimas84
    Dimas84 10 November 2018 07: 00
    +1
    Not a word about Su-33
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 10 November 2018 07: 34
      +14
      Quote: Dimas84
      Not a word about Su-33

      Duc about the dead is either good or nothing.
    2. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 11: 10
      +3
      And what about him you can write? Well, there was such a plane, and there are still a few in the ranks. Even modernized a little bit.
  5. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 10 November 2018 07: 31
    +8
    Auto is right. A modern war at sea is primarily a war of aircraft of various classes and projects. This became clear at the end of the 30s of the last century. Naval aviation of the Russian Navy is sure to revive. There will be reconnaissance aircraft regiments in each fleet, regiments of long-range jet bombers, regiments AWACS and U-100, divisions Su-57 and Su-35S, regiments Tu-142M and Il-38N. The Russian Armed Forces Air Force Center will be formed to train the flight and technical personnel. Both threads will be operational. The modern Naval Aircraft Naval Aviation Command will be operational .About this revival it is necessary to release a good bright television movie, necessarily with the mention of Major General Apakidze. It is remembered only in narrow circles, unfortunately. And in the Nakhimov Naval School.
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 11: 11
      +6
      Yes, remember about Apakidze everywhere. As for the rest, your words would be like God’s ears, while everything goes the other way, alas.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 22
        +2
        Only a small circle of people remember about Major General Apakidze. This is easy to see for residents of large and not very large settlements. Because the propaganda of the fleet and maritime aviation is zero.
    2. igorj 51
      igorj 51 10 November 2018 11: 28
      +2
      A good bright television movie must be released about this revival, always with the mention of Major General Apakidze ..
      Of course, you can release a television movie, good, bright .. It’s just to revive everything you have listed when and who will ..? I understand that making a television movie is easier and cheaper than reviving ..
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 24
        +2
        That's right. Major General Apakidze put on the wing the first regiment. And to show this film at the most expensive time. On the main channels.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. goose
      goose 13 November 2018 19: 23
      0
      Tu-114 is needed extremely, there are no reconnaissance aircraft, transport aircraft and a base for "budgetary" AWACS with a fixed AFAR.
  6. Iline
    Iline 10 November 2018 08: 08
    +18
    Somehow, in the early 2000s, they sat down in Kipelovo for exercises. And if in DA at that time some movement began to improve after the Yeltsin reforms, then in this garrison hopelessness in the eyes of the aviators simply killed. Serviceability is essentially zero, people were reduced to the level of the plinth. Tearfully asked to pick them up in our organization. Moreover, various small bosses, decommissioned from the crew, apparently due to their unsuitability, poisoned their lives in every way. I remember they clashed with one of these in the position of commandant of the garrison. For some reason, he wanted us to go to the dining room building. These are officers in ranks and posts higher than this idiot. He had to be reminded that we are in this garrison according to the exercises conducted directly by the Supreme Civil Code and have direct access to it, and therefore it may turn out that Kipelovo may soon seem Bahamas in comparison with the new duty station. Somewhere gone out of sight.
    And aviation of the Navy already at a later time began to crumble with acceleration. For example, the Tu-22 regiment in Olenegorsk was transferred to the DA.
    So everything is correctly stated in the article - the Navy command systematically destroying its aircraft. I don’t know why, but it doesn’t smell like a professional approach.
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 11: 13
      +5
      I would add that a couple of years ago the attitude towards MA was exactly the same, but it remains even less today than it was in 2000's. And the problem is precisely how it manages the Navy.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 10 November 2018 11: 53
        +2
        The most important thing is the violation of the continuity of all categories of flight personnel and technicians. An impressive shortage of officers and warrant officers of technicians. Plus, the organization of combat control was damaged. The broken combat service of the TAVKR did not allow to somehow correct this matter.
      2. Hadastus
        Hadastus 12 November 2018 21: 18
        0
        But it is impossible to raise the status of MA, withdraw there in a separate branch of the army, apply the ship rank system etc? In the Second World War, at the beginning of the war due to artillery losses, it was taken to separate artillery batteries, but at the personal insistence of Stalin they were called artillery regiments - all in order to raise the status of artillerymen and not be neglected by infantry commanders.
  7. lopuhan2006
    lopuhan2006 10 November 2018 08: 31
    +6
    In addition to the lack of aircraft themselves, there were no bases or airfields themselves. IL-114 and Tu-204, A-40 are nothing more than fantasies. Modernization of the Be-12 banal cut. Basing
    1. faiver
      faiver 10 November 2018 08: 51
      +6
      I agree, we stupidly have no airplanes, civilian aircraft industry drove through, and the IL-38 workhorse is from there ...
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 November 2018 10: 47
        -6
        In the civilian aircraft industry there are Superjets and MS 21, the development of a supersonic and a new wide-body passenger range, as well as an appropriate line of engines for them.
        1. faiver
          faiver 10 November 2018 11: 13
          +13
          In the first MS-21, there are no domestic engines for them in production either,
          Secondly, SSZH built 174 units in ten years, of which 117 are considered "flying", but in fact less than a hundred flies, because the engines are again imported and the service center is somewhere in Europe and there is no service, the Mexicans won four planes so that the rest flew ..
          Well, about the widebody and there’s nothing to say - this is a wonderful far away ....
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 10 November 2018 11: 55
          0
          It doesn’t work very quickly with the MC21. Aeroflot needs long-haul vehicles, is forced to order from foreign manufacturers. Voronezh can assemble a maximum of 3 IL-96-300 a year. And the traditional focus is on the motor.
          1. faiver
            faiver 10 November 2018 17: 03
            +1
            and someone else orders IL-96?
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 25
              +2
              They are discussing the likelihood of such an order. For the Russian Air Force, strategic tankers are needed. As the experience of the Syrian bridgehead showed.
              1. faiver
                faiver 10 November 2018 19: 27
                +1
                Well then, IL-96-400 and not 300
                1. gunnerminer
                  gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 39
                  +1
                  Let the construction process begin. IL-96-400 is preferable.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 10 November 2018 23: 10
            0
            There is an engine for it and production has already approached, but most of these aircraft will fly on foreign flights with P&W engines - foreign customers have chosen this engine as a service base.
            1. faiver
              faiver 11 November 2018 06: 26
              +3
              Which foreign customers? from 279ed. pre-orders by foreign customers ordered 31 aircraft, no contracts concluded yet, only memoranda and agreements of intent, Peru, Egypt, Azerbaijan on 10 aircraft
              The first deliveries of MS-21 are scheduled for 2020.
              Tests of the MS-21 with PD-14 engines will begin only in the next 2019 year, and the receipt of the MS-21 certificate from the PD-14 engine is planned only in the 2021 year.
              What follows from all the above? that everything is only in the future tense, and it will be a great success, given the latest trends, if there are no transfers of the indicated dates to the right .... hi
        3. Grits
          Grits 11 November 2018 01: 55
          +4
          In the civilian aircraft industry there are Superjets and MS 21, the development of a supersonic and a new wide-body passenger range, as well as an appropriate line of engines for them.
          Heh. And you found out what percentage of these cars are imported components. Which at the most crucial moment can "end"
        4. NordUral
          NordUral 11 November 2018 11: 59
          -1
          237-th! Are you ironic about is, is, is? ..
    2. Hadastus
      Hadastus 12 November 2018 21: 21
      0
      IL-114 as the heir to the idea of ​​the indestructible transporter IL-14, potentially a real workhorse MA.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 10 November 2018 09: 33
    +4
    The author writes that on Soviet PLO aircraft there was no access to the RSLB, so that they could tweak something depending on the weather, supposedly to improve the work, it might be true for the 80s and 90s, but now the RSLB is digital and programmable, so nothing is needed And in general, the modern RSLA is a work of art, I read about the trends of their development, and the low frequency range and the detector of magnetic anomalies, even on HTSC, a broadband digital communication system, up to the satellite line, GPS navigation, drifting with an autonomous charging system based on wave motion and thermoelectric effect, etc., progress in all directions.
    Regarding airplanes and helicopters, you need to bet on used cars, Tu-204,214, already used cars, and the prospect on MS-21, and write off everything else to the museum. At the moment, it’s rational to take the Tu-204,214 and make a marine reconnaissance, In addition, there is already an analogue of the Tu-204R, the Tu-204PLO aircraft, the Tu-204TZ tanker aircraft, etc. As for helicopters, the Ka-27s are no longer being produced, but the Mi-171A2, a new and modern side, will also be active sold for another 20 years, and in the future Mi-38 and based on the Ka-52 Katran, the level of modern technology will allow this to be done without problems, as well as forcing amphibious amphibious submarines based on the A-42. Moreover, all this is real and fast enough.
    1. faiver
      faiver 10 November 2018 11: 28
      +1
      why amphibious anti-aircraft aircraft?
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 13 November 2018 01: 31
        0
        You ask OKB named after Beriev. At Army 2016 such models showed


    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 10 November 2018 19: 07
      +5
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      Now the RSLA is digital and programmable, so you don’t need to twist anything. And in general, modern RSLAs are a work of art, I read about the trends in their development, and the low-frequency range and the detector of magnetic anomalies, even on the HTSC, a broadband digital communication system, up to the satellite line , GPS navigation, drifting with an autonomous recharging system based on wave motion and the thermoelectric effect, etc., progress in all directions.

      You read about the adversary’s RSL, while the domestic RSL were both useless and remained.
    3. Lucy
      Lucy 11 November 2018 22: 20
      +1
      Are you talking about the RSL-1,2,3,16 ............... For which 75s and 80s, which are programmable. These buoys, like the IL-90, still remember Kokkinaki.
      Did you see the disassembled buoy? On the IL-38 in the search option, in my opinion, 203 pcs., But on Orion how many?
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 12 November 2018 23: 03
        0
        And I did not talk about the Soviet RSLA, and even more so about the Russian ones, I voiced the current state and development trend of the RSLA.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2018 10: 33
    +6
    Specialized coastal strike aircraft. Two regiments on Su-30СМ and Su-24М

    Where from? There is a regiment in the Black Sea Fleet, and the BF regiment is sequestered to the size of a squadron
    Naval Aviation. Small: one incomplete fighter aviation regiment and several dozen helicopters.

    We have the 2 naval aviation regiment 279 and 100, one on the Su-33, the second on the MiG-29KR / KUBR It is interesting that the Su-30СМ entering the Northern Fleet are included in the 279 okiap, although they never not decked.
    Fighter aircraft. About two regiments, one each in the Northern and Pacific Fleets

    Two MiG-31BM squadrons on the Northern Fleet (regiment skukozhili), one squadron on the Baltic Fleet. Perhaps (rumor has it) MiG-31 squadron in the SF
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 10 November 2018 10: 50
      -2
      -We have 2 regiments of naval aviation, 279th and 100th-

      Skuozhennye. Due to the lack of opportunities for a systematic, rhythmic study of all kinds.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2018 11: 01
        +5
        Quote: gunnerminer
        Skuozhennye. Due to the lack of opportunities for a systematic, rhythmic study of all kinds.

