Military Review

Coastal defense aircraft carrier

252
There is hardly any question that raises the same heated debate as the need for Russia to have aircraft carriers (or lack thereof, depending on who proves what). Of course, there is no evidence of aircraft-carrying ships in the Russian Navy from any professional military on active service: the sources of such abstracts are completely different people, mostly “patriotic bloggers” who, as a rule, have nothing to do with the Navy.




Nevertheless, it is worth clarifying this issue once and for all. Naturally, relying on the needs of our fleet, and it is in the part of the defense of our country, and not hypothetical semi-colonial expeditions somewhere.

History This one started back in the thirties, when a group of military men offered to acquire an ersatz aircraft carrier built on the hull of a non-military, initially cargo ship, on the Black Sea. Then there were proposals to build a light aircraft carrier on the hull of one of the unfinished royal cruisers, then the 71 and 72 projects, the inclusion of aircraft carriers in the 1938-1942 shipbuilding program, carry over to the next period, the war ...

In 1948, created on behalf of N.G. Kuznetsova special commission to determine the types of ships necessary for the Navy made two fundamentally important conclusions. The first - when ships request a sea of ​​fighter cover, coastal aircraft will always be late. The second - there are almost no such tasks at sea that surface ships, in a combat situation, could effectively solve without aviation. The Commission concluded that, without aircraft cover, the relatively safe removal of the ship from the coastline would be limited to a strip of approximately 300 miles. Further, coastal aviation will no longer be able to protect ships from air strikes.

One of the solutions to this problem was the light aircraft carrier aircraft and in the same year 1948, TsKB-17 began work on the 85 project ship, a light aircraft carrier, with an air group that was to consist of forty fighter aircraft upgraded for deck use.

Then there was the expulsion of Kuznetsov, Khrushchev and his rocket attacks, the Kotkovsky thirty-year-old “approve”, the R & D “Order”, who showed that without air cover, the Navy ships could not survive the war Hobbies - Tavkry project 1143 "Krechet", as destructive when striking from the direct tracking mode, as useless for the tasks of the "classic" aircraft carrier. It is customary to scold these ships, but they are scolded by people who do not understand what for and within the framework of what strategy they were created, and what was the basic tactical scheme of their combat use. In fact, the ships were, to put it mildly, quite good. And even more likely good than just good ones. But - for a narrow set of tasks, in which the struggle for air supremacy or the air defense tasks of the naval units were not included.

However, how much rope does not curl, and the end will be. Already by the mid-seventies, it became clear that staking on strike missile submarines, URO ships and naval missile-carrying aircraft (together with Air Force Long-Range Aviation) might not work. The MPA and the Air Force waited for the appearance in the near future of the destroyers of the Sprouens and the cruisers of the Ticonderoga, the interceptor of the F-14 interceptor and the mass-based DRLO aircraft of the deck-based. Of course, aircraft carriers could still be incapacitated, but the price of the issue became too high.

A submarine waited absolutely fantastic concentration of anti-submarine aircraft, which made it doubtful their deployment at the right turn of launching missiles. By that time, it was already clear that in the future, 1143, 1144 and 1164 cruisers, missile submarines, 956 destroyers supported by anti-submarine ships and submarines with anti-ship missiles would conduct surface battles, but they needed air cover.

There were two concepts of his organization.

The first one assumed that the coastal formations of the Air Force or the VSS of the fleet would allocate the necessary number of fighter planes, then designed by the new DRLO aircraft, and tankers, who in the future should have been able to refuel light aircraft, and a permanent outfit from these forces would “hang” over water areas, above all the Barents Sea, and to provide air defense of naval strike groups that were supposed to withstand the attack of NATO forces.

They also had to ensure the safety of submarines from anti-submarine aviation of the enemy. Boats that go through open water to combat duty areas to go under pack ice were quite vulnerable to enemy anti-submarine aviation, and before leaving them under ice, the sky had to be “closed” (in those years, the ice cover in the Arctic was significantly more, and the ice was closer to the coast).

The second concept included the following. The USSR must step over the ideological bogeyman, known as "aircraft carriers - a tool of imperialist aggression", and simply begin to build them. Then the question of air cover fell away on its own - now the KUGI would have "their" fighters on the principle of "here and now." They would not have to wait or ask. Serious battles in the naval circles and the leadership of the military-industrial complex lasted for several years. Naval aviation, which, in all seriousness, would be required to plan a loss "from the regiment" for each combat departure, insisted on aircraft carriers capable of meeting bombers on the way to the target and ensuring their protection with their ship fighters. There were also opponents of such a decision, holding on to the "anti-avian" traditions established in the Navy. Both among the top military leaders and among the “captains” of the military industry there were doubts as to whether the budget would “pull” the second method.

The aircraft carrier in the meantime has already been designed. Smoothly evolving from the “Soviet“ Enterprise ”, the 1160“ Eagle ”project, into a smaller, but also atomic 1153, project that bore the“ working ”name“ Soviet Union ”ended up as a hybrid of“ Krechet ”- the 1143 project, enlarged , and the 1153 project. At the last moment, the evil genius of the Soviet aircraft carriers intervened in the process - D.F. Ustinov demanded that the catapult be replaced with a springboard in the draft, citing the fact that the Soviet industry did not produce catapults. This was done, and by 1978 the future Soviet aircraft carrier bore almost all the signs we know today. But it was necessary that the transition of the project "into metal" be given a flick.

Finally, the fate of an aircraft carrier in the USSR Navy was decided by the research work of 1978, which aims to determine which of the concepts of the organization of air defense is more economical - constant combat duty in the air of basic aviation or aircraft carriers with ship fighters. The results were shocking, even for supporters of aircraft carriers.

Maintaining close in numbers to the air group's regiment in the air, in continuous combat duty, with a sufficient number of aircraft on the ground for rotation, with fuel and measures to defend coastal airfields from air strikes, "consumed" the cost of an aircraft carrier in just six months. The calculations were made for the latest prototypes of the MiG-29 at that time and the Su-27 prototypes created both in the land and ship versions.

In the 1982 year, the first Soviet aircraft carrier for horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft was laid in Nikolaev. The ship was given the name "Riga". Then he was Leonid Brezhnev, then Tbilisi, and today we know him as Admiral Kuznetsov.

The ship was not designed to solve the shock tasks by the air group and before preparing to participate in the Syrian war, even for storing bombs on board was poorly adapted (before going to the cellar for ammunition had to be reconstructed). It was, and, in fact, there is an air defense aircraft carrier.

Here is how his appointment defines our Ministry of Defense: “Designed to give strategic stability to missile submarines of strategic purpose, groups of surface ships and naval missile-carrying aircraft in combat areas”.

Simple and concise.

Consider the main tactical niche "Kuznetsova" in relation to the site.

Coastal defense aircraft carrier


This scheme is a reflection of the “NATO” view of things, which, in turn, is repelled by the fact that they tracked down during our teachings. The dark zone is the so-called “bastion”, a zone tightly closed by surface ships and aircraft, in which, in theory, it is difficult for a foreign submarine to survive, and it is simply impossible for a foreign patrol plane. We will not analyze now whether the concept of bastions is correct (this is not quite so), we just accept it “as it is”. During this period of danger, RPLSN with ballistic missiles are being brought into this zone.

The lighter zone is the hypothetical battlefield - from the West Fjord to the mouth of the Kola Bay in the south, including the entire Norwegian Sea, up to the Faro-Icelandic barrier. In the northern part of this array lies the border of pack ice, under which the strike submarines can hide from enemy anti-submarine aircraft and from there carry out attacks on their assigned targets. But first they need to get there from Gadzhiyevo.

And this is where Kuznetsov comes in handy. Acting in conjunction with URO ships to the north of the territorial waters in the Barents Sea, the naval aviation group (CAG) provides an instant response to the calls of surface forces and patrol aircraft, and a wide control zone in which enemy anti-submarine aircraft cannot operate freely. We can say that Kuznetsov does not have DRLO planes in order for his fighters to detect air targets at a great distance.

But the ship is not very far from its shores, and can rely on DRLO coastal aircraft. This air regiment in the air is unbearably expensive, and one A-50 and a couple of tankers are another matter. The A-50 is capable of patrolling 1000 kilometers from a home airfield for four hours without refueling. With refueling, four hours easily turn into eight. Three airplanes provide round-the-clock duty, and, importantly, they bring far away targets. But they, too. Thus, the issue with DRLO can be closed quite simply.

It can be said that the ship will not withstand the attacks of fighter aircraft from Norway. But it works in conjunction with URO ships, which provide him with additional air defense, and Norway itself becomes one of the high-priority targets from the very first day of the war, and after a while the airfields on its territory may turn out to be unsuitable for flights from them.

It can also be said that the Kuznetsov CAG most likely will not withstand a coordinated strike from the American AUS. It will not stand, but who said that this fight should be taken? In theory, the group commander is obliged to evade such a battle.

But not to let other anti-shipbreakers work, and the ship regiment may well protect its own. Or, at least, substantially complicate the enemy in the performance of the combat mission of finding our submarines, and facilitate the implementation of a similar mission to our aircraft. When an enemy attacks a warrant of surface ships of URO, Kuznetsov’s airplanes are able to strengthen the air defense of the formation, having reached the line of destruction of enemy airplanes beyond the range of the defeat of naval air defense missiles.

When attacking the enemy’s ship formations with the help of the Caliber missile launched from submarines, the Kuznetsov’s planes could well disrupt the actions of the deck interceptors and allow the missiles to break through to the enemy’s warrant. There, of course, they will be met by the AEGIS system, but low-altitude calibers and subsonic until the last shot to the goal. This makes them a problematic goal for the shipborne air defense missile systems, they will be noticed too late, and then the accelerating second stage factor will work, which will at least lead to a breakdown in targeting part of the shipboard missiles.

The specificity of the RCC salvo from a submarine is, firstly, its noise, and secondly, the low density of the salvo - the rockets start in turn. Enemy hydroacoustics will detect a volley long before their radar could detect missiles, and deck interceptors can be sent there, which will be easy to kill the slow Caliber. But if you drive them away, then the situation turns over one hundred and eighty degrees, and now the speed of the Caliber becomes their advantage - there is no super-son, then there is no compression jump, EPR is smaller, the detection range of the shipborne radar too ...

And, of course, the Kuznetsov air group is invaluable as a source of intelligence. Moreover, it can operate according to the “armed intelligence” method of the Americans, when small groups of planes, finding a “convenient” target during reconnaissance, immediately attacked it. This will “sweep away” from the theater of operations all single ships, small ship groups without air cover, non-nuclear submarines in a surface position, rocket boats and patrol airplanes, forcing the enemy to “gather in a pile” and maneuver only with large forces.

Especially important is the role of the air group as a means of targeting for coastal strike aviation. Both assault air regiments, and long-range aviation with Tu-22M, and even MiGs with Dagger missiles (if they really "work" on surface ships, which, frankly, have certain doubts), target targeting is required to deliver an effective strike. Moreover, in real time. Creation of such communication systems with the help of which it is possible to transmit such a central control unit is vital, but the “eyes” of these systems will need “platforms”. It would be naive to think that an enemy with thousands of cruise missiles and anti-aircraft missiles SM-3 will use over-the-horizon radar and reconnaissance satellites against them. But air reconnaissance over the open sea is so easy not to drive. And, most importantly, ship-based fighters may well participate in aircraft attacks from the coast, escorting them, protecting them from enemy interceptors, conducting distracting, false attacks and covering the departure of strike forces. The complex of the basic shock and naval aviation may well be stronger than the base one, and the ship separately.

This is what the Kuznetsov is for as part of the Navy, this is what it was built for, and what tasks it and its air group should work out.

From this point of view, the Syrian campaign looks somewhat strange. Although, if there is an aircraft carrier, then shock tasks on the coast from it should sometimes be trained, but we must clearly understand that the task of striking the coast for an aircraft carrier is the last one in importance, and it’s not at all the fact that this should be done at all. Ship planes - sea weaponand not overland. Nails are not clogged with a microscope.

What happens if you write off this ship? All the most powerful anti-submarine aircraft of our "partners" will be able to operate near our shores almost unhindered. Coastal planes are unlikely to keep pace with high-speed anti-battles. This, in turn, will very quickly remove our main strike force at sea, the submarine, from the game. Then it will be the turn of the surface ships, which will be re-warmed by strike aircraft in several stages. Then everything. The enemy will be able, for example, to starve Kamchatka, Norilsk and Chukotka. Demonstrative.

Likewise, enemy surface ships will also operate relatively unhindered. They just need not to enter the affected area of ​​coastal missile systems.

And, of course, one ship is too small.

In the Pacific theater of military operations, the Navy has basically similar problems. Near potential enemy with superior fleet, and the most powerful anti-submarine aircraft. Its fighters will easily reach our PLO planes in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, bypassing the onslaught zones of coastal air defense missile systems, skipping “below” the radar field ground radar. And from the outer, eastern side, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is a vulnerable area. Having a carrier fleet, any enemy will be able to concentrate superior forces against any military object on the islands. It is necessary that behind the chain of islands there was a reinforcement capable of engaging in battle immediately, for tens of minutes from the moment of the call. From the coastal airfields of Primorye, this cannot be done.

According to some authors, the probability of repelling the attack of someone's AUG or even AUS, having at least one aircraft carrier is about four times higher than if you do not have any.

Alas, in the Pacific Fleet we didn’t have URO ships, almost no small anti-submarine ships and minesweepers left, let alone aircraft carriers.

But the United States has them and almost Japan has, the latter announced the imminent restructuring of its Izumo into light aircraft carriers, all of them will be armed with F-35B aircraft. Bad thrust-capacity and poor reliability of these machines could play into our hands, if we were able to at least meet them in the sky, but alas ...

It is time to say out loud - we can not protect even the near sea zone, without aircraft carrying ships and ship fighters. This does not negate the need to have PLO corvettes, minesweepers, frigates, but they alone will be incredibly difficult to fight off even against an enemy of the Japanese level. We, of course, have nuclear weapons, but their use may be politically unacceptable in a given situation, and it will not be possible to hide behind it all the time. We must be able to fight and conventional weapons. And to have these weapons at least in the minimum amount.

This also applies to aircraft carriers. In the future, in order to ensure that the enemy is not allowed to conduct any activity near our shores, it will be necessary to have at least one combat-ready aircraft carrier with a combat-ready air group both in the Northern Fleet and in the Pacific. Taking into account the fact that such ships are operated in a very intense mode, and require frequent repairs, it is worthwhile to calculate the possibility of a larger number.

However, we must understand that to have an aircraft carrier itself or two is not even half the battle. Ship regiments are needed - at least two, in order to carry out the rotation of air groups and to compensate for combat losses. We need a basing point with a normal berth, with electricity, steam and fuel supply, with access to motor transport and, possibly, a crane. Now this is not. And, most importantly, we need teachings. Testing flights for aerial reconnaissance, for combat patrols, testing flights for repelling an air strike, with different compositions of combat groups, from a couple to the entire air group, day and night, for attacking weakly defended surface targets, for escorting a missile volley and defending PLO aircraft. All these complex tasks should not cause difficulties, they should be worked out to automaticity. It is also necessary that the actions of the deck crews, including in case of emergencies, such as an arresting cable break, a fire on the deck, an explosion on the deck, have been worked out before automatism. It is necessary for the team to skillfully cope with the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, including deactivation of the deck. Naval headquarters must be prepared to use the potential of naval aviation wisely. And, of course, the ship’s radio and electronic equipment must be updated in a timely manner.