        Studying there is quite systematic and rhythmic, with the deck only a question
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 10 November 2018 11: 50
          -1
          -Learning there is quite systematic and rhythmic, with the deck only a question-

          Lack of crews and technicians. If they can be staffed for the next year, they will have to reaffirm some of the objectives of the course. The absence of the possibility of operating the TAVKR deprives the command of these tactical units to conduct exercises, including tests, together with the TAVKR crew and the headquarters of the KSF. missing.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2018 11: 54
            +6
            Quote: gunnerminer
            Lack of crews and technicians

            There is no such thing. There is a shortage of crews who have passed the test for work from the deck, and there is no lack of equipment for operations from land.
            Quote: gunnerminer
            If they can be staffed for the next year, then they will have to reaffirm some of the objectives of the course

            I will tell you a "secret" - generally speaking, offsets are confirmed annually, regardless of staffing :))))
            Quote: gunnerminer
            The lack of the possibility of operating the TAVKR deprives the command of these tactical units to conduct exercises, including tests, together with the crew of the TAVKR and the headquarters of the KSF

            ??? With the crew of the TAVKR - yes, but no one bothers to interact with the fleet from the land
            Quote: gunnerminer
            There is no single combat management organization.

            Why?
            1. timokhin-aa
              10 November 2018 12: 06
              +1
              ??? With the crew of the TAVKR - yes, but no one bothers to interact with the fleet from the land


              For deckers, working with AV is critical for maintaining their combat readiness just as deckers.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2018 12: 08
                +5
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                For deckers, working with AV is critical for maintaining their combat readiness just as deckers.

                Of course, I don't argue with that either. I will also say that the same THREAD does not help in the absence of AB - it is "better than nothing", but nothing more.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  10 November 2018 12: 41
                  0
                  It only helps to take off. And, for example, it is impossible to work out a massive takeoff of a striking task with a quick build into combat order from Thread.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2018 12: 50
                    +1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    She only helps take off.

                    No, to sit down too - the landing block with the aerofinisher is provided there, although I don’t know if it works now or not.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    And, for example, it is impossible to work out a mass take-off for a strike mission with a quick construction in battle order from Nitka.

                    And what is stopping you?
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      10 November 2018 13: 05
                      +4
                      The fact that in the take-off cycle goes not only the take-off itself, but also the movement of the aircraft along the deck, for example, lifting ready-for-departure vehicles from the hangar to the vacant places, their fast refueling on the deck, suspension of the weapon, and feed to the starting position without a break in time with those cars that were already on deck.

                      The organization of flights with AB is in principle one of the most difficult tasks that exist in the Navy. And they can’t be worked out without an aircraft carrier, well, or a copy of a concrete kuzi should be built instead of a Thread.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2018 13: 49
                        +5
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        The fact that in the take-off cycle goes not only the take-off itself, but also the movement of the aircraft along the deck, for example, lifting ready-for-departure vehicles from the hangar to the vacant places, their fast refueling on the deck, suspension of the weapon, and feed to the starting position without a break in time with those cars that were already on deck.

                        This is the case - only those planes that are already on the deck and filled / armed can take part in the departure - it will not be possible to lift / repair / arm the aircraft from the hangar - while waiting for them, the airplanes that have flown into the air will burn fuel. That is why the size of the flight deck is extremely critical for AB.
                        And the movement of ready-to-take-off planes is easy enough to train by applying the appropriate markings (so as on the TAVKR deck).
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Organization of flights with AB is, in principle, one of the most difficult tasks that exist in the Navy

                        Quite right, therefore, despite all of the above, THREAD is suitable only for preliminary preparation: that is, in order for pilots to start on AV from scratch, but without AV on THREAD, it is impossible to prepare decks in principle.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        10 November 2018 14: 11
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is the case - only those planes that are already on the deck and filled / armed can take part in the departure - it will not be possible to lift / repair / arm the aircraft from the hangar - while waiting for them, the airplanes that have flown into the air will burn fuel. That is why the size of the flight deck is extremely critical for AB.


                        Not really. In the hangar, only refueling and suspension of weapons are prohibited, while the aircraft in theory can be prepared for take-off there.

                        Then there are spots - while some are taking off, others are rolling forward from the positions near the lifts, others go there from the hangar in order to fill them up and hang up the prepared bombs while the entire group that was previously located on the deck takes off.

                        Even the Americans, with their catapults, take about an hour to lift their peacetime air group in 48 airplanes. And, for example, the performance of the smallest fuel pump at an aircraft refueling station is 600 l / min, and on large tankers up to 2000 l / min, on the ship I do not even know how much you can give out, that is, while the 20 aircraft still standing on the deck rise from springboards into the air, the 21s and 22s raised from the hangar will be loaded and armed, and when they are rolled to the starting positions, they will be followed by 23 and 24,25,26 pairs.

                        At the same time, some of the vehicles are lifted into the air with the PTB, and some with the UPAZ units.

                        All this needs to be worked out, at the beginning in the classroom and at the end on the actual ship at sea, and this is exactly what the simulator does not do, and while such things are not polished to automatism, the regiment is limited to combat.
                        That is:
                        - Single and pair departures
                        - Single and pair departures for maximum combat missions in knocks
                        - Group departures for maximum daily sorties
                        - Alpha Strike, one per day
                        - Alpha strike pair a day.

                        And all this is for both drums and air defense tasks, both for repelling a massive strike, and for working on patrol, for armed naval intelligence, for escorting BPA aircraft, together with coastal aviation and separately from it, etc.

                        Without a "live" aircraft carrier, all this cannot be worked out.
                      3. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 12 November 2018 15: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Not really. In the hangar, only refueling and suspension of weapons are prohibited, while the aircraft in theory can be prepared for take-off there.

                        Heh heh heh ... and at the adversary in the hangar, only starting the engines is prohibited. With a high intensity of departures, operations for refueling, suspension of a power supply unit and removal of a power supply unit in a hangar can be permitted by order of the commander of AB. And then - everything is simple: in the hangar of the AV Yankees there are both central heating centers and ammunition lifts.
                      4. Lucy
                        Lucy 11 November 2018 22: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is the case - only those planes that are already on the deck and filled / armed can take part in the departure - it will not be possible to lift / repair / arm the aircraft from the hangar - while waiting for them, the airplanes that have flown into the air will burn fuel. That is why the size of the flight deck is extremely critical for AB.


                        In how.
                        That is, ammunition is delivered from the cellars (how) to the hangar? And on the deck (flight) they saw rectangular hatches, and from them mini rails for transporting ASP?
                        And near the LA parking lots on the flight deck there are no refueling points?
                        It is better to see or read the IPP from the ship once.
                      5. gunnerminer
                        gunnerminer 10 November 2018 13: 59
                        0
                        Not only the landing-take-off is being worked out, but reconnaissance, the use of ammunition of all kinds, actions to ensure air defense of ships, detachments of ships and convoys, in simple and difficult conditions, interaction with the ACC fleet, marines.
            2. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 10 November 2018 13: 57
              -1
              - there are no shortcomings from land. -

              The limited tasks of attacking ground targets. The main task of the discussed tactical units is the operational activities over the sea. They cannot fully prepare for it. They set annual plans for PS with restrictions.

              -dependence on staffing:)))) -

              For such planning, NS fleet MA fleet may suffer a career. This was tried to practice in the late 80s. The first comprehensive check by a higher headquarters or the General Inspectorate.

              -but no one bothers to interact with the fleet from land-

              This is a secondary task of a regiment or squadron.

              -Why?-

              The BP TAVKR course according to the TR NK and TR MA closes at the test, with the participation of the crew of the ship and the regiment, while performing all the tasks of the course regularly, without simplifications. At sea. TAVKR does not go to sea for objective reasons. Therefore, to work out and show operational activity It cannot work together with the regiment without practicing all CPs of combat units and services. On the shore, or on simulators, the crews of the aircraft, the command, the crew of the TAVKR can close only certain elements of the tasks. The entire materiel of the regiment and ship must be technically and serviceable. This is the minimum condition closing the annual BP plan and the Course.
              1. Hole puncher
                Hole puncher 10 November 2018 19: 18
                +5
                You are discussing things that you should already forget about. Kuznetsov died, is it really incomprehensible? His deck is broken and deformed in the area of ​​aerofinisher, he has several compartments flooded, and the dock in which you can repair is destroyed. Given his dead GEM, there is no chance of resuming flights. For the museum would save ...
                1. gunnerminer
                  gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 27
                  +4
                  -You talk about things that it’s time to forget about-

                  It's hard to disagree. Discussion of TAVKR and MA is more like gymnastics of the mind. You relatively accurately described the state of TAVKR, as of November 2018.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  10 November 2018 19: 29
                  0
                  Do not invent. All that you wrote can be eliminated in a year maximum, the water has already been pumped out of it. The dock can be dragged from another fleet, the same PD-41.
                  Difficult, but realizable.
                  1. gunnerminer
                    gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 38
                    +1
                    - what you wrote can be eliminated in a maximum year, -

                    And they won’t fix it in three years. Besides pumping water, it’s going to rise if you manage to breach holes.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      10 November 2018 21: 21
                      +3
                      Are you talking about doc? So he broke down, he was pulled out piece by piece and sawed into metal in the spring.

                      Kuzya is already being pumped out, there is no trim, the ship is afloat.
                      Etc.
  12. atos_kin
    atos_kin 10 November 2018 11: 07
    +7
    There is an opinion: the Supreme Commander, having scrolled through this "Yaroslavna's cry", as usual, did not give any orders. Everything will be regulated by the "invisible hand of the market", and the Navy should treat this with understanding.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 10 November 2018 14: 10
      +4
      The main, most principled inspector, the enemy, will not show a gram of understanding. And he will use all the omissions and simplifications completely. With indifference to lack of time, fuel and lubricants, lack of intelligence of crews and technicians.
    2. VIT101
      VIT101 10 November 2018 20: 33
      +3
      Quote: atos_kin
      The Supreme Commander, having thumbed through this "Yaroslavna's cry", as usual, did not give any orders.


      That’s all our problems. Until the Supreme Himself intervenes, nothing will change. So many different authorities - both military and civilian - and all to no avail. No one takes responsibility. And who created such a system?
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 11 November 2018 11: 33
        +2
        So he created, puts in responsible positions uninitiated and illiterate people, but completely loyal to him personally. This is his main mistake - the inability or unwillingness to select competent personnel, and this is not only in the army and in the government, too.
        1. atos_kin
          atos_kin 12 November 2018 15: 52
          0
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          completely loyal to him personally.

          They will recruit devotees, and they ask how smart laughing
  13. timokhin-aa
    10 November 2018 11: 16
    +3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    regiment BF sequestered to the size of the squadron


    Well, here's more news. I did not know.
    The fleet continues to anneal.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 10 November 2018 11: 56
      0
      It is not the fleet that is annealing; it is unable to provide for itself.
      1. timokhin-aa
        10 November 2018 12: 05
        0
        No, the collapse in the MA is precisely the fault of the Navy.
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 10 November 2018 13: 47
          -1
          An organizational mob of the decision is outside the authority of the Navy Civil Code and its deputies. He and his deputies prepare substantiations for requests from the NSS and the MO. Drafts directives and orders for approved decisions made by the NSS and the RF Ministry of Defense.
          1. timokhin-aa
            10 November 2018 14: 10
            +1
            At the commander-in-chief, to hell with the authorities, at least the decision to allocate kerosene for combat training or not, is generally decided at the fleet level, not even at the level of the Civil Code, and certainly not at the level of the General Staff.
            Requiring the Ministry of Defense to invest in PLO aviation has been the direct responsibility of all Commanders approximately from 1993.