Unfortunately, today there is no certainty that when the repair of Kuznetsov will be completed, all this will be done. And all the more there is no certainty that the “holes” in defense caused by the lack of such ships in the Navy will be closed in the foreseeable future. Rather, there is confidence in the opposite. Our shores will continue to remain without protection for a very long time.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, RUSI
252 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 29 November 2018 05: 45
    -5
    Again, the author does not like patriotic bloggers ... well, bloggers are to blame.
    The author, tell me how it is planned to protect aircraft carriers from the attacks of hypersonic missiles ... and where to Russia to get so much money for the construction of several aircraft carriers ... how many more taxes do you need to introduce for this and raise prices for everything and everything ... did you think about it or reduce everything only to the requirement of the Navy to have entire aviation regiments from aircraft carriers. what
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 29 November 2018 06: 22
      22
      it’s not taxes that need to be introduced, but specifically ALL ALL embezzlers and bribe takers, with demonstrative executions, to be taken for money, not only enough for a couple of aircraft carriers and a couple of air regiments, there will still be all the coastal infrastructure, a couple of ship’s air divisions, up to a dozen aug. although most likely there will still be (money) for the same amount of everything listed.
      1. Corn
        Corn 29 November 2018 06: 56
        +9
        Are you suggesting that embezzlers and bribe-takers take themselves by the balls? It is simply not possible, neither theoretically nor factually. It is necessary to build on realities, to raise taxes for the population - the only real way to get enough money to build aircraft carriers.
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 29 November 2018 11: 55
        24
        Yes, calm down already! "No money! Taxes need to be raised!" How many dollars did the central bank buy for the Ministry of Finance in October !? Right! Bingo! 8 billion! EIGHT CARL! THIS, CARL, IS A FULL-SIZED AIRCRAFT CARRIER BUILT IN AMERICA BY AMERICAN WELDERS WITH A 5-TON ETERNAL GREEN WEEK))) AND YOU SAY "NO DAYS"))) in my opinion, some just can't get drunk ...
        1. pin_code
          pin_code 30 November 2018 09: 31
          +2
          so I actually said about it
        2. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 1 December 2018 20: 52
          +1
          This is not "our" money. This is their money. This is a tribute, the Russian Federation (Russia did not allow itself this), pays the Western world. And "our" Central Bank is a branch (in fact) of their FRS and IMF. Do not believe me, read the law on the Central Bank. Information in the public domain. As for the aircraft carriers, they are needed, but there is no one to build and nowhere. In addition, grandchildren grow up at those in power, it is necessary to provide the grandchildren's mistresses with yachts. All the money that did not go into tribute goes there. There will be a war, for sure. The star will be to the whole world. We cannot do an ordinary war, even against Europe. Who will fight, mercenaries? The rest, for the sweet life of oligarchs and officials, will not want to fight. Even under the threat of genocide.
          1. Cyrus
            Cyrus 6 December 2018 17: 02
            0
            Well, to begin with, they will fight for their children, wives of mothers, sisters, etc. therefore your opus is by.
            Secondly, the pre-war time has its own laws where tolerance and tolerance and embezzlement are not provided for. One trouble, we do not have time for "Carthage (Russia) must be destroyed" and the war is war - it is already very close and the world will not come to any end simply either we will not be there or they will not.
            1. LastPS
              LastPS 9 December 2018 20: 27
              0
              As long as Russia has nuclear weapons there will be no war — stop panic here.
              1. PSih2097
                PSih2097 23 January 2019 12: 45
                0
                Quote: LastPS
                As long as Russia has nuclear weapons there will be no war — stop panic here.

                I'm going crazy with you, Are you sure that our people will decide to use it? personally, I have no such confidence (from the phrase "not at all").
              2. Cyrus
                Cyrus 28 January 2020 08: 08
                -1
                Said the ostrich. Take your head out of the sand and look around, although your fear of "getting into the trenches", as well as attempts to "close" it with screams about nuclear weapons, is quite understandable, but useless, it is not for you to decide which war will start and when.
      3. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 6 December 2018 19: 18
        0
        I agree 100% that embezzlement is equated with high treason, and we need to introduce a fair progressive tax scale, and then it will be possible to rip off poor pensioners to have the money to create aircraft carriers and all that is necessary for the Navy is enough to be kind and fluffy for embezzlers .
    2. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 07: 56
      18
      And who of our opponents have hypersonic rockets?

      In addition, what's the difference, hypersonic, supersonic ... It is necessary in any case to take measures to deceive the enemy, to mislead him.

      And there are such opportunities.
      1. EnGenius
        EnGenius 29 November 2018 14: 34
        11
        Perhaps for the first time in this expert wash, you were the first to notice the real purpose of Kuznetsov and, in general, the concept of an aircraft carrier required by modern Russia, taking into account many application factors and tasks to be solved. Now the Ministry of Defense is returning to the idea of ​​designing and building the next "half-aircraft carrier" in the Kuznetsov class (according to the sofa experts) - and this is more real and necessary for the Russian Navy than a 100-ton atomic trough for display, because in rality we should build and use it according to our mind we will not be able to (in the foreseeable 20-year perspective).

        American aircraft carriers are a different class of ships, not only in terms of displacement, but also in terms of priority tasks. Kuznetsov’s concept as an anti-ship ship is also shared by India, China, Japan and the United Kingdom. Is this all enough for Russian sofas?
        1. timokhin-aa
          29 November 2018 15: 31
          13
          In general, amerskie troughs, too, in theory, anti-ship. In the air defense they are not very good, it takes an hour to lift the peacetime air group, and during training, during the Soviet bomber raids, they hid the AB behind the URO ships, lifting a limited number of interceptors into the air.

          But to hit the entire wing with the PKR Harpun on the KUG is just a nice thing in fact.
          It will be in the shock group of machines 48-50, and hello, such a blow is just not stupid to fight off. At least, if comparable forces do not meet them in the air somewhere far away.

          But it is very difficult, really - VERY.
          1. bayard
            bayard 30 November 2018 03: 00
            +5
            Donetsk.
            Thanks Alexander for the excellent analysis. It is the air defense carriers now and in the foreseeable future that will be relevant for us ... but the timing. Kuzya was almost drowned and surrenders not without the fishing of our sworn partners - painfully the stars of coincidence densely converged, and if there are more than two matches, this is no longer a coincidence. This only emphasizes the value of aircraft carriers for us in general and Kuzi in particular. But how now to finish its repair, where to get the dock ...
            But the capacities for the construction of ships of this class are almost ready - both in St. Petersburg and in the Far East. And there is money for this - there is money in the treasury, and if you nationalize the printing press (abolish the Central Bank and return the functions to the Treasury), then there will be no problems with money at all - with our surplus in foreign trade and monetization of 50% of the required ... All the matter is in the will of the state - the will of the sovereign. Someone in the government will say liberals, Medvedev, Kudrin, unsinkable Chubais (don’t be remembered by night), managerial staff from the 90s ... But ... our special services can surprise, and the president is just one of them ...
            If war happens tomorrow, then of course we will not build any fleet, and we will not play conventional toys - why do we need this world? Enemies will die ... And we will live ... You just have to hit first ... but after all "if a fight is inevitable ...".
            ... Without enemies, life will become more harmonious.
            1. LastPS
              LastPS 9 December 2018 20: 31
              0
              If the war happens tomorrow, then of course we won’t build any fleet, and we won’t play conventional toys - why do we need this world? Enemies will die ... And we will live ...

              Yes, of course - all the horses will move, nothing good.
        2. Cyrus
          Cyrus 6 December 2018 17: 06
          0
          The ideal aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy is Ulyanovsk.
      2. Cyrus
        Cyrus 6 December 2018 17: 03
        0
        No, they will, the West has a goal and they purposefully move towards it.
      3. Cyrus
        Cyrus 28 January 2020 08: 09
        0
        In general, I agree, but no now, does not mean that it will not appear in the near future.
    3. Cyrus
      Cyrus 6 December 2018 16: 56
      0
      Stupid comment.
    4. Cyrus
      Cyrus 28 January 2020 06: 51
      0
      I also do not like patriotic bloggers, in my opinion most of them are dudaks.
      Where to get the money in your pocket, you won’t give it up, put it against the wall, judging by the commentary anyway, you’re useless, you can only get sick
  2. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 29 November 2018 06: 04
    -9
    Ostap suffered ... And Caliber and Dagger, although C100500 did not remember with the Khibiny.
    Alexander calm down, Kuznetsov quietly dies with flooded compartments and a punched deck, not to mention the heart attack GEM.
    His fate, at best, is a museum ship or an amusement park. Forget about the aircraft carrier prospects of the Russian fleet, there is no chance.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 29 November 2018 06: 23
      +4
      chances are always there, the whole question is different ...
    2. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 07: 58
      17
      The power plant was dismantled there for repair, the water was pumped out, the deck is just steel, it’s not a problem to alter, if there is a floating dock or a self-leveling basin, these facilities, even in financial terms, will not cost much in comparison with the other repairs.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 14
        +9
        - in the presence of a floating dock or a loading pool -

        Both that, and another still remains to be - to draw -.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 12: 23
        -3
        Yes, you can do anything, only there is no money, but you hold on
    3. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 29 November 2018 11: 03
      -1
      -Ostap suffered ... And the Gauges and Daggers, although the C100500 did not remember -

      Yes. I remember the club of four horses!
    4. Cyrus
      Cyrus 6 December 2018 17: 04
      0
      In this case, you should forget about the happy childhood of your children.
    5. Cyrus
      Cyrus 28 January 2020 06: 51
      0
      You too are slowly dying. Why?
  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 06: 11
    19
    Nevertheless, it is worth clarifying this issue once and for all.

    wassat laughing
    Yeah, self-conceit :)))))) Regarding AV questions, whoever has not spoken out is the topic of the eternal holivar, and Alexander hopes to clarify it "once and for all" :)))))
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 29 November 2018 06: 25
      +7
      Dear Andrey, you got ahead of me, well, what can I do ... I'll just join your opinion)))
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 10: 25
        -1
        yes, I agree with Andrey
    2. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 07: 59
      11
      I do not hope there are people whom I can only beat with books on the head, but I usually ask them to essentially object.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 08: 49
        21
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I do not hope there are people whom I can only beat with books on the head, but I usually ask them to essentially object.

        I have been explaining everything listed in the article (more precisely, not everything, I do not agree with something, but this is by and large uncritical) I have been explaining to people for more than a decade, but to the point ... However, of course, you still need to talk about it. This creates an informational background, which is also important, because when "we do not need aircraft carriers" rushes from everywhere, there must be an adequate response, and preferably of the same intensity
        1. timokhin-aa
          29 November 2018 09: 06
          18
          I have listed everything in the article (more precisely, not everything, I don’t agree with something, but this is largely uncritical) to explain to people not only the first ten years, but to sense ...


          Well, I'm the same. So what to do? It is necessary to fight with ignorance, Andrew.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 09: 35
            +7
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            We must fight ignorance, Andrey

            Can not argue with that:)))) drinks
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 29 November 2018 10: 00
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Can not argue with that

              Why "ignorance" at once? Another point of view is not ignorance just because it is different.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 10: 21
                16
                Quote: Alex_59
                Another point of view is not ignorance just because it is different.

                Of course. In this case, it can be considered ignorant, because it is not supported by reasonable argumentation, since usually the opponents of aircraft carriers either hyperbolize the capabilities of any kind of force (for example, submarines) or rely on a prodigy (a la Dagger). But all this does not work
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 29 November 2018 11: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Of course

                  Thank. I am an ignoramus. (((
                2. Serg65
                  Serg65 29 November 2018 13: 27
                  +5
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  In this case, it can be considered ignorant, because it is not supported by reasonable argumentation, since usually the opponents of aircraft carriers either hyperbolize the capabilities of any kind of force (for example, submarines) or rely on a prodigy (a la Dagger). But all this does not work

                  Welcome Andrew hi
                  I will say right away that I am not an opponent of aircraft carriers, Russia needs aircraft carriers! But! But a lot of problems and often not related to finances pop up on this topic!
                  Alexander offers to play the third world war, well, well, let's play together!
                  Let's start with history ... in 1981, the USSR held the West 81 exercises, according to the NATO generals, with the start of the Soviet offensive, Europe had only 3 days for active defense, after which it was necessary to either surrender or use nuclear weapons ... after which you still had to give up! The Ogarkov doctrine, the great marshal of all times and peoples D.F., Ustinov heroically ditched, but the evil and insidious Putin boldly took this doctrine into service, as evidenced by the Vostok 2018 exercises!
                  So, in the light of the Ogarkov doctrine, it seems to me that it is necessary to reanimate the airfields of Titovka, Kilp'yavr, Korzunovo and in conjunction with the airfields of Safonovo, Severomorsk, Severomorsk-3, Murmashi, we get a beautiful, branched network of essentially reference points for bomber, transport, AWACS and army aviation. During the 2-5 of the first days of the war, the forces of the 14 AK, 61 infantry regiment, 76 army, with the reinforcement of the 6 army, with the support of the aviation and navy, captured Norwegian airfields Kirkenes, Wabso, Vardo, Lakselv, Aronnes, Hammerfest, Tromso, Narvik, Lenkes, Bude. That will allow aviation to control a huge part of the Norwegian and Barents Seas. The capture of the airfields of Honningsvad (Nordkapp) and Svalbard (Spitsbergen) will give complete air control along the Nordkap-Noristrunningen line (Greenland).
                  As a result, we get a large network of airfields on the shores of the Norwegian and western parts of the Barents Sea. Now the question is .... will the aviation based on these airfields allow us to calmly operate underwater forces in the northern Atlantic and the western part of the Arctic Ocean ???
                  Of course, the question arises, but will NATO allow us to do this? I think that will allow! Fat norgs are now far from the Vikings, and the NATO war machine is now not very agile, which lately has a bunch of examples!
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    29 November 2018 14: 00
                    10
                    By the way, you laugh in vain. Norway will be the target of the 1 number and precisely so that NATO aircraft do not fly from there, and precisely because of the strategic importance of the northern theater. And there won't be a landing there either, it would be from what to plant it and how to supply it.
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 29 November 2018 14: 19
                      +3
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      By the way, you laugh in vain

                      Where did you see the laugh?
                      I outlined the events to you, as I imagine them!
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      And without landing there, too, will not do, it would be why to land it and what to supply.

                      The Pskov division landed on an airplane, all the airports I have listed are civilian! Marines only land on Svalbard ships, in other cases, mainly also by planes ..... without parachutes!
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        29 November 2018 15: 42
                        +5
                        So and Svalbard with aircraft can be. And on the ships there, the ZRK will also deliver coastal anti-ship missiles.

                        At the same time, the enemy can be confused, he will be waiting for the landing from the ships, and on them an opa - not even the second echelon.

                        I once read the NGS report on the results of the West-77, there and on the Faroe Islands they wanted to throw out an airborne division. Right now, we do not overpower, of course.
                      2. Serg65
                        Serg65 29 November 2018 15: 57
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Duc and Svalbard from airplanes can

                        Well, why not? I agree!
                3. alstr
                  alstr 29 November 2018 14: 33
                  +1
                  In this sense, an aircraft carrier in the North is not entirely necessary. Those. without land support he simply won’t survive.
                  But in the Far East, he would be more appropriate, because there are large enough and not particularly developed along the coast.
                  1. Maximxnumx
                    Maximxnumx 29 November 2018 15: 24
                    -2
                    in the Far East he would be more appropriate

                    The total composition of the Pacific Fleet will not be enough for a full-fledged AUG. In Okinawa, amerskaya military base, 7th fleet, plus the "Japan Self-Defense Forces" is 10 times stronger than the Pacific Fleet, So how long will the aircraft carrier NV DV live? Plus South Korea, Australia, Singapore
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 30 November 2018 03: 30
                      +1
                      Donetsk.
                      While the aircraft carrier is being built, you can sculpt the entire escort from scratch - frigates, corvettes. So far, he has nothing to do further than the Sea of ​​Okhotsk in the Far East - to maneuver there, dispersing anti-submarine aircraft and covering the garrisons of Sakhalin and the Kuril ridge. There, the adversary will not be easy to reach. And let the coastal complexes work with enemy ships ...
                      And yet, in the near future a new doctrine will be, with a relaxation in the use of nuclear weapons and the right to a preemptive strike. It will become easier to breathe.
                    2. Maximxnumx
                      Maximxnumx 1 December 2018 22: 23
                      +1
                      you can sculpt an entire escort from scratch - frigates, corvettes

                      Good. I am glad for your optimism, but I have a counter question: Do you read at least a little article from "Andrey from Chelyabinsk"? Do you see the situation with the fleet? Are you feeling optimistic?
                      I can say that he still paints a lot in pink colors. When an aircraft carrier is built, and it is not needed at all (one is not a soldier in the field), then there will be no one to cover it at all. Neither Varyag nor BOD 1151 will be there anymore, and 22380 and 22350 are weak fighters, against the "Orly Berks" and 40+ Japanese destroyers Asahi, Akizuki, Izumo ... and all the buildings of 2000+ years.
                      Also, aviation in the Far East, the adversaries are many times more. 4-5 times the advantage. And anti-submarine aviation 10 times ...
                      PS: How to fight? Not for nothing that the samurai are so bold. And to transfer reinforcements to the Far East - this is still hemorrhoids. One hope for strategic nuclear forces.
                    3. bayard
                      bayard 1 December 2018 23: 53
                      +2
                      Donetsk.
                      Of course, I’m reading Andrei, especially since we are fellow countrymen at the place of my birth. And my optimism is not due to poor information or young age (I am over fifty and a military education) ... I just do not like whining, but I always look for ways to solve the identified problem.
                      ... Sabotage, sabotage, incompetence and irresponsibility, loss of qualified personnel and technological competencies ... this is, alas, our reality. There will be no gas turbines and gearboxes for them in another 2-3 years, the Far Eastern shipyard on Bolshoi Kamen will also work in three years to the full extent ... Kolomensky Zavod also brings ship diesel engines, but they will also go in commercial quantities in 2-3 years . Therefore, there is nothing to tear my heart - without the engines of the ships will not. For the same reason (the lack of the ability to repair gas turbines at the BOD), the repair and modernization of the remaining BOD and their stuffing with Gauges is impossible ... another three years.
                      Therefore, we take the real for granted and from this we build plans for the possible. Its horizons are opening ... in the same 2-3 years. The shipyards will be completed or modernized and re-equipped, the personnel will be trained, the subcontractors will be selected, the projects will be finalized and edited ... Budget revenues will increase sharply in 2-3 years, because they will work: the Power of Siberia, Yamal LNG, Turkish and Nord Stream-2, and the whole a number of other large projects. That is, the money for re-equipment will be ...
                      ... I think they will be even earlier - next year, because very, very big money came to the newly established Russian offshore companies - as low-interest deposits for investment purposes. We are talking about amounts of more than a trillion dollars (a month ago it was 71 trillion rubles) ... Maybe that's why Putin is so cheerful, and the Anglo-Saxons are so worn out?
                      ... Japan can certainly inflate the hood like a cobra, but there is one, but a very sure remedy for it (like for all others). She will be washed away immediately ... IMMEDIATELY as soon as she dares to herself something crazy.