            But I do not think that we will find many reports with such requests, and after 2000-x we will not find them at all.
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 10 November 2018 14: 17
              +5
              Only within the limits of his authority. Fleet Admiral VV Chirkov, my fellow countryman, only tried to send a letter personally to the Higher Military Command, through the head of the National High School and the Defense Ministry, as he was immediately sent to citizen Sergei Kuzhugetovich, including for trying to discuss the state of the MA Russian Navy.
              1. timokhin-aa
                10 November 2018 14: 56
                -2
                Admiral Chirkov went to bed first with a heart attack, if that. And thanks to him, by the way, we have 22160. I would also like to note that klikuhi like "Vitya Viktorovich" just don't give.

                Although not personally acquainted. Well, then in the USC, he famously turned out, would have been eaten by an evil MO, it’s not a fact that it would have happened, I would have grown strawberries in my country house now.
                1. gunnerminer
                  gunnerminer 10 November 2018 16: 16
                  +3
                  He dismissed Viktor Viktorovich for the letter. His health condition, after treatment, allowed him to serve until the end of the contract. At KTOF, when he was the commander of the compound, he had another nickname. Project 6 was a forced measure of plugging a hole in the surface fleet in the current state of the country's economy.

                  -I would grow strawberries in my country house now .-

                  He is closer to the fleet and shipbuilding than the leapfrogging OSK leaders, former car dealers, livestock technicians and culinary specialists.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    10 November 2018 16: 53
                    0
                    With KTOF he went to 1998, since then much water has flowed under the bridge, people and in fewer years change. And 22160, this wrecking in its pure form, not justified by any holes, really it would have been better not to build anything at all than these miseries.
                    1. gunnerminer
                      gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 29
                      +2
                      -A 22160, this is pure wrecking, -

                      Wrecking to create an environment that forces such ships to be accepted. If they are not built, the Raptors and Grachat will remain.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        10 November 2018 21: 23
                        0
                        What prevented the money from 22160 and the freak 20386 from laying another four 20380? Nothing. And at the very least this is a brigade, even if it is not complete.
                      2. Nemchinov Vl
                        Nemchinov Vl 12 November 2018 11: 09
                        0
                        sorry, what is wrong with 22160? and why sorry 20380 is better?
                      3. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 12 November 2018 15: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                        sorry what is wrong with 22160

                        But it's not like that. The Navy ordered a ship for itself, 80% of the tasks of which are not carried out by the fleet - they are the responsibility of the FSB. And he received a 1500-ton carrier of one gun. Neither air defense nor anti-aircraft defense - one slot for modules is not clear with what.
                        And this at a time when the main workhorses of the naval OVR - "albatrosses" - are celebrating their 30th anniversary.
                        Oh yes, for everything else, as the well-known mina wrote, 22160 has problems with seaworthiness - due to requirements to limit displacement.
                        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                        and why sorry 20380 is better?

                        That. that 20380 has SAM, ZAK, PKR and "package".
                      4. Nemchinov Vl
                        Nemchinov Vl 12 November 2018 18: 52
                        0
                        those. on 22160 in reality there will be neither "calm-1", nor "caliber-NK", nor even "flexible" (although the latter I agree that it is not a fountain)? infa 100%? For example, I sincerely believe that if not from the first ship, but all this will certainly appear on 22160 (since they are so shouting about modularity). "package" for ASW functions, in my opinion, is the same as "flexible" in air defense support. Therefore, if we talk about the most suitable replacement for "Albatrosses", then in my opinion, Project 11661-K (of the "Dagestan" type, carrying and full-fledged 533 TA and VPU for "Calibers") will bypass the parameters (the price of construction / PLO function in BMZ) and corvettes 20380, and 22160. Although if modular principles still allow to equip the latter with "calibers", "calm" (or at least Pantsir-M "instead of" bending ") and full-fledged 533 mm TA (and not a" package " ) then it is not as hopeless as 20380, but again it is hardly cheaper in the construction of 11661-K.
                      5. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 12 November 2018 19: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                        "package" for ASW functions, in my opinion, is the same as "flexible" in air defense support.

                        Alone, yes. But in combination with the Ka-27, the "package" is quite sufficient: the helicopter provides a "long arm", and the "package" provides self-defense and work in the near zone.
                        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                        Therefore, if we talk about the most suitable replacement for the Albatross, then in my opinion, Project 11661-K (of the Dagestan type, carrying and full-fledged 533 TA and VPU for "Calibers") will bypass the parameters (the price of construction / PLO function in BMZ) and corvettes 20380, and 22160.

                        Why IPC "calibers"? Massive cheap MPK nowadays is a shell for GAS and a helicopter. Plus "package" / RBU, traditional AK-176 and "shell-M". And that's enough for him - because four dozen such ships are needed.
                      6. Nemchinov Vl
                        Nemchinov Vl 12 November 2018 19: 48
                        0
                        Why IPC "calibers"? Massive cheap MPK nowadays is a shell for GAS and a helicopter. Plus "package" / RBU, traditional AK-176 and "shell-M". And that's enough for him - because four dozen such ships are needed. [/ Quote]

                        for 91RE1 or 91RE2 anti-submarine missiles, which, if God grants, will detect the Ka-27 at a distance of 35-50 km. Well it is. By the way, it’s closest in terms of the composition of the necessary weapons to carry out the functions of the IPC (according to the requirements you describe), today, what kind of project do you excuse from those already built by the defense industry (and it would be nice to compare the cost of construction 20380/22160/11661-K) ???
            2. bnm.99
              bnm.99 10 November 2018 15: 07
              +3
              Dear, gunnerminer is a bunch of bots scribbling under one nickname. Their earnings are to pull out the left copy-paste or suck out false nonsense from the finger and comment on articles where they write about some negative aspects in the RF Armed Forces and arrange a srach on this subject, hoping to catch some fool like Azochen Wei. This cattle (or cattle) must be strongly ignored, and if there is an opportunity to ban the rot forever. In all decent blogs, he was either banned or kept in hedgehogs. Arranging a discussion with him is a fierce zashkvar.
              1. timokhin-aa
                10 November 2018 15: 10
                +2
                I try not to ban people even for petty rudeness, let alone trolling.
                1. Fan-fan
                  Fan-fan 11 November 2018 11: 39
                  0
                  Timokhin, so are you in charge?
  14. Nehist
    Nehist 10 November 2018 11: 31
    +6
    Yeah ... Not a happy article ... I remember there was a base of the air force of the Mangoht fleet ... What was there just ... Now, most likely, only the airfield remained
    1. Fedorov
      Fedorov 10 November 2018 11: 48
      +4
      Druzhban lived with me there, his father, the Tu-142 Pilot, died. Mangohta ..
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 10 November 2018 20: 11
        +5
        Tin, the nearest glide path, and at the end of the runway there are hills and trees, because by the rules of at least 300 meters of a clean field, a low bow to the Pilots, well done.
  15. Fedorov
    Fedorov 10 November 2018 11: 36
    -6
    Timokhin Sanya, Why are you causing a panic here, or does Andrei from Chelyabinsk have a common theme - is everything gone? Although well done!
    Problems are solved, but not as fast as I wanted. Do not raise unnecessary moods. .
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 11: 51
      +7
      The fact of the matter is that some problems are not solved at all. Only compounded. Naval aviation is one of them.

      Why write about something that already works? It is necessary to sound the alarm that does not work, so that they move up above.
      1. Fedorov
        Fedorov 10 November 2018 12: 08
        +1
        Yes, I myself am ready to remove my grandfather’s checker from the wall. But the problem is completely different.
        Ask any acquaintance, youth in the yard, how much will be 7 by 8 times, and you will get an answer. You will not like him.
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 November 2018 12: 42
          +3
          No need to invent. For some reason, the Air Force was revived from oblivion, but the fleet did not. Is it just like that? Do they get different young people?
  16. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 10 November 2018 12: 10
    -2
    It seems that everything is the case, but game periodically crawls out.
    Will our anti-submariners seek and destroy enemy strategists? Well, so they crawl off their shores, they don’t need to approach ours. Range allows you to shoot from the bases. Well, and how does the author imagine the hunt of any, even the most advanced PLO aircraft, a hundred miles from the US coast?
    You come across such mistakes and think about it - and the author himself understands what he is writing?
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 12: 43
      +6
      Well, how do the Orions work over the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Barents Sea? A couple hundred kilometers from our coast? Have you ever wondered?
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 10 November 2018 14: 12
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well that's how "Orions"

        Even in your past work, you were surprised by the enthusiasm about Orion and the lack of mention of Poseidon. Against the background of the quality and quantity of the latter, the talk about the existence of the Russian submarine is surprising.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        A couple of hundred kilometers from our coast?

        A couple of hundred kilometers from your coast is much closer to Japan or Norway than the Indian Ocean to Kamchatka, all of a sudden.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        For some reason, the Air Force has revived from oblivion, but the fleet is not

        Are you sure that you have information on the revived Air Force? I will tell you a military secret - this kind of troops ceased to exist in 2015. At the moment, what is left of him is commanded by a tanker with an amazingly rich biography. Only shhh!
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 November 2018 15: 06
          +6
          So what if I mentioned Poseidon less? Poseidon for us is a general space, we just do not know that this plane can, in principle, at least, the crew there for the PLO is redundant, this is absolutely certain.
          And the same, apparently, about Kawasaki P-1 can be said.

          What do I need to list them all now? Moreover, the events described in the last article were from the "Orions" era, and even now the same Japanese have the "Orions" in the majority, and we will grapple with them with greater fidelity than with the United States directly.

          A couple of hundred kilometers from your coast is much closer to Japan or Norway than the Indian Ocean to Kamchatka, all of a sudden.


          And what has Norway to do with it, if they flew to the North and are flying from Iceland? As for the rest, in Soviet times, aerial reconnaissance on the Tu-95 constantly dangled over the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, etc., there were "raids" of the Pacific Fleet into Alaska, and a lot of other things.

          The issue of the departure of the PLA plane from the continental air defense system is complex, but not unsolvable. The capabilities of the US ground-breaking radar weapons, the tactics of their interceptors, the line of interception at which they seek to identify targets, etc. - all this is known for a long time. To make an anti-submarine patrol in the patrol zone of the Amerskoy SSBN is a solvable task. It will just be necessary for the staffs to exert themselves, and to allocate additional forces to ensure this departure. But this is not impossible.

          It would be something to send for such an operation.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 10 November 2018 15: 55
            +5
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Do I need to list all of them now?

            What does "everyone" mean? This aircraft is the standard of modern PLO aircraft. Calls to catch up and overtake Orion - the level of Americans 30 years ago - are reminiscent of the idea of ​​signing up for the Paralympics.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Poseidon for us is generally space

            If so, then there’s no reason to start talking about the domestic submarine.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And where does Norway, if they flew to the North and fly from Iceland?

            Does Norway not provide communications, navigation, fighter jets and an emergency airfield? Well, OK.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            aerial reconnaissance on Tu-95 constantly dangled over the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, etc., there were Pacific Fleet "raids" on Alaska

            It was exactly what was hanging out and exactly what the raids were. The Soviet Navy, not without punctures, ensured supremacy in the Barents and Okhotsk seas. The post-Soviet is not capable of that either. Speaking of Ohio’s threat is ridiculous.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Opportunities of American ZGRLS, tactics of their interceptors, the line of interception at which they seek to identify targets, etc. - All this has been known for a long time.

            Your idea that the Americans will not be able to ensure air supremacy in the patrol zone of their strategists is rather surprising.
            1. timokhin-aa
              10 November 2018 17: 04
              +4
              What does "everyone" mean? This aircraft is the standard of modern PLO aircraft. Calls to catch up and overtake Orion - the level of Americans 30 years ago - are reminiscent of the idea of ​​signing up for the Paralympics.