                      I would love to talk about the prospects and types of aircraft carriers, carrier-based aircraft, but ... you just need to live another 2-3 years ... if they give us this ...
                    4. Maximxnumx
                      Maximxnumx 2 December 2018 00: 16
                      +1
                      Budget revenues will increase sharply in 2-3 years, because they will earn: Power of Siberia, Yamal LNG, Turkish and Nord Stream-2

                      You are an optimist ... Budget revenues will increase if we arrange a small victorious mess in BV, with the participation of Iran and KSA, otherwise, about nothing. The Nord Stream-2 and the Turkish gas pipeline, of course, are good (although for the sake of a 2 meter pipe, they make a 100 m clearing in the beautiful mushroom forests), but this is not the money. This is insurance, in case of failure of the UkrAyna transport branch, and Turks buy gas from Iran, cheaper ..
                      PS: For the samurai - this is a wise nation, they sense strength (Okinawa and Guam), therefore they are in favor. Historically, japanes very correctly choose the time and place when to attack.
                      PPS: 2-3 years, well, I don’t know, I don’t think so far .. the state has punished not justified optimism more than once. hi
                    5. bayard
                      bayard 2 December 2018 01: 09
                      +2
                      Donetsk.
                      And we in Donetsk are only on optimism and hold on.
                    6. Maximxnumx
                      Maximxnumx 2 December 2018 01: 49
                      0
                      In Donesk

                      Beautiful city. And people are adequate. I talk a little with "yours". In 14 it was alarming ...
                    7. bayard
                      bayard 2 December 2018 04: 27
                      0
                      Donetsk.
                      Yes, and in the 15th too.
            2. Cyrus
              Cyrus 6 December 2018 17: 13
              0
              And what is the strategic nuclear forces 1500 +/- of which 700 on the submarines of warheads will not solve the problem ...
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 14: 40
      +5
      Quote: Serg65
      In the USSR, the West 81 exercises were conducted, according to the NATO generals, with the beginning of the Soviet offensive, Europe had only 3 days for active defense, after which it was necessary to either surrender or use nuclear weapons ... after which it was still necessary to surrender!

      Nuuu, a little exaggerated, but yes - it is. Strictly speaking, NATO believed that they would be able to resist the 3 day in an organized fashion without a nuclear weapon.
      Quote: Serg65
      The Ogarkov doctrine, the great marshal of all times and peoples D.F, Ustinov heroically abandoned, but the evil and insidious Putin boldly took this doctrine into service, as evidenced by the Vostok 2018 exercises!

      Dear Sergey, forget it. In the years of the USSR, the ATS countries had a double superiority in ground forces over NATO countries in the event of a sudden conflict, and maintained this superiority during the 1 month of hostilities EVEN, provided that the transfer of the US army to the continent would go according to plan (but it did not go according to plan the fleet would have guaranteed it :)))). Then our superiority became completely overwhelming.
      And now, with the "evil and insidious" ALL ground forces of the Russian Federation (and not just deployed in the western direction) lose in numbers only to Turkey. So that
      Quote: Serg65
      During the 2-5 of the first days of the war, the forces of the 14 AK, 61 infantry regiment, 76 army, with the reinforcement of the 6 army, with the support of the aviation and navy, captured Norwegian airfields Kirkenes, Wabso, Vardo, Lakselv, Aronnes, Hammerfest, Tromso, Narvik, Lenkes, Bude.

      In principle, it will not work. Yes, and how? There are fifty F-16 Norwegians + the American AUS, which will drag them into the overload under 200 cars (some will fly to the Norwegians). What will we fight them with?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 29 November 2018 15: 19
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Dear Sergey, forget

        By no means, in those days the NATO countries had their own armies, not like now!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In the years of the USSR, the ATS countries had a double superiority in the ground forces

        The times of continuous fronts and tank wedges have long sunk into the summer, Ogarkov understood this, but Ustinov did not want to understand this!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And now, with the "evil and insidious" ALL ground forces of the Russian Federation (and not just deployed in the western direction) lose in numbers only to Turkey.

        At the same time, the Russian under-army of the late 90’s managed to restore order in Chechnya, and how many Kurds cannot be crushed by the Turks?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        There are fifty F-16 Norwegians

        They are located in southern Norway, even the norgs themselves in the north do not really want to serve. At the same time, a significant part of Norwegian civil airfields is within walking distance from Korzunovo, Kilpjavra and Titovka.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        + American AUS, which will drag it overload under 200 cars (some will fly to the Norwegians)

        So what? Cover the runways of the western Norwegian airfields with iskander!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What will we fight them with?

        laughing Caps, Andrew, hats!
        Only a fairly large airport of Kirkines can take up to two IA regiments, it is 18 kilometers from our border along the beautiful highway E 105 and for guys from Sputnik this is a doable task! And of course the war will not be tomorrow! I very much suspect that there will be no war! We ourselves will meet the occupier with bread and salt, because both pseudo-liberals and pseudo-communists sing in unison ..... we won’t go to war, there can be no worse Putin !!! No one canceled the repetition of 91!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 18: 10
          +3
          Quote: Serg65
          By no means, in those days the NATO countries had their own armies, not like now!

          (shrugging) I have already quoted the size of the Turkish army, a NATO member, where much more? We are surpassed by ONE Turkey.
          Quote: Serg65
          At the same time, the Russian under-army of the late 90’s managed to restore order in Chechnya, and how many Kurds cannot be crushed by the Turks?

          I apologize, but in Russia there are 1,5 million Chechens and in Turkey about 15-20 million Kurds.
          Quote: Serg65
          Caps, Andrew, hats!

          Well, maybe
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 12: 24
    -8
    we don’t need aircraft carriers, that's for sure
  • Cyrus
    Cyrus 28 January 2020 06: 55
    0
    Well, this is not always, far from always ignorance, on the other side they also know perfectly well what the information background is and how to use it, and we have recently been loving 30 silver coins.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 13
    +7
    -This creates an informational background, which is also important, because when "we don't need aircraft carriers from everywhere"

    Against this background, the squalid productivity of shipbuilding and ship repair enterprises is sticking out with a mountain of problems. Especially personnel. The OSK supervisor is a car dealer, the needs of the fleet are somehow not very close to him.
  • pin_code
    pin_code 30 November 2018 09: 29
    +1
    essentially ... no need to speak so categorically, you are not the last resort, of course, sorry for arrogance.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 29 November 2018 11: 01
    +2
    - Alexander hopes to clear it up "once and for all" :))))) m-

    Given the current level of shipbuilding, the mobilization capabilities of the state, the state of the training base, and personnel shortages among civilians and military personnel of the VM, it will not be possible to clarify.
  • riwas
    riwas 29 November 2018 06: 21
    +4
    In conducting local wars, the United States assigns the main role to "normal", base aviation (Air Force). So it was in Grenada, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq. Deck aviation is assigned a supporting role. It operates independently only for the first fifty days, until the Air Force aircraft arrives. The explanation is simple. The weight of carrier-based aircraft is limited by the capabilities of the catapult - 43 tons, dimensions - by the capabilities of the aircraft carrier's lifts and hangars. Therefore, the capabilities of the AWACS aircraft and control of the E-3 "Sentry" (AWACS) are significantly higher than those of the similar deck-mounted E-2C "Hawkeye". And the use of a number of heavy aircraft from aircraft carriers, for example, strategic bombers, is generally impossible.
    A well-developed base system around the world allows the United States to attack almost any enemy.
    1. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 07: 59
      +6
      Have you read what you comment?
    2. faiver
      faiver 29 November 2018 09: 14
      0
      And the use of a number of heavy aircraft from aircraft carriers, for example, strategic bombers, is generally impossible.
      - Well, An-12 took off from an aircraft carrier in some sort of American action movie wassat
      1. bayard
        bayard 30 November 2018 03: 44
        0
        Donetsk.
        If you really want ... On the American aircraft carriers sat down and then took off a whole S-130 Hercules at the end of the Vietnam War - in order to supply. Take off with powder boosters. Even in photographs, it looks wild ... but it was. And so it can be. But this is hardly advisable.
        1. timokhin-aa
          30 November 2018 10: 06
          0
          Without accelerators took off, there is video.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 November 2018 11: 14
      +5
      Quote: riwas
      And the use of a number of heavy aircraft from aircraft carriers, for example, strategic bombers, is generally impossible.

      And why use strategic bombers from an aircraft carrier? The epic dimensions of the strategist are tied to ensuring an intercontinental flight range, which in turn is determined by the relative position of strategic airfields and its goals.
      If this airfield can be brought to the borders of the enemy (for example, in the North Norwegian fjords), then the need for intercontinental range disappears. And, accordingly, the dimensions are squeezed.
      In general, this is very reminiscent of the discussion between the USN and the USAF on the division of the "nuclear budget" pie in the middle of the last century - when the Air Force flaunted "fortresses", and the fleet rolled out the "vigilent" and declared that it could solve the same problems.
      1. timokhin-aa
        29 November 2018 14: 02
        +1
        First, the fleet rolled out the "whales" A3D "All three are dead" aka "Skywarrier".
  • KCA
    KCA 29 November 2018 06: 27
    +2
    For the concept of the author's competence in matters of naval military affairs, one phrase is enough - "with the help of the Kalibr-NK anti-ship missiles launched from submarines" If he does not care about modifications of submarines and NKs, what can be said about the rest of the stream of consciousness?
    1. kvs207
      kvs207 29 November 2018 07: 46
      +2
      That is, aircraft carriers are not needed?
      1. Wened
        Wened 29 November 2018 12: 13
        -1
        That is, aircraft carriers are not needed?


        First you need to solve the issue of financing the program to create a reactor operating on Uranium-238




        This program once and for all solves the problem of the existence of any aircraft carriers on our planet, including cruisers with a nuclear power plant that only fits on the At-225




        There is a reactor project that is capable of destroying any aircraft carrier; there are registered patents in all countries of the world.

        There is not only political will, willpower.
      2. Wened
        Wened 29 November 2018 14: 21
        0
        There is not only political will, willpower.


        We got a lot of power am

        Briefly about the reactor.

        1. There is an experimental installation that generates an impulse that leads to an uncontrolled chain reaction, that is, to an explosion of the power plant of an aircraft carrier.
        But its mass is such that it can only be installed on the AN-225
        An-225 "Mriya" (Ukrainian. Mriya: "Dream", according to NATO codification: Cossack - "Cossack") - Soviet transport jet aircraft extra heavy lifting capacity design bureau them. O.K. Antonova.


        2. Removed Kiriyenko, he is no longer the Minister of RosAtom. (followed by a series of statements)

        3. New sanctions on Russia, and new pressure on Putin, and from scratch.

        4. A statement is made about weapons based on new physical principles, and this is not a nuclear engine or a bomb. The reactor is not subject to any contracts or restrictions.



        5. Instead of buying All An-225 technologies through intermediaries, everything was blown away.
        China bought from Poroshenko almost the entire plant An all that is needed for the production of An-225.

        6. Now, in order to install the reactor, it will be necessary to buy An-225 from the Chinese.

        7. We have a reactor, but no An-225.

        8. The Chinese have An-225 but no Reactor.

        9. Statement of mattresses ... am



        America naturally can now sleep peacefully. belay

        And so the GDP would have been not just a trump card in the sleeve, but a joker at the trump talks.
        In short blabla agreed, too many grandmothers of our oligarchs are in mattress banks am
        1. Svetlana
          Svetlana 29 November 2018 15: 06
          +2
          Quote: Wened
          it can only be installed on the AN-225

          Just as a laser operates only in line of sight, and in a fogged atmosphere, the laser light decays exponentially, so a neutron pulse generator can work only in line of sight, even less - at a distance of 1..2 km. At ranges greater than 2 km, the neutron beam decays exponentially in the atmosphere. For the same reason, thermonuclear neutrons from a neutron bomb are effective only at a distance of up to 1,5 km from the explosion, and at long ranges they are absorbed by the atmosphere. At such a short distance of 1..2 km, the aircraft carrier’s air defense means simply will not allow the AN-225 with a neutron beam generator on board.
          1. Wened
            Wened 29 November 2018 16: 37
            -7
            You are not credible in these matters, alas.

            The person whom Our Time is shown in the program knows better than you, and he speaks not on his own behalf, but on behalf of a team of world-famous scientists.

            What these people came up with, neither Americans nor Chinese can don't understand how laughing
            Do you understand Yes? laughing

            People like them, even at the RAS, are not criticized by outsiders wink
            And you wrote such nonsense that no one will even comment.

            This is information for consideration.
            New physical principles (MYSTERY laughing ), and you wrote about the already known ones,
            be careful the enemy does not sleep bully

            Do not write nonsense anymore, okay.
        2. Svetlana
          Svetlana 29 November 2018 19: 56
          0
          Quote: Wened
          it can only be installed on the AN-225

          It is possible not only on the AN-225 but also on the An-124 and even on the Il-76MD-90A with PS-90A-76 engines. AN-225 may find another application in naval aviation - for remote diagnostics of nuclear reactors of aircraft carriers and submarines. Just as the Mossbauer effect - coherent resonance scattering and / or emission / absorption of gamma quanta on a large array of nuclei without recoil allows you to determine the frequency shift of the gamma quantum in a gravitational field, so the effect of resonant elastic coherent neutrino scattering on large arrays of nuclei allows you to remotely monitor working nuclear reactors and their speed using small detectors made of cesium iodide crystals at flying laboratories such as Boeing P-8 Poseidon.
          see https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/32966/ Registration of neutrinos by elastic rebound, https://nplus1.ru/material/2017/12/20/SEvNS
          1. Wened
            Wened 29 November 2018 21: 20
            -2
            You are not credible in these matters, alas.




            ????? One of the team of creators of the reactor PERSONALLY SAYS THAT ONLY AN-225. fool fool and you send me some garbage?

            Do you know better than the technology developer ???? Ale

            At ranges greater than 2 km, the neutron beam decays exponentially in the atmosphere.


            In space after a supernova explosion, this same neutron beam is called the Jet beam.
            And it does not fade even after passing hundreds of light years, and if by chance in the region of 10-15 light years such a beam hits our planet, it will disrupt the entire atmosphere with the Oceans. fool fool

            And lastly, it’s worthless for a man to write under a female name


            eschi and some links that post? Do you really need my IP and MAC? AND?

            I will not answer you anymore.
            1. Svetlana
              Svetlana 29 November 2018 21: 57
              0
              Quote: Wened
              and if by chance in the region of 10-15 light years such a beam hits our planet, it will disrupt the whole atmosphere
              tady oh .. In this situation, only a Z-boson laser will help us smile
            2. Ehanatone
              Ehanatone 5 December 2018 19: 28
              0
              Rude why, the girl is quite polite to communicate with you
        3. faiver
          faiver 30 November 2018 03: 57
          0
          Instead of buying All An-225 technologies through intermediaries, they all failed
          - what other technologies of An-225? If the An-225 is just an enlarged An-124, it was assembled in Russia and all the technologies are there, there is no need for such an aircraft, the Mriya was made specifically for Energia-Buran.
    2. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 08: 00
      +2
      Yes sealed. Late yesterday wrote.
    3. Cyrus
      Cyrus 28 January 2020 07: 55
      0
      Well, typos and minor inaccuracies cling to when there is nothing to say on the topic)
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 29 November 2018 08: 53
    +4
    In the future, in order to ensure that the enemy is not allowed to conduct any activity near our coasts, it will be necessary to have at least one combat-ready aircraft carrier with a combat-ready air group both in the Northern Fleet and in the Pacific. Given the fact that such ships are operated in a very intense mode, and require frequent repairs, it is worth calculating the possibility of more.
    In our reality, in order to ensure that each of the ocean fleets has one combat-ready AB 365 days a year, it is necessary to build 2-3 ships per fleet. This is a consequence of one of the most difficult problems of our fleet - the low coefficient of operational stress. In Soviet times (when there were more ships, and their service was a little better), for our Navy, the standard KOH was 0,3-0,5. As a result, the USSR Navy, having more ships on its payroll, was at sea less than the US Navy, which had a smaller payroll. If for small ships this is not so critical, for example, from a series of 10 ships there can always be 4-5 ships in the sea, then for small large NDTs this is critical and leads to the fact that the fleet is not at all for 5-6 years in a decade. has ships of this class in combat readiness. If you have one aircraft carrier in your fleet, you can be sure that for 2-3 years in a decade it will be under repair and maintenance, and for another 2-3 years it will be engaged in combat training, exercises and so on. Therefore, the problem can be solved either by building ships in the required number, that is, 2-3 for the theater, or dramatically increasing the KOH, or abandoning the ambitions and goal of always having a combat-ready ship of this class for the theater. The first option is expensive and time-consuming (or faster, but with the condition "very, very expensive" - ​​when reconstructing shipyards). The second option is also expensive and time consuming, because it requires reconstruction of many onshore facilities - basing conditions, shipyards, etc. - only then there is a chance to increase KOH. Both of the first options are incredibly large-scale and costly. Because of this, in general, on the whole, the question arises about the expediency of whether such an injection into the Navy as a whole is justified and is it not easier to solve the problem of covering strategic nuclear forces by other methods. Such large-scale efforts and costs will cost the country dearly, what to save on, from whom to take the funds, how to redistribute them? Moreover, this requires a change of priorities, obviously the Navy should, with this approach, become our main striking force, pushing the ground forces and air forces into the shadows.
    the source of such theses are completely different people, mostly “patriotic bloggers”, as a rule, who have nothing to do with the Navy.
    This is not bad in itself. To an outsider, problems can sometimes be seen better than from the inside. The question of the adequacy of the beholder, the availability of specialized education does not always directly affect this.
    1. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 09: 08
      +2
      Well, raising KOH is just one of the tasks. When bringing it to 0,5, four ABs mean that two are always combat ready. Already not bad.

      Let me remind you that Amer has a standard ratio of 3,5 / 11. They can surpass it, but at the cost of reducing the number of combat-ready AVs.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 29 November 2018 09: 19
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa

        Well, raising KOH is just one of the tasks. When bringing it to 0,5, four ABs mean that two are always alert. Already not bad
        Well, on paper, of course, it sounds beautiful - vzhuh, and we have KOH = 0,5))) But in fact, how to achieve this - that's what the squiggle is about! As far as I understand, we should talk about a complete reconstruction of the fleet basing system, a complete revision of the maintenance and repair system with the construction of virtually new enterprises. Billions, billions, billions ... As Lozino-Lozinsky said: "Buran" can of course be launched into space a couple of years earlier than planned, but bread will rise in price by a ruble throughout the country. "))))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 09: 34
          +3
          Strictly speaking, we should have 3 TAVKR. One is being repaired, one is restoring its combat effectiveness after that, and one is ready to march and fight. Sometimes it will be 2 TAVKR in the operational fleet.
          Actually, this was the origin of the figure in 6 AB for the Russian Federation at the time (remember, did they promise us somehow 6 AMG by 2005 year? :)))) three for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, respectively, at least one for the fleet is constantly fighting
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 29 November 2018 10: 10
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Actually, this is where the figure in 6 AV for the Russian Federation came from at one time (remember, did they promise us somehow the 6 AMG for the 2005 year? :))))
            I do not believe in the feasibility of such plans, in an acceptable time frame. Fantasy is fantasy, you can fantasize about 10 aircraft carriers with the same overall result. In reality, we would begin to build minesweepers in air-conditioned quantities, rather than aircraft carriers.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 10: 49
              +5
              Quote: Alex_59
              I do not believe in the feasibility of such plans, in an acceptable time frame.

              Yes, this is understandable, the reality is that the fleet will soon cease to exist, what kind of aircraft carriers are there
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 12: 29
                -6
                not at all, a rather powerful submarine fleet is being planned, and as an addition, a surface one quite decent for its narrow tasks, even frigates! building already !!! we can!
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 12: 51
                  +4
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  not at all, planning a pretty strong underwater flo

                  I’m not talking about what is planned, but about what’s being built. And there was no strong submarine fleet and no
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 29 November 2018 13: 37
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                the fleet will soon simply cease to exist

                Do not distort Andrey, the fleet as it was, so it will be! But the views on its operational-tactical use have changed dramatically!
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 14: 42
                  10
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Do not distort Andrey, the fleet as it was, so it will be

                  What are the distortions here? The fleet will soon remain in the fleet, and you - "distortion"
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 29 November 2018 15: 21
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The fleet will soon remain from the fleet

                    The Soviet mighty Navy was also built not in 5 years, and then at the end of 80's 60% of the surface fleet were recyclable!
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 18: 13
                      +7
                      Quote: Serg65
                      The Soviet mighty Navy was also built in 5 years

                      USSR Fleet BUILDED. We are not.
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 30 November 2018 07: 46
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        We are not.

                        In 2007, even in my wildest dreams, I did not even think that the state of the Black Sea Fleet would radically change in 7 years! Therefore, your statement is mildly not true!
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        USSR fleet BUILDED

                        USSR built the military-industrial complex !!!! But the military-industrial complex and some members of the Politburo gave the fleet what they needed and not the fleet! The Russian Federation builds the fleet on the basis of its capabilities and the doctrine of the use of the fleet in the near future, with the modern development of attack and defense weapons it is almost impossible to predict the development of the fleet for 20-30 years in advance, which, by the way, is the example of the USSR Navy, when the ships under construction became outdated while the construction work!
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      30 November 2018 12: 37
                      +1
                      At the end of 80, 60% of the surface fleet was recycled!


                      Why is this interesting?
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 30 November 2018 14: 50
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Why is this interesting?

                        This is because comrade Ustinov suffered from gigantomania to please the military-industrial complex!
                        In my native KChF for the 1988 year.
                        And so ... KChF had
                        RKR -2 (one of them, pr.58 1964 of the release of practical application no longer had)
                        RCC -2 (by the 1988-th year outdated in terms of weapons)
                        KRL - 4 Ave.68 (no comment)
                        BOD - 12 (of which 8 Ave. 61 are completely out of date)
                        EM - 18 (11 ave. 56 in different variations and 7 ave. 30 bis ... I think also without comment)
                        And of the 38 ships of 1 rank, only 5 could at least adequately respond to the adversary.
                        The USSR Navy had 100 surface ships of 1 rank, of which 4 TAVKR A1143, 3 TAKR Ave. 1144, 3 RKR Ave.1164, 4 RKR 1134 (with a stretch), 10 BPC 1134N, 7N, 1134N, 10N, 1155 EM ave. 9 .... total we have on the 956 fleet of 4 ships of the 100 rank 1 ships (50%) capable of at least somehow fighting the NATO Navy!
                        hi
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        30 November 2018 20: 39
                        0
                        Well, the same 58th project in the KUG with normal ships could well "shoot". Outdated in itself, yes, but remember the Americans, back in the 70s they had Girings, in fact, the rudiments of WWII technologies. We were not alone.
                        Ref 68-bis.
                        Can you immediately remember our ship, which would cope better with the support of the landing? I can't. They are not even now. If you happen to prepare for war and "Kutuzov" will have to be reanimated at least as a floating battery (if there is still ammunition for it, of course).

                        The problem was that the USSR was not engaged in the modernization of these ships.

                        Take, for example, the same 68. We divide into two modernization subprojects.
                        On both we reinforce the air defense - the same AK-230 or 630. On the half, we make a superstructure at the stern "a la Senyavin" But not with the headquarters and the printing house, but with a couple of hangars. We drive a pair of Ka-25 RCs there. Voila, our KUG received a means of detecting a BNK with a range of up to 250 km (I understand that these are ideal conditions), we are equipping special cellars for special warheads 152mm (I don’t know if they were there, it seems to be not), We put electronic warfare systems on them, for diverting RCC, if it comes to that.
                        On the other half of the cruisers, the same EW, AK, but we do not do the aft superstructure, but put the SAMs instead of the third tower.
                        I note, all this is not so expensive would have turned out.

                        We get a bundle that can be defeated only by a submarine or an aircraft carrier. But against the submarines we have in the SKR TFR 1135.

                        As a result, even the CUG from:

                        3 SCR 1135
                        1 KRL with 2 helicopters and nuclear weapons
                        1 KRL direct tracking, in readiness to use nuclear weapons
                        1 RRC 58 Project

                        It turned out that for any problem besides the AUG of the United States Navy or the major forces of basic aviation, and even of AUG, if they missed the first strike, they would lose. Despite its obsolescence. Well, with reinforcements from the submarines of the 670 and 671 projects somewhere in the Ocean, it is also clear how tough everything could be. Naturally, if the submarine kept in the zone of action of the ship-based air defense system.

                        The same applies to Project 61. Even now these ships are in service in two fleets, though ours is already completely useless, especially after the Ukrainian "modernization", but look at the Indians.

                        On the RNR 58 project, no one interfered with the timely update of the air defense system and the REV. Also, other ships in fact would have been in force.

                        Comrade Ustinov completely agrees with the assessment of the old destroyers and the evil genius of the USSR. But with ships, "not everything is so simple."
                      3. Serg65
                        Serg65 1 December 2018 09: 24
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        We get a bunch that can only be defeated by a nuclear submarine or an aircraft carrier.

                        Sasha, my soul, are you by any chance relatives with Kaptsov ????
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        the same 58th project in the KUG with normal ships could well "shoot"

                        smile So the 68th could "shoot" but for this it was necessary to constantly hang around the foe's AUG as a kamikaze!
                        For 1988, the P-35 and the Volna air defense system of the 58th project are completely outdated and in the KUG it would be just a burden that must also be protected.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        back in the 70s they had "Giringi"

                        laughing We have in the 70's Seven more met! I'm talking about the end of the 80's, the oldest US EMs at that time were Kunts and Adams. which were almost the same age as the 56 project, but exceeded its capabilities many times over, and when the Sprueins flooded, the sadness in the Soviet naval heads settled for a long time! The appearance of the 1164, 1155 and 956 projects inspired hope and confidence, but the Kremlin elders wanted COLOSSAL ships !!!!!
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Can you immediately recall our ship, which would cope with landing support better?

                        laughing Sasha, my soul, let's start with the fact that the ballistics of a marine gun are not very suitable for work along the coast, if only by direct fire and in areas. Due to the fact that the Palitburo still dreamed of capturing the Black Sea straits, the 39 I dimds were created at the KChF, where they collected almost all of the EM projects 30 bis and 56 with their 130 kami, and put the enemy and RCC of the enemy 68 bis under attack, somehow did not dare!
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        At RKR 58 project, no one interfered with timely updating of air defense systems and REVs.

                        Is it to completely redo the ship and take it out for repair for a long time? With an already small number of URO ships, no one would have let you do it ... in the best case, in the worst - they would have called you a pest dreaming of weakening the striking power of the USSR Navy !!!
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        look at the Indians.

                        Alexander, etc. 61-ME radically different from the prototype and was essentially a different ship from BIRTH !!!!
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        1 December 2018 18: 56
                        0
                        So the 68th could "shoot" but for this it was necessary to constantly hang around the foe's AUG as a kamikaze!


                        Well, what were all these "direct tracking" ships doing? Here it is. So what's the difference? At least 68 had armor. There is not much sense from it against missiles, but at least something.

                        For 1988, the P-35 and the Volna air defense system of the 58th project are completely outdated and in the KUG it would be just a burden that must also be protected.


                        Because in the mid-70s it was necessary to change the air defense system. As for the missiles, they had a good chance of drowning something before the appearance of "Ticonderogs" and "Spruens" in mass quantities.

                        the ballistics of the naval gun is not very suitable for work on the coast, unless it is direct fire and over squares.


                        Yeah, and by ship in 20 km, too, by area? On the other hand, do not care. Without modernization, these ships were useless in a different quality than floating batteries. Therefore it was necessary to them there, to the destroyers.

                        By the way, if they had reached the end of the 90s in large quantities, then, in addition to the above-mentioned upgrade, the Uranium anti-ship missile system could be delivered there, in marketable quantities, and that would also change a lot.

                        Ref. 61. Even Sharp-witted would have a certain value, if it were not a dummy PU "Uranus", but a full-fledged complex. By itself, he would not be able to fight now, but as part of the KUG he would give an increase to the rocket salvo.
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 29 November 2018 14: 53
          +4
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yes, this is understandable, the reality is that the fleet will soon cease to exist, what kind of aircraft carriers are there
          Therefore, it is much closer to reality to discuss not "whether Russia needs aircraft carriers," but how to ensure the protection of its coast and its SSBNs without an aircraft carrier. Such a discussion will at least have some practical value.
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 11
      0
      -Sometimes it will be 2 TAVKR as part of the operating fleet .-

      Only in dreams and discussions. MRK without engines, confirmation of this. In addition, the first more or less full-fledged release from the VSC of the Navy occurred only in 2018. The Navy is primarily people, primarily officers. Even if four TAVKR with air groups descend from the sky , there will be no one to equip this good. Even a graduate with honors will not be able to meet the duties of the commander of a warhead.
    3. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 58
      +1
      -to us somehow 6 AMG by 2005? :)))) -

      Such a miracle could be believed by very gullible people from the Australian or Alaskan provinces.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 07
    0
    -Well raising KOH is just one of the tasks-

    KOH was invented by the media. The KOM staff and staff operators do not use this KOH. It is not found in operational and regulatory documents.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 29 November 2018 11: 04
      +2
      Quote: gunnerminer
      KOH invented by the media

      It doesn’t matter who invented it; what matters is that it reflects the essence. I do not know what is in the operational documents, but he appears in scientific papers.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 29 November 2018 17: 30
        +1
        It does not reflect. It does not take into account the efficiency of ship repair enterprises in restoring and maintaining technical readiness, does not take into account the possibility of creating current and operational stocks of ammunition for main and auxiliary calibers, does not take into account the rear and operational capabilities of formations and missions, the presence of a reserve of command personnel and other factors.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 29 November 2018 22: 15
          +1
          Quote: gunnerminer
          Does not reflect.

          Let's get away from the concept of KOH. Let's calculate how many hours the ships carry the BS at sea to the total number of hours per decade. Let's do the same calculations for the USA. Let's compare. Voila - we will find out who is more efficient and rational in exploiting their ship composition. What kind of "efficiency of ship repair enterprises" who will have at the same time - absolutely on the drum, because the result is either there or not. The numbers obtained after the calculation will be called whatever you like, if you do not like the abbreviation KOH, let it be called at least "the resulting approximation of the specific density of Lebedev-Stolman".
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 08
    +2
    KOH does not depend on the activity of the naval command. For example, the director of the plant prodanally floated the PD-50, and KOH was covered with a tin basin for KSF.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 29 November 2018 14: 30
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    amers have a standard ratio of 3,5 / 11

    Nullify from here the ABs allocated for the protection of trans-Atlantic convoys, divide the remainder into the western and eastern directions with the deduction of those being repaired ..... wow, and not so many ABs the Americans have!
    1. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 15: 20
      +1
      It is unlikely that their AB will guard convoys. Rather, the UDC, of ​​which there do not seem to remember exactly ten. Plus, the allies with lungs AV - Spain, Italy in the Atlantic, Japan and Thailand in the Pacific - at the very least, one AV will be allocated to one convoy. Well and BPA. Enough for them.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 29 November 2018 15: 41
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They are unlikely to be guarded by convoys.

        Unlike you, amers have a good memory and they still remember the operations "Aport" and "Atrina"!
        1. timokhin-aa
          30 November 2018 12: 40
          0
          Atrina in fact failed. Boats were discovered that and who would not write here. Yes, they were lost, then found, etc.
          According to the Atrins, the United States did nothing at all in terms of PLO, it says a lot.

          For the protection of the convoys below answered.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 November 2018 19: 34
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They are unlikely to be guarded by convoys.

        It depends on their assessment of the state of our fleet.
        Most likely, they will allocate a couple of ABs for the PLO in the Atlantic. Otherwise, their army will gobble up with giblets - because the main operation of the first phase of the war is the transfer of the main forces of the US Army from the Metropolis to Europe. And the losses on this route will be extremely sensitive for the army. Especially taking into account the love of logisticians to fill ships with uniform cargoes, it may happen that the personnel reached Europe, but the vessel with tanks didn’t ... on paper, the tank division, but in fact the infantry division. smile
        Not for nothing that the whole Cold War one of the typical air wings of the big AB was anti-submarine.
        1. timokhin-aa
          30 November 2018 10: 09
          +2
          Well, why should AV be output there if there are a dozen UDC? For 4 F-35B each, and for 16-18 VLOs. Plus the San Antonio DVKD, this is for the PLO 6 helicopters. Plus, destroyers with a pair of helicopters each, which themselves can fight the submarine, even without helicopters. Plus frigates of NATO allies, plus escort carriers of Spain and Italy, I got half an entire anti-submarine fleet of Japan, frigates of Australia ...