              Well, stretch your legs on clothes. Poseidon, in principle, we will not pull, and from the "Orion" 30 years ago, we are still thirty years ago, so catching up with the American level of 30 years ago will now be a breakthrough for us. It's sad, but true.

              I urge you to do at least something. If a miracle suddenly happens, and it turns out that somewhere in the depths of the defense industry complex, a super-sophisticated sighting and search system has been developed that can be entered into a glider, for example, Tu-204, and if the UAC turns out - also a miracle - to do in this glider and with This PPS is a full-fledged aircraft, comparable to Poseidon, I will only "for".

              I just do not believe that this is possible in the foreseeable future, that's all.

              Does Norway not provide communications, navigation, fighter jets and an emergency airfield? Well, OK.


              They cope without it, as practice shows. And in the event of war, Norway will be neutralized fairly quickly, and will not be able to provide anything. And the problem of American aviation will remain all the same. We need to take an example from them.

              It was exactly what was hanging out and exactly what the raids were. The Soviet Navy, not without punctures, ensured supremacy in the Barents and Okhotsk seas. The post-Soviet is not capable of that either. Speaking of Ohio’s threat is ridiculous.


              Well, they hung on the tail of our boats, right? The same K-492. The question is not to seize control of airspace near the United States. The question is to plan and conduct a one-time action, lasting no more than half a day.

              And this is possible, and in different ways.

              Constantly, at home there, of course, you will not be able to fly, even in peacetime, but this is not necessary.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 10 November 2018 23: 54
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Poseidon, in principle, we will not pull, and from the "Orion" 30 years ago, we are still thirty years ago, so catching up with the American level of 30 years ago will now be a breakthrough for us. It's sad, but true.

                In this case, it is necessary to recognize reality, and not to arrange another war between Ellochka the Ogre and Vanderbildikha. The Russian Navy cannot provide patrols for SSBNs anywhere except the White Sea. Whether he needs it or not is already a more substantive question than creating our answer to Orion.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, stretch your legs on clothes

                Exactly.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                in the event of war, Norway will be neutralized quite quickly, and cannot provide anything. And the problem of amer aviation remains anyway. We need to take an example from them.

                Firstly, both the partners and the General Staff had a different opinion about Norway. Secondly, in defending Atlantic communications, as you write, the partners really relied on Iceland. But it is difficult for partners without Norway to solve the problem of submarines in the Barents Sea - the submarine must be covered, from Iceland the hook is not near. Here, even aircraft carriers cannot solve the problem; the North is the North.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                our boats hung on their tail, right? The same K-492

                Are you talking about stories when the MAPL caught strategists in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, sitting under the three Orions and Sprouts? Do you understand that these raids had minimal relation to the sustainability of the American nuclear triad? To ring the doorbell and run away like juvenile dumbasses?
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The question is to plan and conduct a one-time action, lasting no more than half a day.

                The difference between such an action and military service is about the same as between a census and parenting. Census is a good and necessary business, but the resources that are spent on it must be adequate to the task. You, as I understand it, are calling for the creation of MA to make partners in the Indian Ocean laugh once every six months. No?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  11 November 2018 00: 23
                  0
                  The Russian Navy cannot patrol SSBNs anywhere other than the White Sea. Whether he needs this or not is a more substantive question than creating our answer to Orion.


                  You confuse warm with soft. The presence of forces capable of fighting enemy (not necessarily American, but also with them) submarines is one thing, ensuring patrols of SSBNs is another. These are related questions, but not the same.

                  But to solve the problem of the submarine in the Barents Sea to partners without Norway is difficult - the PL plane must be covered, from Iceland the hook is not near. Here, even aircraft carriers can not solve the issue, the North is the North.


                  This is solved, for example, by deck aircraft. You, apparently, are not aware of the tracks between the US Navy and the Air Force, and meanwhile, the BPA escort over the Barents Sea more than once led to a conflict between the commanders. The air force there takes this position - we already give you our tankers, if we also protect your aircraft, then why are you, so beautiful, needed ?!
                  Norway is a small country, in the 80s it would have been covered by the MRBM, now, when the INF Treaty "disappears" and the ground-based CD appears, it will be calibrated.
                  This is the logic of the war, Norway will be multiplied by zero in the first hours, nothing can be done about it.

                  Are you talking about stories when MAPL caught strategists in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, sitting under three Orions and Spryenssem?


                  It was in 1985. And I'm talking about 1982. Around the same place, but without the Spryuans and Orions.

                  The difference between such an action and combat service is about the same as between sex and raising children. Fuck it up is a good and necessary thing, but the resources that are spent on it should be adequate to the task.


                  For example, the task is a preventive strike on the United States Think about how to solve it so that most of the population of the Russian Federation survived. You can quickly get around their missiles, and time to win for an ICBM strike, but the problem of submarines remains. And without her decision, nothing will come of it. And it will be necessary to solve it only once and at any cost.

                  And the creation of the BPA is necessary in itself, even outside the connection with "Ohio". Not only America is a man alive, you never know who will have to fight, and where, the Britons already had to Argentina.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 11 November 2018 01: 39
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    For example, the task is a preemptive strike against the United States. Think about how to solve it.

                    The first and obligatory step is to get involved in drugs.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    the Britons had already with Argentina.

                    Limes used the forces they had during the development of NATO with relative success. As for Russia, which will never fight with anyone, it would not hurt to decide first, and then do something. Russia has more than one BPA with Ales Kaput, speaking between us. And not even with the sun alone. And it’s even hard to find a place where they don’t.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    about the 1982th. Around the same place, but without Sprouts and Orions

                    We stumbled on stealth at the main base of US strategists. Oh, these storytellers.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    This is the logic of the war, Norway will be multiplied by zero in the first hours, nothing can be done about it.

                    It is not so easy to come up with a scenario that would lead to a hurricane in Europe, and at the same time there would be "hours" to do it. As for Calibers in Norway, they either fly from the North, and then there is no need for ground Calibers, or fly through Finland and Sweden, which was considered undesirable during the Soviet era. Now, however, it has become easier with cocaine than in the days of the USSR, so you can go through Sweden too, why not, in fact.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    apparently not up to date with the thoks between the US Navy and Air Force

                    Ordinary graters between military branches. No support options for IA constant BPA operations in the North, except for control from ground airfields, do not exist.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The presence of forces capable of combating enemy (not necessarily American, but also with them) submarines is one thing, providing patrols for the SSBNs is another

                    If the second is missing, it’s ridiculous to talk about the first. And for the idea that you can fight not only with the United States, you can stop by for 20 years. Well this is treason. Well this is generally change everything, all the girls, all beds.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      11 November 2018 08: 40
                      +2
                      Well, the former NSH RVSN here is an opinion about the drugs:
                      “But frankly, we do not yet have an effective response to American medium-range missiles in Europe. If the United States begins to deploy its missiles in Europe, we will have no choice but to abandon the doctrine of a retaliatory strike and switch to the doctrine of a preemptive strike. "


                      So clearer?
                      Man, Colonel-General, he dealt with the issues of nuclear war professionally all his life. And you?

                      I will note that the opponent’s scenario will be perceived as unbelievable, which will prevent him from properly evaluating our preparations, and even allow us to achieve surprise. This is the very cognitive distortion that occasionally allows us to achieve even a strategic surprise, not to mention operational.
                      And commanders in the sea and in the field simply will not believe.
                      Moreover, amerskih jumps in Syria and constant threats make it possible to raise the combat readiness (which cannot be hidden from them), and then not to roll it back - and they will not be able to link it with a hypothetically planned strike, because it is a drug, it’s not may be.
                      I will even add that Putin's allusions about hypersonic missiles and gliding warheads seem to be in this direction. The "Dagger" does not hit aircraft carriers, it does not have such an opportunity, but suddenly some objects in Europe are covered - the very thing, especially with special warheads. And the glider is needed only in order to get into the silo when launched halfway across the world - for everything else, a conventional warhead is enough.
                      And since these gliders do, it means they want to get into the silo.
                      Otherwise, they would not do, you know?
                      And the fact that all this is perceived as nonsense is, on the contrary, good. It is very good.

                      But it will be necessary to do something with the submarines. The 1 air traffic wing of the Navy can be cut down on the ground, long-wave radio stations, too, the usual communications too, but all this will benefit the BPA in a few hours.
                      And she should be able to resolve the issue in these few hours.

                      Now, however, it has become easier with cocaine than during Soviet times, so it is possible to chew through Sweden, why not, in fact.


                      Why not? If this is the same EndWar then why not? In addition, in 2020, Nakhimov should be rolled into the water, count how many UVPs are there for "Caliber", well, the Aerospace Forces with their bombers here in the subject, and MiGs with "Daggers", and army, etc. In general, it is technically feasible.

                      Conventional trowels between the types of troops. There are no options for supporting the EA of BPA permanent work in the North, except for control from ground airfields, there is no.


                      Yes, we have less than ten submarines there. What is a permanent job? Three and four sorties and everything, the same Kuroyedov believed that during the 48 hours they would melt the entire sub-melt. Generally all, not only in the north.

                      Well, yes, fighter-deckers, E-2, E-3, and Air Force tankers from Fairford and Iceland make it possible to resolve the issue without Norway.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 11 November 2018 13: 14
                        +1
                        To admit, you seemed to me more balanced.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        So clearer?

                        Still would

                        Shouts "I'm psychic!" have been heard quite clearly lately, and not only from military pensioners, but also from other characters who are stubbornly not going to retire.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        This is the same cognitive bias.

                        You are absolutely right. Partners so far in some awesome. It’s not often that you hear about the death of a martyr from a stealing club. It sounds like an officer's honor to the head of the gendarmes.
                        But, I think, the partners will draw conclusions sooner or later. Errors of the 91st year should not be repeated.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        give you the opportunity to raise combat readiness (which you can’t hide from them), and then not roll it back

                        Good idea. In the USSR they loved such games. Especially to keep the entire army in full combat readiness is very good.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        dope, it cannot be.

                        For your trouble, one addict with missiles has long been there. It was time to figure out how it works.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        If this is the same EndWar then why not?

                        At least because the air defense of Finland and Sweden will be added to the air defense of Norway. It is there, oddly enough.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Three four sorties and that’s all, the same Kuroyedov believed that they would melt the entire submelt in 48 hours. In general, not only in the north.

                        Unlike you, partners understand that PLO becomes a strategic factor only when it works 24/365. In the pre-war period, it will be too late to rush. In the military - even more so. Including from here a monstrous quantitative superiority of means of PLO which partners continue to increase.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Well, yes, fighter-deckers, E-2, E-3, and Air Force tankers from Fairford and Iceland make it possible to resolve the issue without Norway.

                        Do not allow. Precisely because duty is required, and not raids. Aircraft carriers on the BS in Americans are usually 1-2. Too few to connect one of them with a northern shift.
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        12 November 2018 22: 06
                        -1
                        Aircraft carriers on BS from Americans usually 1-2.