          Enough for them.
    2. Cyrus
      Cyrus 28 January 2020 08: 02
      0
      For the protection of transatlantic convoys there are fleets of NATO countries, if something like that, under it, are sharpened.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 29 November 2018 09: 10
    0
    Yes, to hell with them with the ships. If you build 4 troughs like Kuzya, then for each you will need to form a fighter regiment, the number of which with the calculation of 2 squadrons on board, and the necessary materiel for ground training and replenishment of at least minimal losses, can reach 40 vehicles. These are 160 units for 4 troughs, our Air Force has 450-500 fighters in total, just to spoil and give a third of the aircraft to incompetent sailors in air warfare. I don't even consider smaller equipment.
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 28 January 2020 08: 04
      0
      Nothing wrong.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 05
    +1
    -In our realities, in order to ensure the presence of one combat-ready AB on each of the ocean fleets, 365 days a year, it is necessary to build 2-3 ships per fleet-

    To do this, in a very short period of time, a technological revolution should be carried out at shipbuilding enterprises, and the landing should be dropped into several thousand skilled shipbuilders of all categories. Even the wizard Anatoly Chubais will not be able to draw such a thing.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 59
    +2
    -This is a consequence of one of the most serious problems of our fleet - a low coefficient of operational voltage. -

    This is not the hardest problem.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 November 2018 11: 18
    +2
    Quote: Alex_59
    If you have one aircraft carrier in your fleet, you can be sure that for 2-3 years in a decade he will be in repairs and maintenance and for another 2-3 years he will be engaged in combat training, exercises and other things.

    Rather, its repairs will be rescheduled and rescheduled - based on the current foreign policy situation. And then suddenly it turns out that the ship was completely killed and requires not just another cosmetic combat readinessand overhaul. And it’s good if this idea can be conveyed to the Navy command when the ship is still in the base.
  • Cyrus
    Cyrus 28 January 2020 08: 00
    0
    What other more economical means? It is unlikely that an outsider can see anything at all if he did not study this issue purposefully, and most bloggers do not know a damn thing, but they scribble their little things.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 29 November 2018 09: 00
    -5
    Maintaining close in numbers to the air group's regiment in the air, in continuous combat duty, with a sufficient number of aircraft on the ground for rotation, with fuel and measures to defend coastal airfields from air strikes, "consumed" the cost of an aircraft carrier in just six months. The calculations were made for the latest prototypes of the MiG-29 at that time and the Su-27 prototypes created both in the land and ship versions.


    This is a lot, a lie and a provocation.

    When this airplane trough is already cut, which only draws resources from the Air Force, which it has deprived of 24 completely useful machines, and now it requires repair at the cost of 18 Su-35, although after the crane there may be more, and from the fleet, which much needs frigates and normal missile destroyers to replace the Eagles with Atlanta.
    1. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 09: 08
      +5
      This is not a lie, it is still relevant document under the CPD. Kole, who even saw him)))
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 29 November 2018 09: 12
        -2
        Flying a couple of planes will cost billions. Moreover, they will fly there anyway. Yeah. Are flights from an aircraft carrier free?
        1. timokhin-aa
          29 November 2018 10: 34
          +4
          Shelf. In 27 / 7 mode. With tankers, and a threefold reserve of forces on the coast for rotation, with air defense of airfields comparable to the air defense of a naval compound.
          With depreciation technology.

          Just imagine the scale.
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 56
            -1
            - With air tankers-

            They cannot be built now at an acceptable pace for the Digelovsky half-regiment.
            1. timokhin-aa
              29 November 2018 14: 03
              0
              They have not started yet. There are no problems with the construction of tankers in the Russian Federation. There would be money.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 29 November 2018 14: 33
                +6
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                They have not started yet.
                I am a mischievous and grumpy person, so again I will not restrain myself and will not keep silent - the first Il-2018MD-78 was assembled at Aviastar in 90. )))
                1. gunnerminer
                  gunnerminer 29 November 2018 17: 34
                  +3
                  Such snail pace is not impressive. This is not the beginning that the customer dreams of.
              2. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 29 November 2018 17: 33
                +1
                -m There are no problems with the construction of refueling tanks in the Russian Federation. There would be money .-

                Money alone does not work on the creation of an aircraft. There are no necessary number of indenders, technicians and skilled workers. Foreign equipment has to be purchased. Even if several containers of money are dropped from the sky, the automatic Diaghilev regiment will not be equipped with tankers by aircraft.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 29 November 2018 13: 22
            0
            And the action of the aircraft carrier is free? In addition, it is impossible to instantly raise the entire regiment from an aircraft carrier, which means that some of the machines will also have to be on duty in the air.

            Most importantly, is the presence of 24 / 7 necessary at all? With the same success it can be stated that in the Indian Ocean we do not have ships to continuously follow American squadrons. And at least a regiment will hang, even an aircraft carrier (and there are at least a dozen ships in fact) in the Spitsbergen area, how will it prevent the enemy? On day D and the hour H, our regiment will be attacked by the 3 regiment, this will be elementary. Much more difficult than hitting a relatively compact ball of air defense on the shore.

            Simply, it would be a materiel, but how senseless it is to waste its resource, ideas will always be found.
            1. timokhin-aa
              29 November 2018 14: 04
              +6
              Most importantly, is the presence of 24 / 7 necessary at all?


              As Admiral Vysotsky EMNIP in 2013 said: Without Kuznetsov, our sub-melt will be destroyed in 48 hours.

              So be sure.
              1. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 29 November 2018 17: 35
                +2
                With Tavkr will be destroyed in 96 hours. So there is nothing to defend him.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  30 November 2018 12: 41
                  0
                  96 hours in such cases is dofiga, well, the main thing is more than 48)))
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 29 November 2018 09: 23
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        This is not a lie, it is still an up-to-date document under chipboard

        I would take a look at him. )) I wonder how they thought. They included in the expenses for Avik on its maintenance, repair, construction of a coastal airfield for its air group and its maintenance, preparation of the ship's crew, etc. I doubt that the fighter aviation regiment eats all these expenses for six months. And I doubt whether such an evaluation criterion has been chosen reasonably - the air group does not need to be kept in the air in 24x7 mode in full force of the regiment above the cover object - this is inadequate.
        1. timokhin-aa
          29 November 2018 10: 35
          +2
          There is not an object, and the water area for control and quite large.

          Of course, the combat use scenario there was not in the form of loitering around was thought out.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 29 November 2018 11: 08
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            There is not an object, and the water area for control and quite large.

            And this is what worries me. It is not the water area that needs to be protected, but the object - in our case, the SSBN. It is necessary to reflect specific attacks of the enemy, and not just burn kerosene over the water area.
            1. timokhin-aa
              29 November 2018 14: 07
              +3
              The DRLO blocks the airspace above the water area, the airplanes with the AB are ready to arrive at any point of it in a few minutes, and are also ready to meet their counter-diver and escort it.

              Something like that.

              Otherwise, the passage of a pair of Poseidons for an hour, and goodbye, the division of the Premier League immediately. Even if they are shot down later, it will not care.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 29 November 2018 14: 49
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                aircraft with AB are ready to arrive at any point in a matter of minutes
                If "in a matter of minutes", then your water area is too small to accommodate at least a couple of SSBNs. 10 minutes of flight time is a radius of 100 km, if that. Or, if our AV is capable of something more, then the flight time is not a matter of minutes.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  30 November 2018 12: 45
                  0
                  For BVP with AV operating in two pairs within 40-50 radius of km from AB in opposite directions, 10 minutes means the control zone is approximately 400 km in maximum width. Taking into account that coastal waters on 100-150 km are kept by coastal aircraft, we bring our control zone to the floor of a thousand kilometers from the coast.

                  The counterfighter will not survive there.

                  And, yes, from the springboard AV, it was as if the air group could not be raised more quickly than the ejection one)))
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 30 November 2018 15: 55
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The counterfighter will not survive there.

                    The question is whether the F-18 will survive there by striking at our PLO ships engaged in the search for enemy torpedo submarines.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    we take out our control zone half a thousand kilometers from the coast.
                    Our single AB outside the range of IA from the shore is doomed. So he does not increase the defense zone much - it’s dangerous for him to leave the umbrella for a long time.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Given that coastal planes on 100-150 km hold coastal aircraft
                    150 km offshore hold coastal aircraft? What year is this? 1944-th or what? Are airplanes Il-2 and La-7?
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      30 November 2018 20: 42
                      +1
                      Year 2018. Remember that it is necessary not just to detect the target. It is necessary to succeed hit her before she used the weapon. This is seconds literally.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 November 2018 11: 48
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          I wonder how they thought. They included in the expenses for Avik on its maintenance, repair, construction of a coastal airfield for its air group and its maintenance, preparation of the ship's crew, etc. I doubt that the fighter aviation regiment eats all these expenses for six months.

          Do not forget one nuance: the cost of coastal aviation will need to include the construction and maintenance of combat readiness net aerodromes, providing a reinforcements approach time comparable to an aircraft carrier, and an aircraft capacity sufficient to counteract at least 2-3 AUGs. Because the coastal airfield is a stationary thing, and it will not be possible to drag it, for example, from Kamchatka to Sakhalin. And as soon as the distance from the airfield to the covered group of ships becomes greater than the range of detection of enemy aircraft (counted from the same group), coastal aviation from this airfield can be safely thrown out of the calculations - reinforcements to the air defense duty group above the ships simply will not have time.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 29 November 2018 12: 42
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            the cost of coastal aviation will need to include the construction and maintenance of combat readiness of the aerodrome network
            These costs must be taken into account, only all the fun is that on both scales. Because aircraft carrier aircraft group also needs a coastal airfield.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            reinforcements approach time comparable to an aircraft carrier
            Why do you think that one single AB is always in close proximity to the enemy's attack target? Each SSBN will be assigned its own AB or what? Or will the AB be located in the center of a certain area, within which several SSBNs will simultaneously run at once? If so, then the AB air group will also have non-zero flight time to the defense. The only question is the radius of this pen, on which the SSBN grazes. If this is 100 km, then of course the flight time will be short, but it will also be easier for the enemy to find several SSBNs in such a small area at once. And I don’t really imagine that this very AB would go beyond the acceptable flight time of coastal aviation with the boats it cares for, simply because without our support from the coast one of our ABs would still be defeated if the enemy set out to sink him. Crushed by a number.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 29 November 2018 15: 30
              +3
              Quote: Alex_59
              Because aircraft carrier aircraft group also needs a coastal airfield.

              One airfield for one or two aircraft carriers. And in the database.
              The coastal aviation needs "bushes" of airfields for 3-4 regiments at all points from where they will cover the ships. I already wrote about the maximum coverage radius.
              Quote: Alex_59
              Each SSBN will be assigned its own AB or what? Or will the AB be located in the center of a certain area, within which several SSBNs will simultaneously run at once?

              SSBNs will be "behind" AB. The task of AB is to provide cover for the ship groups defending the launch areas. The location of the AB is in accordance with the available intelligence about the enemy's AUG and the probable directions of their strikes. As, however, in the case of basic aviation - only then is there a concentration of forces at the corresponding coastal air bases.
              The difference is that in the case of AB, an aerodrome with all services can be adjusted to the desired point (rather than building them at all the necessary points on the shore). And the second - the airfield can be moved from the coast to the sea, reducing the time of approach of the reserves of IA.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 29 November 2018 16: 14
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The coastal aviation needs "bushes" of airfields for 3-4 regiments at all points from where they will cover the ships.
                All this is (or rather it was) in abundance. First, civilian airfields. Secondly, back in the 90s, there were so many airfields on the Northern Fleet that the issue was closed. Kilp-Yavr, Severomorsk-1, -2, -3, Rovny, Kildin, Taibola, Olenya, Monchegorsk, Afrikanda, Umbozero, Grayusny, Talagi, Lakhta, Vatega, Amderma, Sovetsky, Letneozersky, Rogachevo. Further, all these "Orders" were based on the range of a typical airplane of those years - the Su-15TM, ​​MiG-25, MiG-23, the best of which provided a maximum combat radius of 700 km. There was still no Su-27, Su-35, and air refueling facilities.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The task of AB is to cover ship groups engaged in the defense of launch areas.
                Well, here is the first sensible statement in this thread))) It is most likely that enemy submarines will go to water our SSBNs, and not aviation submarines. Accordingly, our naval forces of the PLO will have to prevent this. To complicate the work of our naval forces PLO the enemy will strike at them with air strikes that will reflect our aircraft. However, it’s still possible to go far from the coast, because An aircraft that has gone so far will be doomed - it will be hit by possibly several enemy AUGs and coastal enemy aircraft. He is unlikely to be able to withstand such an attack on his own. Thus, both the SSBN and the AB, in any case, must maneuver within the IA’s coastal umbrella, but the AB can significantly complicate the enemy’s situation by acting the same way near the coast, but at the far boundary of the protected area. In the case of approaching the enemy’s ACG, the AB will be supported by coastal aviation, which equalizes the chances. Thus, the presence of AB is desirable, but not necessary. But coastal aviation is needed in any case.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 29 November 2018 19: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Further, all these "Orders" were based on the range of a typical airplane of those years - Su-15TM, ​​MiG-25, MiG-23, the best of which provided a maximum combat radius of 700 km. There was still no Su-27, Su-35, and air refueling facilities.

                  You see what is the matter, when covering your ships with coastal-based aviation, not only the combat radius is important. The reaction time is critically important - that is, how soon the aviation from the "watch at the airport" position will be above the ships. Because if this time is longer than the time interval between the detection of enemy aircraft and the launch of anti-ship missiles by them, then that's it, the airfield is not suitable for cover. And either you need to build a new airfield, or reduce the depth of defense.
                  In the north, in the area of ​​Medvezhye, a cover from the shore is only suitable when the enemy doesn’t shoot back, but only when his anti-ship missiles reach the ships.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Thus, both the SSBN and the AB, in any case, must maneuver within the IA’s coastal umbrella, but the AB can significantly complicate the enemy’s situation by acting also near the coast, but at the far boundary of the protected area.

                  The presence of AB makes it difficult for the enemy to strike for several reasons.
                  Firstly, he needs to calculate the composition of the cover and air cleansing group based on the fact that on the approach to the ships he will be met not by the duty link and the late reserve from the shore, but by a minimum of a couple of squadrons, moreover, intercepting the projectiles until the launch line.
                  Secondly, he will need to either strengthen the air defense of his AUGs, or pull them away - because the best air defense in battles of aircraft carriers is a strike on enemy aircraft. And you always need to take into account the possibility that crazy Russians, instead of going on the defensive, decide to hit in the counter or ahead of schedule, covering the AB during the absence of its air group by coastal aviation. Moreover, in this case we will determine the departure time of the coastal regiments.
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 29 November 2018 22: 29
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The reaction time is critically important - that is, how soon the aviation from the "watch at the airport" position will be above the ships.
                    True, but this is a matter of timely intelligence put forward on the path of the probable movement of the enemy's IOS. Both AB and coastal aviation equally need intelligence. On deck aircraft, the flying time will also be non-zero, unless of course we think that all defended objects are pulled to a point under the aircraft carrier itself, or we don’t attach one aircraft carrier to each guarded object. Since the ships of our PLO will act clearly on a wide front for the defense of everyone - you will not stockpile aircraft carriers. So if the enemy begins to bite our PLO forces on the flanks, pilots with AB will have to fly free, and their flight time will be no worse than ground. I'm not talking about the options when the adversary can bypass a couple of refueling forces beyond Svalbard and go to Novaya Zemlya from the north - and AB at that time somewhere between Medvezhy and Tromsø is on duty. This is all to the fact that AB is not a panacea, and the defense can be built without it, but of course it can be more flexible and wider. And the most important thing in building this defense is not to start with the AB, but with the coastal aviation, minesweepers and an adequate replacement of the IPC, etc. 1124. And then - AB.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The presence of AB makes it difficult for the enemy to strike
                    Nobody argues with this, but we need to start not with AB.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 29 November 2018 13: 29
            -3
            The network of aerodromes in the same way requires naval aviation, since after the first defeat of an aircraft carrier, it can no longer use it, and this network will be operated not only by fighters.

            You have some kind of Selyukov thinking that you can just take and move an aircraft carrier from Kamchatka to Sakhalin. But each escort ship for this trough will cost like an air regiment. => Having excluded the aircraft carrier along with its aviation and ships, which will only do what to follow, we will build several air regiments.

            This is even without taking into account the fact that from Kamchatka to Sakhalin the Su-35 will reach without refueling, and in fact the 23-IAP is now on a rotational basis on duty in the Kuril Islands, but there they have to wait for dormitories for pilots, for those personnel, for fuel and ammunition . All this on an aircraft carrier quickly ends.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 29 November 2018 15: 37
              +4
              Quote: EvilLion
              The network of aerodromes in the same way requires naval aviation, since after the first defeat of an aircraft carrier, it can no longer use it, and this network will be operated not only by fighters.