                        A combat usually three or four, if that. And in 2016, there were six of them, at sea. Plus, UDC with fighters, they also would count.
          2. Sahalinets
            Sahalinets 11 November 2018 02: 25
            0
            The nearest patrol area of ​​Amer’s SSB is approximately 5000 kilometers. Even the Tu-142 can only fly in to fly right away.
            1. Fan-fan
              Fan-fan 11 November 2018 12: 30
              +2
              Oh damn case, our commentators turn out to know the patrol areas of American boats?
              1. timokhin-aa
                11 November 2018 12: 48
                -1
                They are roughly known.
      2. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 11 November 2018 02: 19
        +1
        Very simple. Depart from Norway and Japan. But how will our planes search for Ohio off the coast of the United States? Do you even measure with a ruler on the map ... :)
        1. timokhin-aa
          11 November 2018 08: 40
          -1
          Comment above look.
  17. xomaNN
    xomaNN 10 November 2018 12: 32
    +5
    The author revealed the depressing situation. It's a shame that they came to such a sad option. My father served as a naval pilot on the Tu-16 in the SF Air Force in the 60s. It was then that they actively and often flew. And our garrison in Severomorsk-2 often woke the Mi-4 helicopter drone from our airfield. So I really hope for a positive trend in naval aviation of the Russian Federation am
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 10 November 2018 14: 14
      +1
      The point is not so much in the current state of the Navy's MA as in the pace of its recovery, and in the lack of time to recover. The most difficult task and time-consuming is the preparation of senior command personnel. Command of regiments and squadrons, chiefs of ground technical services, communications, weapons, mechanics, engineers. MA intelligence will have to be restored from scratch.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. alauda1038
    alauda1038 10 November 2018 14: 44
    -1
    Naval aviation has one disadvantage: it’s always late or to bomb its own ... Taken from various sources
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 15: 11
      +2
      Coastal aviation is always "late" this must be taken into account when planning.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2018 15: 47
      +7
      Quote: alauda1038
      Naval aviation has one disadvantage; it is always late or to bomb its ...

      You are deeply mistaken. It is late, does not find the enemy or bomb its air forces, which are forced to solve naval tasks. WWII showed it especially well - in many countries the Air Force demanded the elimination of MA, saying that we will solve all the problems ourselves. In some, they were met, in some - not. Where the MA eliminated the Air Force’s attempts to do something at sea, they didn’t cause anything but a homeric laughter of the enemy and matyugs of their fleet. And where the MA was kept, she fought normally
    3. Flyer_64
      Flyer_64 11 November 2018 00: 56
      +2
      Quote: alauda1038
      late or bomb their

      I wonder where infa ??? What do you know about the MA of the Russian Navy?
  20. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 10 November 2018 16: 08
    0
    The main headquarters of the Navy gouged its fleet and its naval aviation in the 90s, and many admirals also fed up on the sale and decommissioning of ships and ships, on the removal of aircraft from flights and retirement of aviation and naval personnel, on rotting repair and modernization capacities ... And they succeeded with absolutely impunity, if only the same Kuroyedov was punished for example ... Since the death of the Kursk, the crisis has been identified, but classified, and on specialized Internet resources such as "Made with us" the former admiralty feeds on banning any criticism, bringing the matter to indignation. The Outrageous Situation with the Fleet and Maritime Aviation is a FACT!
  21. Allexxx
    Allexxx 10 November 2018 16: 14
    +2
    I think the future of Russian maritime aviation is airplanes with an unlimited fuel resource and an unpredictable flight path. The first condition is necessary, since Russia does not and will not have aircraft carriers, which means that it will not be possible to replenish fuel supplies on the aircraft carrier. And the second condition is necessary so that there is the possibility of successfully completing a combat mission in the conditions of a complete lack of support for aircraft carrier groups.
    Considering that in 2023 a heavy nuclear-powered space cruiser-aircraft carrier "Federation" will be sent to Mars orbit, it seems to me that it makes sense to build an air-space group just for this.
    As for the old backlog of naval aviation, the same Be-12s that are still in service with the naval aviation of Russia - to upgrade them to the Be-12P-200 - and can be used for the needs of the church in the army and navy, whose role, in the last time, significantly increases, for example, for the consecration of large infrastructure objects (battlefields, new roads, training grounds before the start of exercises, etc.).
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 17: 06
      +2
      Weakly. But then the trolls do not feed, do not try.
  22. Santor
    Santor 10 November 2018 16: 24
    -2
    Shura Timokhin in his role as an all-rounder ... ... And the US fighters on the tail of our plane in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk completely beat off reading something further ...... On November 3, the same author threw here an article about the new Russia Tsushima, everything is so bad, the whole fleet is stolen, and so on ... We must urgently build battleships .... And the same nonsense ... At the profile forum where the sailors are sitting, he was immediately sent in three letters and he no longer even tries there write...

    At the moment, the author forgot to mention the 18 modernized Su-27P / UB and the planned delivery to the Navy Air Force of 18 vehicles that are completing the modernization process before the end of the 18 year.

    22 SU-30 SM and by the end of the 20 year it is planned to deliver 36 vehicles only to the Navy. It was planned to supply all 50 machines. Already see an increase. A total of 140 aircraft is planned to be built by the end of the 20 year.

    The author forgot about the availability of 17 Su-33 and that it is planned to supply another 12 machines before the end of the 19 year.

    We have 19 MIG-29K and 3 MIG-29KUB. By the way, the MIG-29K carries Kh-35UE and Kh35PM missiles, an analogue of the "Sunburn", the opponents have no means of counteraction.

    For the author, the 865 Fighter Aviation Regiment of the Russian Navy, which currently has 12 MIG-31 B / BS and 13 MIG-31 BM, is based in Yelizovo in Kamchatka. Flights take place regularly.

    21 SU-24M with new equipment and 6 SU-24 MP in the Baltic. All crews passed Syria. One crew died. 20 SU-24M and 6 SU-24 MR on the Black Sea. All crews underwent similar training, all aircraft were modernized. And these are X-35 of three kinds and X-59 are not anti-ship missiles, nea? And yet - as it is modestly silent that from 2007 of the year there has been a mass modernization of option M to M2 which can use X-31. Although everywhere continues to be written SU-24M.

    The author operates on data for ... 2015 year .... They don’t fly, the press wrote ... Like if I didn’t lie, I read that ...

    I live in the Kaliningrad region, as soon as you drive past Chernyakhovsk - there was no case that 2-4 su-24s would not hang over your head. They come in for landing by releasing the landing gear just above the Kaliningrad-Nesterov highway. Aviation flights are constant, at first it was unusual ... And since last year, helicopters are also constantly along the Neman. The leadership of the fleet makes sudden "raids" in the unit. Our boards sit right on the parade ground in the center of the city, throwing into a stupor the command of the newly formed SME. Most often MI-8 or KA-29 ... Sometimes the KA-52 rushes by, but they are in camouflage ... And these are in the blue livery of the Navy.

    Yesterday, tests with an emergency splashdown system of a new twin-engine multipurpose helicopter Ansat with a lifting capacity of 1.3 tons (7-8 people) were successfully completed. The leadership of the Navy is considering the acquisition of 12 vehicles in the version for the armed forces.

    Much work is underway to update the infrastructure of the Navy's Air Force. So, on October 5, the Chkalovsk airfield of the Navy Air Force near Kaliningrad was commissioned after 5 years of modernization. The runway length was increased by 500 meters, now there is the possibility of simultaneous take-off of several aircraft, new communication lines, new buildings, access roads, taxiways, safety lanes were built, the entire drainage and drainage system of a large airfield was completely renewed, a railway line to the airfield was laid
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 17: 13
      +7
      On the profile forum where the sailors are sitting, he was immediately sent in three letters and he no longer even tries to write there ...


      This is where it is, huh?

      It's amazing how much you learn about yourself.

      I live in Kaliningrad, as soon as you drive past Chernyakhovsk - there was no case that 2-4 su-24 would not hang over your head. They land at landing by releasing the chassis just above the Kaliningrad-Nesterov highway. Aviation permanent flights, at first it was unusual ...


      Kerosene was given, yes? Well, let's applaud the fleet! They started giving kerosene on flights! Victory!

      And since last year, helicopters have been constantly along the Neman.


      And before that, did not fly? Progress is evident.

      Yesterday, tests with an emergency splashdown system of a new twin-engine multipurpose helicopter Ansat with a lifting capacity of 1.3 tons (7-8 people) were successfully completed. The leadership of the Navy is considering the acquisition of 12 vehicles in the version for the armed forces.


      And why is he there? In the Navy MA, and so the zoo types of aircraft, there is no unification, why do they still have a new type of helicopter, inapplicable in combat operations at sea?

      No, I'm glad and the airfield, and kerosene. Only now this achievement is considered wrong. This should have been since the fleet began to receive money, that is, all past 9 years should have been like this, and not just now.
    2. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov 10 November 2018 19: 24
      0
      Let Shoigu announce that the first 57 Su-57s will go to the naval aviation regiments. Then the indignation will calm down a little.
      1. timokhin-aa
        10 November 2018 19: 46
        +4
        Not. Because it's not just about airplanes. Moreover, Su-30CM and a small amount of Su-35 would be quite enough for fifteen years. The question is in the organization, in the approaches, in the anti-submarine aircraft, in the auxiliary aircraft and in the doctrine of the application of all this.
        1. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 10 November 2018 21: 09
          +1
          Clever people in the General Staff have been underestimated in aviation and aeronautics for a long time. For example, they do not remember that the imperial fleet of Russia had a balloon carrier in service, which increased the view from the ship by an order of magnitude. They do not know that the altitude record for a biplane (14000 m) still belongs to the biplane of prisoner Polikarpov. A wooden biplane with a low-power and heavy piston engine, Karl! And what can we expect from our modern composite biplane, Karl? 15000 m? Which has a carrying capacity of more than 2 tons of ANY CARGO, at least 20 fatty-laughter, and the maximum flight time with them is more than 5 hours at a speed of more than 300 km / h, i.e. has a standard range approximately equal to the range of the F-18. Those. if desired, can fly from about. Matua or the Southern Kuriles, for example, to Okinawa and back. But our admiralty does not want to see this biplane at close range, although it already has a float model. Give them only Mahi - and not cheap ones, namely, so that they are expensive ... And he wants only the most expensive turntables, but he spat admirally on the Mi-14 long ago, just what a trivial cheapness ... !
      2. Flyer_64
        Flyer_64 11 November 2018 00: 54
        0
        Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
        that the first 57 Su-57s will go to naval aviation regiments. Then the indignation will calm down a little.

        And why are they MA?
        1. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 11 November 2018 12: 29
          -2
          And for the joy of gaining benefits in the sea air. Wangyu, that the Su-57 will have the function of controlling strike drones, which in general will be able to ensure dominance in the sea air of Russian aircraft at distances up to 2000 km from our coast. Not a single AUG will come close to us.
          1. Flyer_64
            Flyer_64 11 November 2018 21: 38
            0
            Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
            have the function of controlling shock drones, which in general will be able to ensure dominance in the sea air of the Russian MA

            And that you are serious.)))
            1. Mikhail Zubkov
              Mikhail Zubkov 12 November 2018 09: 38
              0
              Quite. Do you remember the unmanned control systems on the Tu-16 in the "target aircraft" version? The flyers took the plane to the start, left the car without turning off the engines, after which the takeoff and flight were automatic and remote controlled. This was still worked out 25 years ago. Study materiel, "flyer".
              1. Flyer_64
                Flyer_64 12 November 2018 22: 15
                0
                Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
                Study materiel, "flyer".