              After the departure of ship aviation to coastal airfields, the depth of defense will sharply decrease.
              Quote: EvilLion
              You have some kind of Selyukovsky thinking that you can just take and move the aircraft carrier from Kamchatka to Sakhalin.

              And what is stopping this? Why is it possible to move AB from Japan to the Bering Sea, but not from Kamchatka to Sakhalin?
              Quote: EvilLion
              That's just every guard ship for this trough will cost like an air regiment.

              And they still have to be built - otherwise who will provide the PLO on the lines in front of the "Bastions"?
              Quote: EvilLion
              Having excluded the aircraft carrier along with its aircraft and ships, which will only do what to follow him, we will build several aviation regiments.

              And push the ships to the shore. In the north, you can immediately forget about pushing the line of defense towards Svalbard and even Bear. And about the interception of SLCM carriers and the cover of our ICAPL in the front line, too.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 3 December 2018 09: 22
                0
                What are you stuck with your mythical "bastions"? Who will come to this "bastion"? Orion will fly in and explore hundreds of thousands of square kilometers? Well fly off and shoot down. He can't hang around there 24/7 either.

                In general, you speak exclusively with abstract terms, although fighter aircraft destroy everything that flies, but does nothing to submarines. It makes no sense for the destruction of single anti-submarine aircraft to fly there a whole regiment. Will ships come? They will be noticed for hundreds of kilometers. Enemy submarines? Well, so they go, in fact, the submarines do not care deeply and sincerely for all this PLO of yours, they turn the wildest feints even at enemy bases. And again, are you going to catch enemy submarines with deck fighters?

                It’s just that the argument about the constant presence in some bearish corners is absurd, if only because for a potential enemy this is also bearish angles and its aircraft cannot be there any significant time in large quantities.

                And yet, submarines with nuclear missiles are the most useless component of strategic nuclear forces in terms of the possibility of using them, since they still need to be reached. "Topol-M" in the taiga is much faster, and in view of dispersal and mobility, ground complexes are practically indestructible. The saboteurs will break a dozen, it will not give anything to the enemy. Much safer than a submarine and a half at sea.

                In addition, now there is no technical possibility to have even one trough in a constantly combat-ready state, and there will not be in the next 30-50 years. => Any talks about the need for something there are meaningless, which means the emphasis on the Su-35 with the transition to 57 and "poplar" with "yars". Humanity would need to colonize space, otherwise in a billion years on Earth it will suck, that's just useless to talk about it, before finding physical. capabilities.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 29 November 2018 09: 26
        -2
        And yes, the MiG-29 is not intended for any kind of constant patrol from the word at all. The Su-27 did not initially have a PTB, with its range it does not really need it, but the Su-35 PTB can be suspended. The main problem with remote patrols is that you still need to fly to the point and return from the point. The duration of the patrol is determined by the remaining minus the fuel back and forth, therefore, to maximize the effectiveness of the patrol you need to stay at the point for as long as possible. And if we, say, on a Su-27 with weapons fly on 3000 km of them 1000 forward, another 1000 back, then we will fly 1000 cutting circles on duty, if we increase the range by 500 km, then we will fly non-1000 on duty, and 1500 km. The growth is one and a half times, and therefore the decrease in the required number of cars is one and a half times.

        And the document that "someone saw" is called "we have such devices, but we will not show them to you!" Well, or as in that joke "well, you also say."
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 10: 27
          +4
          Quote: EvilLion
          And the document that "someone saw" is called "we have such devices, but we will not show them to you!"

          Come on! This is a comprehensive research project "Order", dedicated to the prospects for the development of ships with aircraft weapons. Its main conclusions were formulated in the 1972 year and boiled down to the following:
          1) Aviation support for the Navy is of paramount, urgent task, since it involves the development of naval strategic nuclear forces; without air cover under the conditions of the domination of anti-submarine aviation of a potential enemy, we will not be able to ensure not only the combat stability, but also the deployment of our submarines with both ballistic missiles and multi-purpose, which are the main striking force of the Navy;
          2) Without fighter cover, successful operations of the sea-based missile, reconnaissance and anti-submarine coast-based aviation — the second most important strike component of the Navy;
          3) Without a fighter cover, more or less acceptable combat stability of large ships is impossible.
          The deployment of powerful ground-based fighter naval aviation was considered as an alternative, but it turned out that in order to provide air cover even in the coastal zone, to a depth of 200-300 km, it would require such an increase in the fleet and its base structure in addition to the existing one, that their cost will exceed all conceivable limits.
          And all this is with Cousin and Nikolsky
          1. timokhin-aa
            29 November 2018 10: 36
            +2
            The calculations mentioned were not in the "Order", the "Order" was before. It was just that the conclusions of the Order were clarified in current prices and based on promising aircraft models.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 10: 47
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              It’s just that the conclusions of the Order were clarified at current prices and based on promising aircraft models.

              Ah, clear :) I don’t know about the new calculations, but common sense suggests that the main provisions of the Order are still relevant
              1. timokhin-aa
                29 November 2018 14: 08
                +1
                Well yes. Little has changed since then.

                Maxim Klimov read this work, sort of. You can ask him if there are any contacts.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 14: 43
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Maxim Klimov read this work, sort of. You can ask him if there are any contacts.

                  No, I do not have
          2. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 50
            0
            -3) Without fighter cover, more or less acceptable combat stability of large ships is impossible .-

            This was obvious in the late 30s of the last century. When no one had heard of Kuzin and Nikolsky.
          3. Alex_59
            Alex_59 29 November 2018 11: 16
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The deployment of powerful ground-based fighter naval aviation was considered as an alternative, but it turned out that in order to provide air cover even in the coastal zone, to a depth of 200-300 km, it would require such an increase in the fleet and its base structure in addition to the existing one, that their cost will exceed all conceivable limits.

            Nevertheless, I dare to question the adequacy of these calculations. (Just to question - I cannot say that they are false.) Why?
            Firstly, I’m not sure of the validity of the evaluation criteria. To cover the SSBNs, you do not need to constantly hang over them an entire regiment in 24 \ 7 mode. Secondly, if several regiments of fighter jets are too expensive to cover defense objects, then why will the same few regiments landed on floating airfields be cheaper? In the first case, the aircraft carrier was not and it is expensive, in the second it is and it is not expensive. Strange ...
            I do not claim that aircraft carriers are absolutely unnecessary, but I suppose that the argument in support of the need to have them should be more weighty. So far, the feeling that supporters of aircraft carriers have pulled arguments for the desired result by my ears does not leave me. Something like: we want to be healthy, let's buy a fitness center for ourselves, although obviously we just need to stop eating anything at night and start running in the mornings, and not buy a fitness center.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 11: 58
              +3
              Quote: Alex_59
              To cover the SSBNs, you do not need to constantly hang over them an entire regiment in 24 \ 7 mode. Secondly, if several regiments of fighter jets are too expensive to cover defense objects, then why will the same few regiments landed on floating airfields be cheaper? In the first case, the aircraft carrier was not and it is expensive, in the second it is and it is not expensive.

              because in order to cover targets distant at sea, one regiment on AB = from 3 to 16 land regiments
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 29 November 2018 12: 31
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                because in order to cover targets distant at sea, one regiment on AB = from 3 to 16 land regiments

                Too gross to be true. All covered objects will be crammed under one combat-ready aircraft carrier? Then for the enemy, the task of finding guarded objects is reduced to the task of finding our AW, and the task of eliminating them - to the task of destroying our AW. Or is our AV covering the area? If it is an area, then it is not a fact that the lines of defense of the IA with AB will be closer than the lines of defense of the IA from the coast. The aircraft from the shore does not need to hang at the far line of the defended water area continuously, why reduce the calculations to such a primitive? And I very much doubt that our AB can survive to the west of the Spitsbergen-Bear line, if the enemy really sets out to break into the "bastion". And to the east of this line, the coastal aviation provides an acceptable flight time from the "watch at the airfield" position. The aircraft carrier can, of course, enhance its action from the east of the specified line, but its actions will in any case be supported from the shore - without this the end will be quick and tragic. That is, to defend the "bastion", the presence of powerful coastal aviation is a prerequisite, and the presence of an aircraft carrier is desirable, but not critical.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 13: 03
                  +4
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Too rude to be true.

                  This is not rude, but depending on the removal of the aviation patrol area
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Then, for the enemy, the task of finding protected objects is reduced to the task of finding our AB, and the task of eliminating them is the task of destroying our AB

                  Found it. What's next?
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  and the task of eliminating them is the task of destroying our AB.

                  Eliminated. Then they raised patrol aircraft, started searching for the SSBN ... Why? The US is already on fire. The point is not that the AB is capable of providing invulnerability to the SSBNs for a long time, but that it is able to cover them for a period sufficient for the use of weapons.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  If the area, then it is not a fact that the lines of defense of IA with AB will be closer than the lines of defense of IA from the shore.

                  Take a look at the SSBN deployment map. The Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Barents. Can you show where the coastal IA is closer? :))))))
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  IA from the shore does not need to hang on the far line of the defended area continuously, why reduce the calculations to such a primitive?

                  Because at the hour "H" enemy PLO aircraft are flying over us, they must be displaced and ready to be destroyed within the minimum time after the command to start hostilities. There will be no time to take off from land airfields
                  So this is not a primitive, but a harsh reality.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  And I very much doubt that our AB can survive to the west of the Spitsbergen-Bear line, if the enemy really sets out to break into the "bastion".

                  Will not survive. But while he is alive, they will not reach the SSBN, and then it will be too late.
          4. EvilLion
            EvilLion 29 November 2018 13: 41
            -2
            In the 1972 year, there was still no miraculous Su-27, which pushed back cover lines several hundred kilometers from the coast compared to what the USSR had in the Air Force at the start of the 1970s.

            The very same formulation "ensuring combat stability" cannot be considered in principle, because it does not describe any conditions in which the aforementioned ships should "be stable". In the Mediterranean, for example, they can be attacked by ground aircraft at any point and the presence or absence of an aircraft carrier will not greatly affect here. You won't even have time to lift all the fighters from it if fifty F-16s fly at you at once. And in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the presence or absence of an aircraft carrier will mean the presence or absence of aviation at all, and, of course, the grouping with the aircraft carrier will see further, in fact, squeeze the enemy into one heap under the umbrella of the ship's air defense systems, and have complete freedom to impose a battle.

            So where to go to fight? Off the coast of Syria, in the inland Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Landing in the Philippines?

            And admirals, of course, need to justify their usefulness. The military always wants a Death Star, or at least a bigger battleship.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2018 14: 49
              +2
              Quote: EvilLion
              In the 1972 year, there was still no miraculous Su-27, which pushed back cover lines several hundred kilometers from the coast compared to what the USSR had in the Air Force at the start of the 1970s.

              Do you think that R&D developers are alternatively gifted, who did not take into account promising equipment? Sadly
              Quote: EvilLion
              The very same formulation "ensuring combat stability" cannot be considered in principle, because it does not describe any conditions in which the aforementioned ships should "be stable".

              The author of the article postulated all this - the Barents Sea, a cover for the deployment of the SSBN. What other conditions are needed? Say i will complement
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 3 December 2018 09: 34
                0
                As for alternative endowments, often those who are engaged in research and development do not give a damn how much the developed object will cost, and what real benefits it will bring. I observe something similar now in my factory when the introduction of a certain system is an action of unobvious expediency, simply because the problem being solved is too small. Sometimes developers really don’t understand what they are doing. Or they just do not care, they want to receive a salary, as the Nikolaev shipbuilders, who require ukrovlasti, so she ordered the ships from them. Naive.

                For example, the Shuttle program ended with nothing, most likely, the Buran would have ended in the same way, but it was closed earlier and now you can lament about it as a Tu-334. You can even enter such a class of projects "closed before being dishonored".

                Very expensive zilch, for which pi Stalin would initiate a case, and it is very likely that the Yak-38 and the carriers for it became the main bombers and dispersed the design bureau.

                Of modern projects, this is the BMPT with which 30 has been running for years, as with a written bag, but no one takes it, well, we don’t need an army tank with 30 mm cannons, it has such rubbish as dirt.
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 55
          -1
          -On the Su-35 PTB can be suspended-

          It will be necessary for the heap of PTB to equip an additional room with an appropriate alarm and irrigation system, which will sharply increase the price of the ship.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 10: 29
      -2
      not cut and sold to India or China, there he will at least have his own tasks,
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 12: 32
      -2
      destroyers are not needed, and they will not be, there will be five frigates on the ocean fleet to drive the Papuans away, and poachers, and on the seas we’ll do it in karakurt
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 29 November 2018 09: 35
    0
    It is not clear why Russia is so tormented with the reanimation of the outdated Kuznetsov.
    It is much simpler to order an UDC with an extended deck in China (they rive in exchange for oil for a couple of years, there the shipyards are like Ford conveyors). Mount the ski jump on the nose. All. fellow
    I forgot about the aerofinisher.
    Aircraft carrier for - almost - a penny.
    And do not place any missiles on it. Let him go constantly with a pair of air defense frigates. But they fill the missiles to the eyeballs.
    1. fighter angel
      fighter angel 29 November 2018 09: 43
      -2
      Dear voyaka uh, who from the promised land, we’ll somehow figure it out for ourselves, okay?
      With your advice / projects, you would go to your IDF ... Maybe they will appreciate you ...
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 03
        +2
        Vaterland helps them solve the problems of naval construction. Moreover, almost for free. For the Russian Navy, such conditions can appear only in a dream of the Russian Navy.
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 02
      +3
      -Much easier to order in China UDC with an extended deck -

      In this case, ships will also have to be ordered. A court supporting this aircraft carrier. Because Russian ships build ships that are simpler and structurally more expensive and unacceptably long.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 29 November 2018 10: 40
        +1
        This is also possible. And there is nothing to put off and be shy.
        The reality is that China is ahead of Russia.
        It is enough to have one "combat training" AUG in Russia to train naval pilots and sailors and maintain a combat level. And "show the flag" in distant seas will not be ashamed.
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 48
          0
          The reality is that China is ahead of Russia.

          The CPC Central Committee has a whole list of territorial claims against the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan. However much it would require not only financial fees, but also territorial concessions.

          pilots and sailors and maintain combat level-

          These pilots and sailors have yet to graduate for five years from the Navy Military Research Center and the Air Force Center in order to begin planning their basic training. The first full-fledged graduation from the Air Force Center was only a year ago, and from the Navy Military Center in 2018. To display the flag according to the Marine Doctrine six MAPL units, and there is only one k-560. With an unsatisfactory acoustic portrait.
    3. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 52
      0
      - no need to place any missiles on it. Let him go constantly with a pair of air defense frigates. -

      It’s not possible to bring one up to combat readiness according to the project. It’s good if they retrain it after 2020. And they promised to hand it over to the customer in February 2009.
    4. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 54
      0
      -And here they fill the missiles to the eyeballs .-

      If only to sacrifice other weapons. Due to the scanty amount. Even diesel submarines, leaving the ship without an anti-submarine complex is risky.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 29 November 2018 10: 59
        +1
        It is possible to add frigate PLO ...
        I repeat that, in principle, it is important to keep one combat training light aircraft carrier, so as not to be completely away from the topic. And it is important that this one is new, not obsolete, constantly under repair.
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 29 November 2018 11: 06
          +1
          -And it is important that this one is new, and not outdated, constantly under repair .-