                Your thoughts are up to God. There were drones in the union and supersonic reconnaissance aircraft, but we still have "Orlans"
    3. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 10 November 2018 19: 28
      +5
      Quote: Santor
      the author forgot to mention the 18 upgraded Su-27P / UB and the planned delivery of 18 aircraft to the Navy Air Force before the end of 18

      Quote: Santor
      22 SU-30 SM and by the end of 20 it is planned to deliver 36 vehicles only to the Navy Air Force.

      Quote: Santor
      21 SU-24M with new equipment and 6 SU-24 MP in the Baltic. All crews passed Syria. One crew died. 20 SU-24M and 6 SU-24 MP in the Black Sea

      It was worth listing the machines not related to anti-submarine aircraft in any way ...
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 35
        0
        Moreover, there are no hints of the revival of squadrons and regiments of long-range naval attack aircraft.
    4. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 33
      +1
      Separate facts that do not fit into the system of revival of Naval Aviation. Especially sad is the lack of reconnaissance regiments in the remnants of MA fleets. Especially on KSF and KTOF. Su-24M are good with modern reconnaissance, reinforced aircraft DRLOi U. Such in Naval Aviation. It almost without eyes and ears. For the Baltic Sea, it may come down in peacetime, but for KSF and KTOF there isn’t, given the huge size of the operational zones of these fleets.
  23. kamikaze
    kamikaze 10 November 2018 17: 49
    -1
    no worries need to think about a good fleet reborn. Moscow was not built right away
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 18: 19
      +1
      The problem is that the money given to the fleet for the revival was given. But he took advantage of them so inefficiently that now in general investments in the Navy would be in question.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 10 November 2018 19: 34
        +1
        The mechanism for using this money is not the combatants.
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 November 2018 19: 48
          -1
          Generally nebegotov, absolutely.
    2. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 11 November 2018 12: 42
      +1
      "Moscow was not built right away" - When we were building Moscow, we even saw the builders, but here are the builders, ay! But we see the destroyers, the unique dock was drowned, Kuzyu was damaged as if several anti-ship missiles had attacked him. And this is still no war.
  24. RoTTor
    RoTTor 10 November 2018 20: 02
    +1
    The pogrom of MA began yet another kaka-rusnik Khrushchev, which took away fighter aircraft from MA and destroyed the attack aircraft, was successfully completed after 1991.
    Truncated defective aviation is not able to fully perform the most important tasks of MA.

    Destroyed and specialized aviation schools MA - flight, navigation, aviation technology, which is also a blunder - different specifics, psychology, and deployment
    Without a powerful MA, a powerful Navy is impossible, therefore, it is necessary to restore a full-fledged MA

    Including hydroaviation, which is completely withered.

    When was the freshest MA specialized aircraft designed?
    SIXTY YEARS BACK!

    Neither the Arctic and the NSR, nor the Pacific frontiers, nor the Caspian, nor the Black Sea without MA can be saved
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 20: 08
      -1
      I agree with the amendments.

      First, the devil-may-care attitude toward naval aviation occasionally slipped even into the Second World War — for example, how it was provided with fuel and ammunition during the flight of Germans from the Crimea. Which, by the way, was the reason they were able to evacuate.

      Secondly, the pogrom described by you was largely a matter of the hands of officers who were formed as individuals and commanders under Stalin and during the Second World War.

      Well, the hydroaviation is questionable - it only makes sense if we are preparing for a long and protracted global war. And if not, then it is necessary to seaplanes quite a bit for the PSS and throwing / evacuating saboteurs. Read units.
      1. Mikhail Zubkov
        Mikhail Zubkov 10 November 2018 20: 37
        +1
        You are mistaken och. deep. Just like the General Staff Building. It was found that 80% of the sea surface 80% of the time has a wave of less than 3 points, which means it is suitable for take-off and landing of seaplanes with a variety of tasks, up to anti-submarine in the ocean zone. Up to the supply of fuel and drinking water diesel-electric submarines and surface ships with limited autonomy, which will dramatically increase the combat effectiveness of the fleet.
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 November 2018 21: 25
          +1
          That's just in our latitudes, the ice, the 4 points (north), then some kind of hellish misfortune.
          1. Mikhail Zubkov
            Mikhail Zubkov 10 November 2018 23: 38
            +1
            The Papaninians somehow delivered goods onto the ice. In the war with wooden bombers TB-3 (9 h-crew, infernal speed, 180 km), barrels of fuel to tank brigades in the raid on German rears were used to be thrown off as planned. Without any parachute systems. Elementary Watson!
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 November 2018 16: 16
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        First, the disregard for naval aviation occasionally slipped even in the Second World War - take, for example, the way it was provided with fuel and ammunition during the Germans' flight from Crimea.

        As far as I remember, the problem there was not with provision - gas, bombs and torpedoes were. It was just that the rear of the MA did not have the opportunity to deliver all this abundance in the required quantities from the rear depots to airfields. EMNIP, just at that time there was a final demarcation of the rear of conventional and naval aviation (which belonged to two different people's commissariats) - and the rear of the NKVMF Air Force, which had previously sat on the Air Force supply lines, suddenly found itself in a situation where it was necessary to deliver all of its in the home.
        What is the rear of the Navy was well shown by the Baltic Fleet Air Force in the Baltic states - after one of the relocation, the mtap waited for the delivery of torpedoes for almost a month. They flew with what they flew over with. There is aviation, there are goals - but there is nothing to throw.
  25. Looking for
    Looking for 10 November 2018 20: 34
    0
    all attempts to create a specialized aircraft based on passenger aircraft are obviously doomed to failure. A specialized aircraft should be designed as a specialized one. A reference to the family of Ilyushinsky aircraft is not accepted. since Russia is not the USSR (unfortunately).
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 November 2018 21: 26
      +1
      On the contrary, passenger volumes in the fuselage are larger and have a well-established design. A specialized city is very expensive, we will not pull.
    2. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov 10 November 2018 23: 55
      +1
      Take a look at the An-2 specializations, especially in the polar version. In Yakutia, we once loaded local wild pack horses on the An-2. Into the salon with folding seats. 2 heads per trip to geologists. Only there they fenced a light enclosure of boards, and a platform to the door. But a couple of "-" was - the horses kicked wildly in fear and dung the salon thickly. After they had to be cleaned with shovels. At the same time, the smell of manure in the cube did not disappear for a long time, but we ourselves and the local passengers still flew the same board, the need will force.
      1. timokhin-aa
        11 November 2018 00: 26
        0
        You let's stop it already. I flew An-2 more than once, and just as a passenger, and during the PDP, which horses? !!!
        1. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 11 November 2018 12: 42
          +1
          Small Yakut, pack by geologists. With his own hands he loaded in 1971, in the village of Aralah. The four of us took each horse with hinder legs and brought it into the An-2, tied it to a wooden fence in the cabin — an airborne variant with seats on the sides folded to the side. In fact, livestock carriers in those parts need specialized live animals, including deer, to carry.
      2. ycuce234-san
        ycuce234-san 17 November 2018 09: 22
        +1
        The horses had to be put in the paddock not on the floor or boards, but on a sheet of linoleum or a thick film (on top of the board and under them linoleum - so as not to be torn by horseshoes). At the end of the flights, clean and then wash the cabin with a car wash and a bottle of liquid disinfectant. Well and most importantly - any such animals must be prepared before the flight, having survived several hours without food.
        "Generally, livestock aircraft in those parts need specialized live cattle, including reindeer, to carry."
        Incidentally, this is quite an idea for aircraft manufacturers, for sales of such special vehicles or special containers on the world market, for installation in holds in ordinary cargo planes.
        In the world, there are many and often engaged in air transportation of large animals: there is even a blog material on the network "Transporting Horses by Air for Dummies" - "Transporting horses by air for dummies."
        1. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 17 November 2018 12: 02
          0
          In 1971, linoleum, even in "Khrushchevkas" in Moscow, was not laid in kitchens as a "shortage". The floors were either parquet or planks. And there was no plastic film in nature yet. I think that you were born no earlier than 1971, which we are talking about. As for keeping a horse for several hours without feed before air transportation, this is very good. a good joke would be in Yakutia in summer, when all the airfields in those places are in the grass. Fly there into the outback, on unpaved runways now, very good. I advise you to respect the An-2.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 November 2018 10: 29
      0
      Quote: Seeker
      all attempts to create a specialized aircraft based on passenger are obviously doomed to failure.

      "Orion" and "Poseidon" look at you with bewilderment. smile
      And how many specialized military units were created from the Boeing-707 ...
  26. Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 11 November 2018 00: 08
    +3
    With all due respect to the author, I want to add that the search and destruction of strategic missile nuclear submarines of the USA and Great Britain with the help of anti-submarine aircraft is extremely useless!
    The British SSBN combat deployment areas are located there (Norwegian Sea, Bay of Biscay) where these nuclear powered ships are reliably covered by ship forces and serious fighter aircraft from the coast. It is impossible to fly there even for our hypothetically modern anti-submarine aircraft without powerful fighter escort (it is not and is not planned). He will simply be knocked back in a threatening period, or they will give a message to the SSBN commander so that he will take the submarine out of this area.
    We don't even consider it with the USA. The Ohio SSBN deployment areas are in the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean regions. Where they are securely closed by their own naval forces and fighter aircraft from the shore.
    Conclusion: the search and flooding of an enemy SSBN is the best multi-purpose submarine. She has at least some chance of luck. She knows where to go and where to look. May lie low if necessary. Moreover, its autonomy is more than 30 days. So the search and tracking of the enemy SSBNs can go on for more than one week. And as soon as the latter begins to emerge to the depth of missile launch and open the mines, then immediately get a torpedo in the ass.
    1. timokhin-aa
      11 November 2018 01: 00
      +1
      This is a tough question indeed. They will track our spoons long before they reach the search area. BPA in this sense is much faster. Regarding the fighter cover, the task is difficult, but on the other hand, we know how they carry out air defense, at what distance their ZGRLS intersect airplanes, what kind of forces take off for interception, etc.

      Somewhere you can distract them by sending bombers at high altitude, pulling the Air Force's duty link to itself, and then slipping the anti-submarine into the search area at low altitude, somewhere else there are options.

      All the situation.

      But without PLO planes, there is nothing even to think about to do.
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 11 November 2018 02: 32
        +1
        Now the main threat comes from multipurpose nuclear submarines carrying strategic cruise missiles that destroyed Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
        These are the main goals for our PLO. In addition, the "Virginia" "Astyut" will pose a mortal threat to our SSBNs even on our own shores!
        The flight range of the Tomahawks and the combat deployment areas of our SSBNs are well known.
        So the enemy multipurpose nuclear submarines (without options!) Will operate in the Norwegian, Barents, White and Kara Seas in the North and in the Chukchi, Okhotsk and Japanese Seas in the Far East.
        In both cases, the allocation of fighter aircraft for the protection of anti-submarine aircraft is quite possible if necessary. Although most likely this will not be necessary - coastal airfields in Norway and Japan will be quickly destroyed by counterattacks.
        This means that our anti-submarine aviation will be able to operate almost unhindered over the indicated seas + surface ships + multipurpose nuclear submarines from our side.
        Then the enemy will suffer serious losses of shock submarines. And our SSBNs will be somehow protected.
        1. timokhin-aa
          11 November 2018 08: 43
          +1
          These are the main goals for our PLO


          Major, yes. But not the fact that the only ones.

          So our anti-submarine aircraft will be able to operate almost freely over the indicated seas.


          No, there will also be deck fighters, so it will not work out smoothly.
          1. Mikhail Zubkov
            Mikhail Zubkov 17 November 2018 12: 51
            0
            This requires heavy helicopters capable of carrying about 10 tons of drilling and other equipment and weapons. Such turntables can also operate from the Sevmorput nuclear-powered lighter carrier, which must accordingly be equipped for helicopter-carrying missions. His lighters have approx. 300 dwt and can also be used for this task. It is known that these lighters are on a number of islands along the Northern Sea Route in an abandoned state, it would be good to find and examine them.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 11 November 2018 14: 15
          0
          You would find out how many of the same "tomahawks" were produced and did not write nonsense about at least some threat from this weapon.
        3. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 17 November 2018 12: 46
          0
          In the Arctic, our turntables should have zones for the delivery of hydroacoustic buoys over drifting ice floes, with the technique of drilling holes to submerge them under thick ice. And the technique of launching anti-submarine depth charges, mines and torpedoes under the ice, if necessary, through through inclined channels drilled in the ice. This requires heavy helicopters capable of carrying about 10 tons of drilling and other equipment and weapons. Such turntables can also operate from the Sevmorput nuclear-powered lighter carrier, which must accordingly be equipped for helicopter-carrying missions. His lighters have approx. 300 dwt and can also be used for this task. It is known that these lighters are on a number of islands along the Northern Sea Route in an abandoned state, it would be good to find and examine them.
      2. Mikhail Zubkov
        Mikhail Zubkov 11 November 2018 13: 50
        0
        It is quite possible to control the Caribbean Sea with small hydro-aviation, starting with motor hang-gliders. We have motor hang-gliders capable of taking off from water and landing on water. Well, a useful buoy weighing up to 100 kg should be transported on each and dropped at the exact point. "If anything, we are geologists," as warrant officer Krivoruchko said ...
  27. Flyer_64
    Flyer_64 11 November 2018 00: 51
    +2
    Dear author. Where do you get the information from? Especially about the effectiveness of anti-submarine aircraft. Suck from a finger or something. Now about the buoys.
    A passive buoy reacts to noise. But the sea has a natural level of noise, which also depends on the excitement. He is variable. And if the buoy is adjusted to noise, corresponding to, for example, two points, and the excitement at sea turned out to be four, then the buoy will respond to the natural sound of the sea, and not to the sound of the submarine that exceeds it. The search will be thwarted.
    That's bullshit. A buoy (RSL) is a radio microphone, which transmits all sound that falls outside its membrane, to our time. If there is no filter on the microphone, the microphone will transmit all sounds, wind, lip-banging, etc., but if there is a filter, it will transmit only voice . So is the RSL sonar, and the buoy sensitivity is set on the ground taking into account the area of ​​application, which is determined by hydrology. And if the noise exceeds the background parameters, the buoy gives a signal. But the operator of the corresponding equipment on the plane, already by changing the sensitivity and power of the receiving equipment, will already amplify and emit noises and classify them — this is the noise of the fish and boat poles. Yes, I agree, Americans are better than us in the production of RSL. Their RSL is more compact and longer working. But we also have and had good RSL, both passive and actively passive. In addition to the search with the RSL, searches were carried out with magnetometric search, visual, radar, along the thermal trail. Regarding the effectiveness of the search for IPL at different times, there were different unwritten indications in the waters adjacent to the USSR IPL should not be. Therefore, silenced contacts. Especially high efficiency was in the Mediterranean. The search involved IL-38 aircraft and Ka-25 helicopters with anti-ship missiles Moscow and Leningrad. The Americans were driven, tracking was conducted for days.
    Similar thoughts arise from news of a similar upcoming (allegedly) revival of Mi-14 PLO helicopters.
    You are wrong here. The helicopter is very good, a very large reserve for modernization. It was not for nothing that the Americans had a hand in putting the Mi-14pl out of service. Mi-14pl surpasses the Ka-27 in range, in terms of armament. Overall dimensions allow you to quickly replace obsolete equipment with modern one. The cockpit is similar to the cockpit MI-8MTV.
    The problem of the Navy MA is finances and states. Under the current approved state of the Ministry of Defense, there is no question of any development of MA. There is no money for new helicopters. If the junk is being modernized, it says something. It would be better if the MA were transferred to the VKS than the fleet on a residual principle exist.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. timokhin-aa
      11 November 2018 01: 31
      +1
      Dear author. Where do you get information from? Especially about the effectiveness of anti-submarine aircraft. From a finger suck something.


      Well, for example, from one of the people who stood at the beginning of "Non-Tradition" at the Pacific Fleet.

      As for the detection of the Submarine Ka-25, this is another era strongly, and the other Submarines.

      Quote: Letun_64
      So is the RSL sonar, and the sensitivity of the buoy is set on the ground, taking into account the area of ​​application, which is determined by hydrology.


      And if you did not guess with the setting? Or did they receive an order to search in another area, with a different hydrology, during the flight? And the ball that does not affect something at all?
      I didn’t come up with all this myself. Well, or take the Poseidon - the buoys there generally lie on the shelves in the pressurized cabin, and are dropped either from the carousels to set the field, or through a pressurized mine with manual reloading.
      Why did they think you did it?
      The Mi-14 could be good, the question is, however, that it was discontinued, and if, instead of experimenting with revitalizing the Be-12 and the Mi-14, it would have made a new aircraft, even if light, it would be more useful at times.
      1. Mikhail Zubkov
        Mikhail Zubkov 11 November 2018 14: 07
        +1
        To make a new plane with new weapons and a trained crew is 5 years minimum time. To revive and modernize the Be-12 (according to rumors we have 40 pieces maintainable) and Mi-14 (according to rumors - up to 100 boards are possible) is real for a year, crews are in stock - call for sensible retraining for 3 months, for a year - they are assists of hydroaviation will become. And from 0 to prepare pilots and navigators, and technicians for a seaplane - this is 5 years of time. And 5 times more expensive will be a new system with new personnel.
      2. Flyer_64
        Flyer_64 11 November 2018 23: 10
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And if you did not guess with the setting? Or did they receive an order to search in another area, with a different hydrology, during the flight? And the ball that does not affect something at all?
        I didn’t invent all this myself.

        In the beginning about hydrology, hydrology and scale are not the same thing. Pestilence is a surface, it can only affect the stability of the transmitted signal from the buoy, it does not affect the operation of the hydrophone, because the hydrophone from the buoy drops to a predetermined depth. But hydrology affects and it depends on the season of various currents such as the Gulf Stream. There are several types of hydrology, the corresponding services constantly track and refine them, there are reference books developed over decades. Well, in that case, if you did not guess correctly, the length of the cable of the hydrophone cable for each buoy in the cassette is different. And I checked with the buoy specialists. Our buoys in terms of manufacturability and performance characteristics are not inferior to the American ones, even in the variety somewhere ahead, although one of the first RSL-1 was damp. Only we differ in size and weight from the US. Poseidon and Orion have the same buoy reset system. We have from the bomb bay. Why? And this is to whom it’s more convenient to assemble an airplane. Moreover, the aircraft were altered from civilian ones. An example is the Abrams tank, loading the guns manually, we have an automatic machine.
        I read somewhere that there is an opinion that the IL-38 is not a very successful anti-submarine aircraft in comparison with Orion. I have a different opinion. He talked a lot with the commanders and navigators of the IL-38, and they did a good job solving the PLO tasks.
        I agree a new aircraft for the submarine is needed, and one is needed with a flight duration of 6-8 hours, with functionality similar to that of Poseidon. But the leadership of the MA and the Navy's GK still can not decide which aircraft they need, they are throwing either Il-114 or A-40, before that they considered Tu-204. Maybe some kind of silver carp from the headquarters honors VO and finally determines TK .
        And back in the mid-90s, they came to our regiment from the Kazan Helicopter Plant (there was some kind of anniversary). And they talked about a promising MI-38 helicopter for the Navy MA in modifications of ps ps and bt, but at the end of 90 the topic was closed. The history of the Mi-38 on the track.
        And yet you did not wonder why the Su-34s are not coming into service in the MA, a very attractive type for the revival of MRA aviation, and they are filled with the MF Su-30mi. Yes, because MA doctrine defines the second plans, support and support, and not the main actions. So that
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 November 2018 21: 50
          -1
          Only here in size and weight are different from American ones. Poseidon and Orion have the same buoy dump system. We have a bomb bay. Why? And this is someone more comfortable as an airplane to assemble.


          Firstly, Orion and Poseidon have a different discharge. Orion has inclined launchers under the cockpit floor, the "head" of the buoy is accessible for adjustments from the cockpit.

          At Poseidon on the starboard side in the stern there are racks on which these buoys just lie, behind them are two automatic launchers for installing fields from the RGAB, followed by a launch shaft for manual starting of the buoys. Went up, charged, on command or automatically dropped.

          Secondly, the Americans came to separate compartments for buoys and weapons for a reason, and based on their experience of anti-submarine warfare, Orion did not have the first PLO aircraft.
          We have the same IL-38 - attempt number 1, everything that was before him full samples can not be called, that's piled up.
          It was necessary, after the first years of operation, to draw conclusions and make a new aircraft, at least in the same glider, but arranged differently.

          But alas.

          And you wondered why the MA is not used by the Su-34, a very attractive type for the rebirth of MART aviation, but is filled with mf Su-30.


          And nothing that rle Su-30CM in the overload takes two tons more? And at the same time, he is capable of conducting a maneuverable air combat without attack weapons? He's just better than the Su-34, if that. At Su-34 a lot of weight ate armor, for the VKS it makes sense, because in the future they will put some of the tasks of the attack aircraft on this machine (Bondarev used to say that when he was the Air Force commander). But the sea is do not care, their armor will not save, if that, so the choice was absolutely correct. Su-30SM is better suited for MA, and, by the way, in most cases for VCS.
          1. Flyer_64
            Flyer_64 12 November 2018 22: 21
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            But doesn’t it take on the Su-30SM in overload two tons more?

            As far as I know, the Su-34 with a refueling 12t b / z i.e. a combat radius of up to 1000 km
            1. timokhin-aa
              14 November 2018 19: 08
              +1
              Under refueling is another story. There is an old trick - to load the plane with bombs to the fullest, and to take off at the minimum of fuel, and then immediately take off the fuel from the air tanker. So it is possible ten minutes after take-off to greatly exceed the maximum take-off mass, with impunity.
              Su-30 can do that too))))
              But I wrote about the other.
    3. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov 17 November 2018 13: 30
      0
      Pts. Letun's sensible proposal: "The Americans did not in vain put their hand to the Mi-14pl withdrawn from service. The Mi-14pl surpasses the Ka-27 in terms of range, in terms of the range of weapons. Overall dimensions allow you to quickly replace outdated equipment with modern ones. The cockpit is similar to the MI-cabin. 8MTV. " One of the crimes of the General Staff of the EBN period was the "dismissal" of the Mi-14 and the deprivation of the Russian Navy of precisely this effective PLO armament, which ONLY had in the USSR, bringing it through elementary oblivion to an incapacitating state. However, several dozen aircrafts (up to 100 pieces) can really be reanimated quite quickly, with simultaneous modernization. Calculated, each side of the Mi-14 can drown one or two enemy submarines with a special torpedo, and investments in its combat effectiveness are a priori effective.
  28. Nakormitrolla
    Nakormitrolla 11 November 2018 00: 57
    -3
    Another weedy.
    There will be no war, because if they try to rock the mattresses, they will get explosions of Poseidons at their naval bases and Vanguards. They know this, but they are trying to put pressure on the psyche. Don't play along with them.
    1. timokhin-aa
      11 November 2018 01: 36
      -1
      Yeah, we have such devices, but we will not tell you about them.
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 11 November 2018 05: 34
      0
      The thing is small. To make Poseidons. To come up with communication tools, engines, control systems for them.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 11 November 2018 10: 04
        0
        Quote: gunnerminer
        Come up with a means of communication for them

        I wouldn’t be fooled at all with the means of communication, but would make a detonation on the countdown of time. They went to the bottom, and rushed to the elections.
      2. spektr9
        spektr9 12 November 2018 01: 29
        +1
        The thing is small. To make Poseidons. To come up with communication tools, engines, control systems for them.