          If ship-repairing enterprises were close in level to Finnish or South Korean, they would maintain the outdated one promptly and to a high degree of technical readiness. With wretched equipment. And with a constant shortage of workers, even the latest TAVKR will be turned into a trough.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 12: 59
          -2
          Yes, an interesting topic, about the need to be on the topic in order not to lose flight technology ... but if AB is not needed, then technologies are not needed, and you can imagine how much such a miracle costs, and even new ..... 520 officers - 364000000 rubles per month, 322 midshipmen - 14490000000 billion rubles a month, of sailors, some of them are contract soldiers 1138, Do you know how much food costs 2000 people a day? outfit. Fuel? 30000 liters per hour! ... and all for the sake of saving the technology of carrier-based aviation! 24 airplanes .... isn't it a little expensive, maybe a ground-based airbase is better, or a motorized rifle division is better, at least defense
          1. timokhin-aa
            29 November 2018 14: 10
            +5
            better motorized rifle division, from them at least use the defense


            especially in defense against enemy navy
    5. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 12: 37
      -2
      but it’s better to buy it at a department store, almost for a penny, mount everything you need there, wrap it in packaging, tie it up with silk ribbons, we are now quaified fighters ... it's simple, and the air defense frigates come up quickly, just say snip snaps snura, and money is born in banks .... cans
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 29 November 2018 12: 53
        +2
        "... it's simple, and air defense frigates" ///
        ----
        Not so easy. But difficulties should not be exaggerated. In modern design, modularity and open architecture are in fashion. It is quite realistic to buy only a ship’s hull with engines, and mount all your control systems and weapons.
        Israel does this with frigates and submarines purchased from Germany. Russia can in the same way buy from China only "body and chassis" smile
        If the engineers on both sides are intelligent, then the separation of the project is quick. Everything is now in computers, there are no paper drawings.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 20: 51
          -3
          before you buy something unnecessary, you need to sell something unnecessary
    6. Arthur 85
      Arthur 85 29 November 2018 22: 09
      -2
      A couple of months ago in another thread, I generally proposed a tough solution:
      To weld a barge of 400 m long from structural steel and a displacement of 300 thousand tons of commercials.
      Profit: you don’t need an aerofinisher and a catapult, you don’t need special planes with folding wings, you don’t need to “piece off” pilots - no one will fly past such a trough, you can take fuel and supplies like a circumnavigation, it will be more stable to pitching ... You can even Runway to book a little, in case of a particularly epic pilot, and PTP slap, and underwater boules.
      But how to move that barge, especially in conditions of non-delivery of engines? Again, take 100 tank (300 KAMAZ, 3000 from VAZ 2101) engines, put generators on the shaft, and make an electric transmission, like a diesel locomotive.
      It was, however, not appreciated.
      Here, however, they wrote that we have few combat-ready aircraft, this, of course, is an argument. To put 10% of aviation on an aircraft carrier is a waste ... And yet I don't understand what is it about those corvette diesels that they cannot be replaced with an engine from the Skoda suburban trailer? We have such people running around the Bryansk region.
      1. Mukronom
        Mukronom 1 December 2018 23: 14
        0
        Reliability of the ersatz engine for several hundred pots (even if they will be diesel) seeks round-the-clock repair.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 29 November 2018 10: 01
    +2
    There is a need for aircraft carriers. There is no way to build them, and ensure effective use, and trouble-free operation. A vivid example is the preparation for the last combat service of the Tavkr Kuznetsov, and the provision of this service with an early cheerful ending.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 10: 21
    0
    Despite the fact that he is a consistent adversary of aircraft carriers, the article has a rational grain, and Kuzyu does not need to be scrapped, even if it serves as a coastal AB, or sold, but not scrapped, expensive property. Timokhin is somewhat exaggerating that AB can dodge the enemy’s blows, even if you dodge then do not go out to sea. Therefore, citing a long history of the discussion of AB, and calculations of the fuel spent at sea onshore aviation, one should first of all take into account the survival of the ship at sea, and the AB will not survive at sea, it is very expensive pleasure the poorly protected jump ship, but still in the coastal aviation zone. The cost of fuel in battle is covered by the mronomic amounts of maintaining an aircraft carrier in peacetime (2500 personnel only), compared to the current costs of coastal aviation, this is a lot, and kerosene in wartime certainly had to find, since it’s not necessary to spend myron on time in thousands of tons to the ship. Moreover, dock repairs .... I will not talk about building a new price for half of the entire air defense of the country, or half of the entire strategic submarine fleet for the sake of which the fleet as such is generally needed. So it’s economically more feasible to rely on coastline forces. Already if it is very important to ensure the safety of the nuclear submarine’s exit, it’s more profitable to develop coastal assets by increasing their range and combat capabilities, front-line aviation of 3000 km, there is still long-range aviation, there are satellite-based means of assessing the situation. Missiles come in different ranges, so it’s quite possible to clear the Barents Sea from enemy surface and air assets even without aircraft and is much cheaper with less losses and more efficient. It turns out that the aircraft carrier jumps out, it launches airplanes and rather flies to the base. For there is nothing to cover it with and the global increase in the number of surface ships is not expected. On the ocean fleets, one cruiser and one very old EM, four BODs, in principle, this is what can be called ocean ships, replacing the BOD with frigates will not create an AOG capable of standing up to NATO, most likely the EM will be written off in the next 5-8 years, and the seats in the next 10-12 years will replace them with a couple of frigates, and the entire budget is not enough to create a NATO fleet, or a NATO army, only counting on nuclear weapons and an alliance with China ensures the security of the Russian Federation.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 10: 37
      +1
      By the way, Timmokhin, following some researchers commissioned by Gorshkov, who counted that in order to ensure safety, the aircraft must "continuously hang in the air over the sea" is mistaken, coastal-based aircraft fly an order of magnitude faster than NK, so they may well meet the enemy on a march to the Barents Sea when they approach, and there is no need for them to hang there always ... and even to look out the windows)))) to see the NATO AUG is also not necessary ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 November 2018 12: 29
        +3
        Quote: vladimir1155
        By the way, Timmokhin, following some researchers commissioned by Gorshkov, who counted that in order to ensure safety, aircraft must "continuously hang in the air over the sea" is mistaken, coastal-based aircraft fly an order of magnitude faster than NK, so they may well meet the enemy on a march to the Barents Sea when they approach

        And what - someone was going to fight at sea surface ships? I understand that the ashes of Tsushima knocks in our hearts? smile
        There will be no approach of surface ships. It's just that one fine moment on the screens of the A-50 radar (if the Air Force gives them to "someone else's uncle") a group of high-speed low-flying targets will be displayed. And at the coastal airfield, you will have to quickly raise the reserve in order to have time to strengthen the duty group advancing to the enemy's side, before this enemy reaches the launch range of the anti-ship missile system.
        Actually, the delta between the time of detection of enemy aircraft and the time of their exit is not the launch range and will determine the maximum possible distance of our ships from the coastal airfield. In the North, relying solely on coastal aviation, we will not be able to withdraw ships even to the Bear.

        And this I still do not consider the situation when the detected group turns out to be false targets under interference - and the real shock group is suitable when the reserve that has flown out on a fake call goes home for refueling.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Yes, and look out the windows)))), to see NATO AUG, too, do not ....

        And what's the point of seeing AUG? You need to see the rise of airplanes - in order to have time to raise your own.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 20: 54
          -3
          The opening was not a cover for the mythical NK, which by the way is absent in nature, but a cover for the submarine. But it takes a lot of time to search for nuclear submarines, so there is a reserve of time for the approach of coastal aviation and the destruction of enemy PLO aircraft and their protection
          1. timokhin-aa
            30 November 2018 10: 13
            +2
            According to the former Commander-in-Chief Vysotsky, the United States will spend no more than 48 hours searching for all submarines.
            As they do, I wrote already.
    2. max702
      max702 29 November 2018 11: 35
      -3
      The author has no understanding that we cannot resist the whole bourgeoisie by SYMMETRIC measures only asymmetric ! We are at least 10 times lagging in human and technological potential! Consequently, 3-4 will be put up against each of our AUGs, and the sense from this that we have AUG that we don’t! what result will this lead to? Plus a complete lack of understanding that the described confrontation in the article is similar to the science fiction Tomato Clancy .. What AUG what aviation regiments, launching hundreds of missiles, shooting down satellites, destroying airfields! What are you speaking about? This is all the beginning of the third world with the same end of civilization .. You forgive me, but we cannot illuminate the planes of the "partners" with the radar because the devil knows what this can lead to, but here such battles with the use of everything and everyone .. Why should we invest fantastic funds in extremely unlikely scenarios? The role of the fleet was perfectly illustrated by the last incident in the Kerch Strait .. The difference is that there was not an AUG, but ANY squalid trough! That in the event that the flag of the state will decide everything in this! Ruinda was well aware that from a military point of view she could not answer Russia in any way, just as the United States and its partners understand this, because the great equalizer of nuclear weapons is available .. Proof of this is the peaceful sky over our heads .. There will be no such large-scale conflicts, small YES, but for they are quite different forces and means, AUG is superfluous there !!
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 November 2018 15: 40
        +4
        Quote: max702
        The author has no understanding that we cannot resist the whole bourgeoisie with SYMMETRIC measures only asymmetric!

        Once we tried to do it. As a result, for the money spent on this asymmetry, it would be possible to build and maintain 7-8 carrier groups, with full-fledged ABs.
        1. max702
          max702 29 November 2018 15: 48
          -2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: max702
          The author has no understanding that we cannot resist the whole bourgeoisie with SYMMETRIC measures only asymmetric!

          Once we tried to do it. As a result, for the money spent on this asymmetry, it would be possible to build and maintain 7-8 carrier groups, with full-fledged ABs.

          Times and technologies have changed, today all this is very possible .. And most importantly, the goals and objectives for the Russian fleet have changed somewhat, they are different than for the USSR fleet ..
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 3 December 2018 09: 45
          0
          And the war did not happen => spent right. If it were wrong, the Americans would attack. They could not help but attack.
  • Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 29 November 2018 10: 55
    -2
    To plan the combat use of an aircraft carrier in the inland sea of ​​Russia - here I even find it difficult to assess the author's "strategic" vision:
    Its fighters will easily get our PLO aircraft in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, bypassing the affected areas of coastal air defense systems, slipping “below” the radar field of ground-based radars. And from the external, eastern side, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is a vulnerable water area. With an aircraft carrier fleet, any enemy will be able to concentrate superior forces against any military facility on the islands. It is necessary that behind the chain of islands there should be reinforcements capable of joining the battle immediately, within tens of minutes from the moment of the call. It is impossible to do this from coastal airfields of Primorye.

    Maybe under the pseudonym "Alexander Timokhin" the Ukrainian "expert" Vyacheslav Kovtun creates? This concept of "logic" is unknown.
    Information for the author: both the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet have the necessary outfit of forces and means to ensure combat stability of the SSBNs in patrol areas.
    I think that it’s logical before the discussion on the topic of need / not need aircraft carriers, it is advisable to consider the economic capabilities of the state and the production capabilities of its shipbuilding complex. And then we are building frigates for 10-12 years. How much will the aircraft carrier be built in the current state of the shipbuilding industry? Well, the aircraft carrier itself is only the beginning. We need aviation, a basing system (certainly with a crane on the pier, as the author specified), a repair and maintenance system, a grouping of cover / escort ships, etc., etc.
    By the way, I did not understand from the article, the author is for an aircraft carrier or TAVKR?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 November 2018 12: 31
      +7
      Quote: Army 2
      Information for the author: both the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet have the necessary outfit of forces and means to ensure combat stability of the SSBNs in patrol areas.

      Especially the Pacific Fleet - with its only combat-ready multi-purpose submarine.
      The Pacific Fleet in cash cannot even ensure the withdrawal of the SSBNs from the base due to the lack of modern TSh-IM in the fleet.
    2. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 14: 12
      +4
      FOR aircraft carrier.
      My assessment is simply a concise retelling of the opinion of our General Staff on this issue and the Navy Commander-in-Chief too.
    3. alstr
      alstr 29 November 2018 15: 32
      +2
      And the docks in which large ships can carry out scheduled and restoration repairs should be added to the basing system. And then the experience of 1905 taught us nothing (this is when we tried to push several ships into one dock for repair).
  • PPD
    PPD 29 November 2018 11: 07
    +5
    All this is great, but in general, what you are writing about from Kuznetsov is not.
    Intelligence is how? With Mig 29 visually? But there is no AWACS plane. There is only a helicopter. Erzats T.E.
    Give our submarine volley to produce, so it is also necessary to find the enemy, and how to do it?
    ETC. Themselves write that - "in the Pacific Fleet we have no URO ships left, there are almost no even small anti-submarine ships and minesweepers left." The picture of the future is emerging - without cruisers, practically without destroyers, with 10 river-sea MRKs and an aircraft carrier ...... It's sad, in general. crying
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 12: 14
      -5
      a particularly spectacular order of an aircraft carrier of three frigates, a pair of minesweepers and five karakurt, recruited from all over the ocean fleet ... Timokhin and his followers finally realized that there is no long-range operations for the ephemeral AUG and there is no such AUG and are trying to save the very vicious idea of ​​a large advance carrier fleet, like and near the coast will do ... well, at least some kind of benefit .... and at the same time throws mud at the patriots, for the usual common sense, but they stubbornly begin to express absolutely crazy ideas about "three five AUG". In the meantime, it turned out that all the nonsense about ships of large displacement is motivated by the fact that the "sailors" are afraid of pitching, and so much that they try to intimidate the experienced with pitching "we know," was said in one cartoon about such
      1. timokhin-aa
        30 November 2018 14: 21
        +1
        I am already aware that you are writing from an alternate reality, where all issues can be solved by a pair of rocket boats, where anti-submarine aircraft cannot detect submarines, etc. No need to repeat.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 3 December 2018 09: 48
          0
          In our reality, issues are being solved by hundreds of tactical fighters and launchers with null weapons. To AUG - it has nothing to do.
          1. timokhin-aa
            3 December 2018 10: 49
            0
            With one or two weapons, nothing is ever solved. Nobody and nowhere.
  • Angry
    Angry 29 November 2018 13: 20
    0
    Whatever it was, no matter how much we love or hate this class of ships, it is very much needed as a universal air platform. In the distant 20s, one Japanese admiral said this phrase: "A fleet without wings, this is a relic of the past." His name is Isoroku Yamamoto. How does this statement relate to our modern fleet? There is one combat training aircraft carrier and it will not be soon replaced. But with the development of helicopter technology, some of the typical tasks of aviation and basic aviation are now being solved by shipborne helicopters. Probably on each of the fleets it is useful to have an auxiliary / mobilization helicopter carrier from the composition of transport ships, similar to the British container ship Atlantic Conveyor. In peacetime, use them as training helicopters for PLO / amphibious / assault / rescue / AWACS helicopters, etc. And in difficult times, give him the necessary specialization. At first, at least two, one for the Black Sea Fleet and the other for the Pacific Fleet. It would also be nice to equip all BDK pr. 775 aft GDP .... Then this VVN (auxiliary helicopter carrier) could deliver troops from the BDK and to the coast and back. When we still wait for the avalanche ... and he doesn't need any weapons, anyway there will be some frigate nearby. It would be nice if its capacity was 8-10 helicopters. 4 Ka-52, 4 Ka-29, maybe 2 Ka 27PS ....
    1. timokhin-aa
      29 November 2018 14: 13
      +2
      You would be surprised if you knew what can be done on the basis of Ka-52K)))

      So let's say - you are right in many ways.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 November 2018 20: 58
      -3
      We do not need the Japanese of the beginning of the last century, as Suvorov used to say "their tactics are outdated and eaten by mice", it is not for us to learn from them.
      1. timokhin-aa
        30 November 2018 14: 21
        0
        Two on the way.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 3 December 2018 09: 50
          -1
          This is a horse. They are not aircraft carriers, but incomprehensible aircraft carrier destroyers on which there are no fighters.
          1. timokhin-aa
            3 December 2018 10: 50
            0
            You just do not follow the news. Yapi have already announced that F-35B will be bought and that the decks will be redone on both Izumo - a heat-resistant coating and springboards.
    3. PPD
      PPD 29 November 2018 23: 02
      +1
      So we do not mind. But when 11356 is cut due to lack of engines .......
      It seems that one can only dream of a balanced fleet.
      And yet, it seems to me all the fuss around Kuznetsov and other Krechetov- in perception.
      Well, he’s not an aircraft carrier! And if you consider it simply as a cruiser, which also has aviation on board, it’s a very cool friend. By analogy with the ships of 100 years ago, compare the cruiser Almaz (although it is light) and the hydro-air transport Nikolay 1. The difference is immediately noticeable. And if you compare Diamond with him, of course he will be weak.
  • Wildcat
    Wildcat 29 November 2018 14: 28
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    We must fight ignorance, Andrey

    Can not argue with that:)))) drinks

    Here, Gd give good authors health, money and more free time to write good articles!
    hi
  • Wildcat
    Wildcat 29 November 2018 14: 31
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    I do not hope there are people whom I can only beat with books on the head, but I usually ask them to essentially object.