        What Poseidons, they can’t make an anti-submarine plane here, but we already have full UFOs
    3. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 11 November 2018 05: 39
      -1
      The thing is small. To make Poseidons. To come up with communication tools, engines, control systems for them.
  29. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 11 November 2018 05: 39
    +2
    Titanic work, to restore simultaneously reconnaissance, anti-submarine, strike Naval Aviation, by attaching wings to it. To restore educational institutions for the training of officers and warrant officers of technicians. For several decades.
    1. timokhin-aa
      11 November 2018 08: 43
      +2
      No choice. Anyway, you have to start sometime.
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 11 November 2018 12: 55
        +1
        Unfortunately, they won’t start in the next 5 years. There’s nothing for pensioners to pay, and you want to find money for the fleet. So this is a systemic question, i.e. it is necessary to change the entire system of power. Maybe the new president of Russia will do something? There is no hope for this.
        1. Nakormitrolla
          Nakormitrolla 11 November 2018 16: 23
          -1
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          there won’t pay pensioners what

          Here I disagree with you, after all, "there is no money" and "stay there" are different categories, albeit interrelated. There is no money for retirement, but overall the budget is surplus.
  30. Naughty
    Naughty 11 November 2018 09: 17
    +1
    Quote: kjhg
    Quote: Phil77
    Will be reborn!

    It can not be in any other way wink It is only a pity that we begin to revive only after destroying everything to the ground. Enough to reform, it's time to revive the army and navy! From the day of the collapse of the USSR to this day, with the word reform, I have been associated only with tearing, plundering and shrinking.

    And we always have it To the base and then!
  31. dsu05
    dsu05 11 November 2018 13: 46
    +2
    Forms of the Be-12 / Be-6 facing the school, probably
    imprinted in the memory of every Soviet Eaglet.
    In Sep1975 he walked past the giant Be-6 to school, and some
    during the break we climbed in along the wheels ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 November 2018 22: 01
      +1
      The Be-6 had no wheels, it was a boat, not an amphibian.
  32. EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 November 2018 14: 12
    0
    Can someone explain what the fleet is going to solve at all? I absolutely do not care about the problems of anti-submarine aviation, if its main problem is that one and a half American submarines with nuclear missiles in the database are trampling somewhere in the Indian Ocean, and it’s impossible to get them anyway.

    The fleet is VERY expensive, more expensive than the Air Force, while it is the Air Force that now dominates the war and is capable of influencing the course of the military base with relatively small forces, even on land or at sea. All those who advocate a strong fleet should be answered, and how many resources they are ready to take away from the infantry and the angels covering it on the "dryers". Each frigate is a minus of the Su-35 squadron, or even the regiment.

    Russia is away from the sea shipping routes, it has long spat on the notorious straits and other Labuda. Russia has no plans to disembark tens of thousands of troops for a couple of thousand kilometers from the border, until it is asked to do so, having provided everything necessary.

    And in the Moscow Region, too, they understand this very well, and therefore they are doing everything to increase the combat effectiveness of aviation and land detectors, without which no war can be won. And the ships were decommissioned not because someone profited from this, but because they were not needed.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 November 2018 08: 47
      +2
      in general, true about surface ships = an expensive useless toy is especially large. However, the submarines are very relevant and are the only long arm of the country, and all in all 9 strategic pieces, of course, are few. To exit the submarine from the base, small surface ships, minesweepers, small corvette ships, and especially coastal aviation are also required. As for the straits, besides the Bosphorus, it can be in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, of course, neither the forces nor the means, nor the special need, have their control.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 12 November 2018 09: 18
        -1
        Submarines carry a small number of damaging elements in the form of several hundred missiles. The same amount of explosives could be delivered during one massive raid of the air armies of the Cold War period. Moreover, these raids could be repeated dozens of times.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 12 November 2018 10: 27
          +2
          I support the importance of long-range aviation, but it’s difficult to fly as far as submarines, a fighter cover of about 3000 km, and even this is very difficult. The enemy can use his air defense, anti-aircraft and even against ground-based missiles. Therefore, abandoning strategic submarines capable of secretly bypassing the enemy’s shores of death, secretly bypassing air defense.
    2. timokhin-aa
      12 November 2018 22: 00
      0
      Russia is away from the sea shipping routes, it has long spat on the notorious straits and other Labuda. Russia has no plans to disembark tens of thousands of troops for a couple of thousand kilometers from the border, until it is asked to do so, having provided everything necessary.


      Russia 2 200 000 people live in regions reachable only by sea, such places as Kamchatka, Chukotka, Sakhalin, Kuriles, Kaliningrad depend on sea communications, thousands of ships operate on coastal ships, and one of its main lines - the NSR - is already under the gun of the USA . Without sea communications, Norilsk, Sabetta, Pectropavlovsk-Kamchatsky will die, there will be no nickel, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk will become open again, etc.

      On the other hand, let us remember the Second World War - the USSR landed amphibious assault forces more than the United States, and in terms of scale, for example, the Americans have only four amphibious operations that surpassed the Kerch-Feodosiya, for example - Torch, Italy, Okinawa and Overlord.

      "One and a half" American troops have so many BBs that estimates of the losses of the Russian population from their strike start at 100 million people at the time of the attack. And they, in general, can be found, it's just very difficult and requires non-standard tactics.

      Fairy tales, in general, in another place tell.
      1. Mikhail Zubkov
        Mikhail Zubkov 17 November 2018 14: 25
        0
        For comparison, give the figure of the coastal population of the United States and NATO, for Japan it is not even necessary. They also bake about him, because the figure will be 2 orders of magnitude greater than our 2,2 million.
  33. Radikal
    Radikal 11 November 2018 15: 14
    +1
    Quote: Phil77
    With time, when the authorities have a desire to revive, and not * reform *!

    For "these" authorities, desires extend on a different plane .... sad
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 12 November 2018 09: 15
      +1
      https://defendingrussia.ru/upload/articles/1/1070/main_image/351be55b9707fcfe15774604f7af91a3_cropped.jpg

      This is Su-Xnumx. It was created and put into serial production by the anti-people government, which did not build anything. Do I alone see a contradiction? I recommend leaving fairy tales about the Soviet legacy in another place, because from the USSR there is nothing inside, except maybe some fur. devices that do not become obsolete in principle.
      1. timokhin-aa
        12 November 2018 21: 52
        0
        What are you talking about? An article about how the command of the Navy prosohotilo naval aviation. And here the power and Su-35?
  34. hump
    hump 11 November 2018 15: 57
    +2
    Everything is simple. No money. Here they are on the show
  35. Lucy
    Lucy 11 November 2018 22: 38
    -1
    Quote: Sahalinets
    It seems that everything is the case, but game periodically crawls out.
    Will our anti-submariners seek and destroy enemy strategists?


    This is where it is written?
  36. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 12 November 2018 08: 40
    +2
    the author raised a very relevant topic, coastal naval aviation is extremely important, in the face of changing military technologies and the rapidly obvious obsolescence of the surface ships concept, My opinion is that you can even try to build new flying boats based on the BU, although IL114 is also a solution for the first time, Kuznetsov can be sold to India or China, due to the loss of the dock, and with this money you can set up hundreds of planes, minesweepers and submarines.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  37. The comment was deleted.
  38. eleronn
    eleronn 13 November 2018 21: 06
    +1
    Naval aviation (in the USSR and in the Russian Federation) has always been equipped with the residual principle! The Navy command would rather allocate money for refueling a tugboat in the port than provide fuel for a regiment of anti-submarine aviation. Maybe someday the situation will change, BUT ... It's a pity only - to live in this wonderful time
    I don’t have to - neither to me, nor to you ...
  39. zdrastemardaste
    zdrastemardaste 20 November 2018 02: 32
    0
    We have problems, of course, but I don’t think that the same people with their friends do not have them, and quantity does not mean quality
  40. Simeonov
    Simeonov 23 November 2018 08: 33
    0
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    The author writes that on Soviet PLO aircraft there was no access to the RSLB, so that they could tweak something depending on the weather, supposedly to improve the work, it might be true for the 80s and 90s, but now the RSLB is digital and programmable, so nothing is needed And in general, the modern RSLA is a work of art, I read about the trends of their development, and the low frequency range and the detector of magnetic anomalies, even on HTSC, a broadband digital communication system, up to the satellite line, GPS navigation, drifting with an autonomous charging system based on wave motion and thermoelectric effect, etc., progress in all directions.
    Regarding airplanes and helicopters, you need to bet on used cars, Tu-204,214, already used cars, and the prospect on MS-21, and write off everything else to the museum. At the moment, it’s rational to take the Tu-204,214 and make a marine reconnaissance, In addition, there is already an analogue of the Tu-204R, the Tu-204PLO aircraft, the Tu-204TZ tanker aircraft, etc. As for helicopters, the Ka-27s are no longer being produced, but the Mi-171A2, a new and modern side, will also be active sold for another 20 years, and in the future Mi-38 and based on the Ka-52 Katran, the level of modern technology will allow this to be done without problems, as well as forcing amphibious amphibious submarines based on the A-42. Moreover, all this is real and fast enough.

    It's a pity the Americans did not know this when Poseidon was developed and left access to the RSL for "tweaking"
    The A-40 plane, number 42, was mourned for the period of the exhibition.
    Then go ahead. At the design bureau or flight school. Punch, if so simple. I’ve been looking at this circus since the beginning of service in aviation since 1976 ... Somehow it doesn’t make its way)))
  41. Simeonov
    Simeonov 23 November 2018 08: 37
    0
    All right and all well done ... Not a single comm, but what to put on board? Which search engine?
    Even Indian friends merged with the Sea Serpent and ordered themselves "Poseidon".
  42. Simeonov
    Simeonov 23 November 2018 08: 46
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Well, how do the Orions work over the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Barents Sea? A couple hundred kilometers from our coast? Have you ever wondered?

    Thank you for the article. Orions did not go to Okhotsk. At least I don’t know about it.
  43. Newone
    Newone 25 December 2018 20: 31
    0
    Article + is more likely for posing the problem.
    BUT:
    As part of the ASW aviation, the helicopter component is indicated as part of a certain "shipborne" component, although this is the main ASW aircraft. Yes, the microcircuits in the USSR were larger and hotter than those of the enemies of the Soviet regime and it was also a pity for money for disposable buoys, so they relied on PLO helicopters with a hydroacoustic station, and not on airplanes.
    The casually indicated "several dozen" PLO helicopters, working in a regular group mode, are able to comb the Barents Sea in a very short time.
    By the way, where did the author get the idea that the KA-27 is not serially produced? On the website of the manufacturer of the Russian Helicopters concern, they are listed as manufactured products.
    http://www.russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/military/ka-27.html
    PS "Chef, is the mustache gone?"