    I have been explaining everything listed in the article (more precisely, not everything, I do not agree with something, but this is by and large uncritical) I have been explaining to people for more than a decade, but to the point ... However, of course, you still need to talk about it. This creates an informational background, which is also important, because when "we do not need aircraft carriers" rushes from everywhere, there must be an adequate response, and preferably of the same intensity

    So in order not to explain for ten years, maybe in the series of articles "The Russian Navy" FAQ make (and continue to publish this series, I really want repeat )?
    hi
  • Eremin AB
    Eremin AB 29 November 2018 15: 47
    +3
    The question is whether an aircraft carrier is needed or not, in principle, is not correct. Russia needs a strong fleet and a point. and this implies its entirety. And the ships of the URO and air defense and anti-aircraft defense and submarines and supplies and landing and coastal defense and boats and satellites and so on and so forth. in this, in my opinion, there should not be any disputes. and taking into account the specifics of our divided fleets, there should be a lot of this everywhere. They begin to talk about the closure of the Bosphorus for our ships. If there was a really strong Black Sea Fleet, no one would have spoken about it. and in this the author is right. aircraft carriers are needed and not one but also an escort for them both surface and underwater. Where can I get money for this? so it is necessary to ask on RBC forums. This is a military forum here about another they say.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 3 December 2018 09: 52
      0
      For the Bosphorus, Turkey can be loved in all holes directly from the Crimea. Half an hour flight across the sea.
  • Decimam
    Decimam 29 November 2018 16: 02
    +1
    "There is hardly an issue that causes the same heated debate as the need for Russia to have aircraft carriers "
    At the same time, as a rule, everyone forgets to discuss the question of whether Russia has the opportunity to have those in exactly the amount that will allow aircraft carriers to be of practical value.
  • Fox
    Fox 29 November 2018 20: 36
    -1
    However, one must understand that having an aircraft carrier or two is not even half the battle. We need ship regiments — at least two — to rotate air groups and compensate for combat losses. We need a basing point with a normal pier, with the supply of electricity, steam and fuel, with the entrance of vehicles and, possibly, a crane. Now this is not. And, most importantly, doctrines are needed. Testing flights for air reconnaissance, for combat patrolling, for sorting out flights to repel an air strike, by various compositions of battle groups, from a couple to the entire air group, day and night, to attack weakly protected surface targets, to escort bombers, to cover a missile salvo and to defend anti-aircraft aircraft. All these complex tasks should not cause difficulties, they should be worked out to automatism.


    But Admiral Kuznetsov before the war, Stalin said that the fleet needs 10 aircraft carriers ...
    With such theorists, there is no need for war: the country itself will be brought to grips! smile
  • Avior
    Avior 29 November 2018 21: 11
    -2
    The big question is, can an aircraft carrier actually operate in a combat situation without a catapult with horizontal take-off planes? or it will be the attraction "Russian Roulette", which was recently shown by Kuznetsov's exit in slightly winked combat situation?
    So far, there is no confirmation that an aircraft carrier of this type can actually act in any real combat conditions.
    The Chinese are also trying to get away from this, they are doing with a catapult, or at least they are trying.
    But how effective and costly is it for a single ship?
    Good to the French, they bought catapults from the Americans, and even then they have problems.
    I must say honestly, Russia cannot now build aircraft carriers either financially or technologically.
    The Soviet groundwork on this issue has been lost forever.
    But today there is still a Soviet backlog in aviation.
    The most natural will be the creation of a vertical entry aircraft, using Soviet backlogs in this area and new engines.
    This path is more real than creating a full-fledged aircraft carrier now, although it is not easy ..
    And to him, UDC 25-35 thousand tons from the Chinese to order.
    This is a real opportunity in the foreseeable future to get a light aircraft carrier-universal ship for expeditionary purposes, protection of nuclear submarine deployment zones, and individual operations offshore.
    Everything else is castles in the air.
    Without an aircraft carrier ship, it makes no sense to depart from the coast now, and the main world trend for poor countries is UDC. Universalization began to rule the world, everything in the price increased greatly.
    And with the frigates, one of the few real solutions is cooperation with the Chinese. It’s easy to puff out your cheeks, only this will not change
    1. timokhin-aa
      30 November 2018 14: 22
      0
      The big question is, can an aircraft carrier actually operate in a combat situation without a catapult with horizontal take-off planes? or will it be the "Russian Roulette" attraction that Kuznetsov's recent entry into a slightly winked combat situation showed?
      So far, there is no confirmation that an aircraft carrier of this type can actually act in any real combat conditions.


      Falklands
      1. Avior
        Avior 30 November 2018 21: 30
        0
        Harriers were not horizontal takeoffs, but even vertical ones.
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 December 2018 10: 52
          0
          But they took off from springboards, if that. Without a catapult, with a run, one by one. So it makes no difference, the springboard aircraft carriers worked out quite well there.

          Well, if you don't like this example, the Kirsarj UDC air group bombed Yugoslavia and Libya. Vertical, from horizontal takeoff, without catapults (they are not there).
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 December 2018 09: 53
        0
        Where the verticals showed the total unsuitability.
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 December 2018 10: 53
          0
          Teach materiel.
  • Xazarin
    Xazarin 29 November 2018 23: 51
    +1
    I think most members of the forum agree that aircraft carriers are needed. And then a thought came to me for a glass of tea. After all, we can do as our ancestors did. WE CAN BUY Aircraft Carrier. And if in a country with a population of 140 million, at least 5 million are not indifferent, it turns out inexpensively. I am ready to quit smoking and transfer the saved 50t.r per year to the construction fund. Are there 4 more? We’ll collect the necessary amount for the year.
  • Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 30 November 2018 00: 08
    -1
    The Americans and their NATO allies who have a sufficient number (10 times more) modern multipurpose nuclear submarines will be able to "catch" our SSBNs even in our territorial waters, not to mention the Arctic. Nobody will withdraw strategic submarines there during a threatened period, it is very risky.
    The main threat to them is not aviation, but the aforementioned submarine attacking submarines, with which we have practically nothing to fight.
    And we have two bastions for patrolling SSBNs - this is the White Sea and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. In both cases, fighter aviation on the shore is sufficient to cover these areas from enemy anti-submarine aircraft.
  • Old26
    Old26 30 November 2018 00: 16
    +2
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    The author, tell me how it is planned to protect aircraft carriers from attacks of hypersonic missiles ... and where Russia can get so much money for the construction of several aircraft carriers ...

    Hypersonic missiles are not a panacea. In addition, it is worth remembering that the speeds developed by a hypersonic rocket at altitude and in dense layers of the atmosphere are fortunately not the same thing. Especially if the hypersound is motorless, like the "Dagger". But the second part of your question is yes. Where to get money. But the author basically just gives a retrospective of the situation. Aircraft carriers had to start building the day before yesterday. That, in principle, was started, but the collapse of the USSR prevented. Even the beginning of their construction at that time was already too late. And if the aircraft carrier program was carried out, which planned EMNIP a pair of aircraft carriers of the Kuznetsov type and 3 or 4 aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk type - maybe the question would not be so acute now
  • Eirik Krause
    Eirik Krause 30 November 2018 00: 41
    0
    “Will Anah threaten us with William of our Shakespeare?” We should build a nuclear-powered cruiser of a reinforced ice class for operations in the Arctic and Antarctic, in the ice, where they cannot get it!
    1. timokhin-aa
      30 November 2018 10: 16
      +2
      From the ice below it is easy to sink the submarine. Combat icebreaker - an oxymoron, he will not survive in this war.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 30 November 2018 18: 57
        -1
        And why do you take into account the time of approaching coastal aviation, but ignore the time of the rise of the air group from AB? These are 2 planes per minute at best, and in pairs flying to meet the enemy does not make sense: they will be shot down due to total numerical superiority.
        Is it possible to solve the tasks you indicated at the expense of ship's air defense, without aviation? What difference does Orion have to die: from an airplane or ship rocket? And the ship will be able (theoretically) at the same time to solve the missile defense tasks and fire at the AUG. Instead of building AB, dozens of destroyer frigates (the same in weight), arrange them 20-50 km from each other, and they will be able to block a large territory and support each other.
        1. timokhin-aa
          30 November 2018 20: 48
          +1
          Orion is enough not to fly into the control zone of the ship's air defense.

          Regarding the climb. Americans spend a minute on a catapult. That is, ideally - 4 aircraft per minute.
          We have springboards with three starting positions, with the right placement, we get almost the same thing. Three airplanes start in turn at intervals of 15-20 seconds, each time the next one rolls over to the start, and while the gas extractor rises, with the back of them the troika still fits. Then start and new.
          I think that with proper training, you can even overtake the Americans.
          But have to sweat.
  • Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 30 November 2018 23: 04
    0
    if they really "work" on surface ships, which, frankly, there are certain doubts), targeting requires target designation

    MCRC "Liana" is operating at 200% and plans to replenish the spacecraft group
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2018 19: 27
      0
      I remind you about such a rocket as SM-3
  • kuz363
    kuz363 1 December 2018 19: 47
    0
    Stretch your legs on clothes! If there is no money or they are spent inefficiently - what is the conversation?
  • tigoda
    tigoda 1 December 2018 23: 03
    0
    There is an old saying "if you want to ruin a country, give it an aircraft carrier". Confirmed by history after 1945 and the distribution of British aircraft carriers.
    Folding fairy tales about the "air defense aircraft carrier" have not been confirmed in any way by the history of World War II. None of the parties have ever used them for air defense only. The main task is shock, fighters to protect attack aircraft. The only way. And Britain, and Japan, and Australia, and the United States.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2018 19: 28
      0
      That's right, but their conditions were different. And the enemy is different. And DRLO systems were not. Nevertheless, an amendment to the epoch and technological level must be done.
  • tigoda
    tigoda 1 December 2018 23: 20
    -1
    One Tu-22M is capable of destroying AUG nuclear missiles twice. Aircraft carriers 12 pieces, Tu-22M has 62 pieces. Not enough for all AUGs !!!
    I am sure that the Amersky V-2 or V-1 is also capable of guaranteed drowning an aircraft carrier. Why produce targets? Or sailors and pilots do not mind?
    The anti-submarine Poseidons described by the author are parried even by the air defense of the MRK of the Karakurt project. Asymmetric, cheap and reliable. And no one will spend nuclear missiles on RTOs. And you are an aircraft carrier ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2018 19: 29
      +1
      Karakurt will be sunk from Poseidon with a hundred and fifty kilometers.
      We have less than forty Tu-22 airplanes "on the wing" and their number is falling, new ones are not being made. Etc.
  • Demagogue
    Demagogue 2 December 2018 21: 43
    -1
    It is very strange to read such articles on a military forum. The issues of confrontation with the United States or Japan are absolutely abstract for our country. It will not be this. We are a continental power, and they are marine. If only I could see examples from history.
    If we consider the WWII as an example, then Germany came back with just an insufficient number of submarines at the beginning of the war, and not aug. And later, the lack of the required number of naval aviation. And this is a classic conflict of a continental power against the sea. In WWI, how did a powerful surface fleet help Germany? No way. The situation in Russia is about the same. Need pl. Good and different. And the absence of augs needs to be replaced by the use of drones, we launch from pl, aircraft, satellites, etc. There is a prospect. And all the debate about whether the USA will overcome the US aug or not seems pointless. Aug are unlikely to go to storm the coast. Most likely there will be a remote blockade, and on the part of the Russian Federation, the fight against convoys and actions against ships providing the blockade. And here we need apl. Surface forces will not be able to fight aug at a great distance from the bases. And a dozen frigates with special warheads in calibers will be enough to demonstrate and crush the adversary.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2018 19: 31
      +1
      If only examples from the history looked.


      So watched. For 200 years - dozens of wars and only three did without the Navy. And the last but one with the Swedes is 99% maritime in general - if it hadn't been for the fleet, it would have been possible to capitulate, and in the requirements of the Swedes there was a return of Crimea to the Turks.
      You learn the history of something.
      1. Demagogue
        Demagogue 3 December 2018 22: 10
        -1
        Why dig so deep into history? A wonderful example of our time: the Falkland War. Argentines from the coast would destroy the aug of the British, had at least some effective means of destruction.
        When the war begins and it becomes clear that no one will use it (like chemical in WWII), then everything will return to square one. The Anglo-Saxons will block maritime trade, and Russia will have to struggle with their logistics to Europe. And all this will be for a long time, surprise-surprise, and exhaustion. And rivet to deal with convoys will have to quite possibly in a hurry cheap dizelyuhi.
      2. Demagogue
        Demagogue 3 December 2018 22: 18
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        If only examples from the history looked.


        And the penultimate one with the Swedes is, in general, 99% naval — if there hadn’t been a fleet, it would have been necessary to capitulate, and the Swedes had to return Crimea to the Turks.
        You learn the history of something.


        The Swedes will never fight with us more than once. And the USA will again clamp our fleet in the Gulf of Finland. And aug is not exactly required against Turkey if Crimea is already ours. You won’t drown him. Although it is not clear what we now share with the Turks. Plus, I didn’t write that the fleet is not needed. A fleet is needed, only adequate to the tasks.
        And examples antediluvian with the Swedes why here? In the last conflict with the Aug, the Argentines would melt the British, if they had at least 20 exosets.

    2. Beregovic_1
      Beregovic_1 19 January 2019 13: 32
      0
      In defense of the author, I will say that the aircraft carrier is needed not for war, but to ensure that it does not exist. A likely opponent also knows how to count, he also has a ruler and maps. Considering that without unacceptable damage the task cannot be completed, he will not turn up. And if he suddenly decides that he will manage to neutralize the SSBN before a retaliatory strike ... If we abandon a full-fledged fleet that can provide the deployment of a strategic nuclear forces, why even build strategists?
  • riwas
    riwas 5 December 2018 06: 29
    0
    The Mi-26 helicopter armed with cruise missiles and Daggers is suitable for coastal defense.
  • Cyrus
    Cyrus 6 December 2018 17: 15
    0
    Quote: bayard
    .
    I would love to talk about the prospects and types of aircraft carriers, carrier-based aircraft, but ... you just need to live another 2-3 years ... if they give us this ...

    That's it
  • Newone
    Newone 6 December 2018 19: 21
    0
    I wonder what tasks an aircraft carrier can help solve that coastal aviation, working with refueling in the air, could not solve?
  • Kuznetsov Fedor
    Kuznetsov Fedor 7 December 2018 00: 53
    0
    When yachts and golden toilets of the "elite" are more expensive than the entire Navy, it’s not so much about aircraft carriers, but one-off long-term construction frigates with a disposable Chinese g08nom instead of an engine. PS If someday in the PRB they begin to develop the Armed Forces in reality, and not in the words of Kiselev, then ideally you need at least 2 trampolines on the Northern Fleet and 2 catapult ones, at least the level of the old Arc-Royal, on the Pacific Fleet.
  • lelik613
    lelik613 7 December 2018 19: 45
    0
    First, build a dock to replace the drowned handsome. Let's talk then. "If a pig had wings, it would blow up the sky."
  • riwas
    riwas 14 January 2019 10: 12
    0
    Based on the money allocated for defense, the best coastal defense aircraft carrier will be the coastal airfield, which is now being done in Antarctica.
  • Pyctam
    Pyctam 12 February 2019 20: 32
    0
    Not a specialist, but as far as my memory serves me, anti-submarine aircraft are just not fast. They are overwhelmingly turbo-propellers, maximum turbojets, and most importantly relatively slow-moving, unlike fighter and bomber sea-based aircraft, which are all jet and supersonic ...
    And by this I conclude that the author drew a number of facts from the ears based on the lack of knowledge of readers and this was written solely in order to attract attention and remind myself ...
  • kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 20 February 2019 23: 29
    0
    That’s why Kuznetsov is needed as part of the Navy, that’s why it was built, and that’s what tasks he and his air group should work out

    Well, what can I say? - Blessed is he who believes, warmth in the world!
    The only ... and the probable opponent completely agrees with such a composition? Or - our admirals have their own war, but the adversaries have a different one. And God forbid, the enemy is something wrong .. well, not according to our plan, he will make it! Our naval commanders are flooding in anger with their chicken legs!
    It seems that until 1941, our naval fathers-commanders did nothing but prepare ships for naval artillery duels ... but the war came, so what? "We were not built for this, and we did the wrong tasks"?
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan 13 October 2019 15: 49
    0
    A very difficult question is what is more important than AB or ground forces and people's loyalty, for example. Why should the US storm the SF and Pacific Fleet if victory is possible only on earth. Isn’t it easier for them to simply go from Poland or from Ukraine?
  • ttt
    ttt 17 February 2020 15: 37
    0
    Just found this article.
    The tendency is completely wild.

    -It's time to say out loud - we can’t even protect the near sea zone, without aircraft-carrying ships and ship fighters.

    Maybe they don’t say such a thing. From Severomorsk to Spitsbergen a group of fighters flies for about an hour. What will she not be able to bear on this path all that is on water and above water? Why is there an aircraft carrier? Even Orion, with its slow speed, cannot hide. What to say about surface ships?

    How did the Germans defend their coastal waters perfectly without any aircraft carriers at all?

    -This will “sweep away” from the theater of operations all single ships, small naval groups without air cover, non-nuclear submarines in the above-water position, missile boats and patrol planes, forcing the enemy to “pull together” and maneuver only with large forces.

    Why won't coastal aviation do this? A lone aircraft carrier as a superweapon sweeping away everything? Is the enemy armless? He will not sweep a lone aircraft carrier on the theater from the coastal airfields of Norway, Iceland, and Scotland?

    -It is naive to think that an enemy with thousands of cruise missiles and SM-3 anti-aircraft missiles will make it possible to use behind-the-horizon radars and reconnaissance satellites

    But how can such a formidable adversary use a lone aircraft carrier several hundred kilometers off the coast of Norway?