Military Review

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. A little more about cruisers

197
In this series of articles, we described the state of affairs in the field of submarine shipbuilding, marine aviation, Coastal Forces, a unified state system for lighting surface and underwater conditions (EGSONPO). They touched mine-sweeping forces, "mosquito" fleet and other surface ships including missile cruisers. Have a great excursion into history design, construction and service of our only Kuznetsov TAVKR. However, we didn’t say anything about the prospects of the aircraft carrier component of our fleet either in the materials devoted to TAWR or in the article about domestic missile cruisers. In addition, some news regarding our RKR and nuclear destroyers of the project "Leader", which entailed the need for this article on domestic cruisers of all classes. So we will briefly repeat their description once again, adding additional data on their performance and latest news.


Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (TAVKR) project 1143.5 "Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" - 1 units.



Standard displacement (data in the sources differ) 45 900 - 46 540 t, full - 58 500 - 59 100 t., But in addition, the “largest” displacement is also referred to - 61 390 t. Speed ​​(theoretically) 29 knots. at the power of the boiler-turbine power plant 200 000 hp The course range at a speed of 18 knots should have been 8 000 miles. The autonomy of stocks, provisions and drinking water - 45 days. Armament - up to 50 airplanes and helicopters, 12 PKR "Granit", 192 Zur "Dagger", 8 ZRAK "Dirk" and 8 30-mm installations AK-630М, jet defense system "Udav". Crew size - 2 600 people, including 500 people. Air Group.

In detail, the features of this ship were considered by us in three cycles devoted to the deck aircraft of this ship, the history of its construction and service, and comparing it with NATO aircraft carriers (the last article, where there are links to all the previous ones), so here we will not repeat, but we will immediately turn to the prospects of this class of ships in the Russian Navy.

Our only TAVKR was commissioned in 1991, thus, in 2018, it turned 27 on. This is not too old for large ships intended for home-based horizontal take-off and landing aircraft. So, for example, the US nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise, being introduced into the fleet in 1961, left the system only in 2012, that is, it served the 51 year. Among non-nuclear aircraft carriers there are also long-livers. Take, for example, the Midway CV-41 — comparing its service life with the Kuznetsov TAVKR is all the more interesting because ships have similar sizes — the Midway's standard displacement was 47 219 T, the full one is 59 901 T. So, Midway became part of the US Navy in 1945 and was only decommissioned in 1992. Thus, its service life reached 47 years. The much smaller aircraft carrier Foch joined the French fleet in 1963, and left it only after 37 in years, in 2000. But that’s the story, it could be said, was just beginning, since the ship didn’t leave for recycling , and, as appropriate, repaired, was transferred to Brazil, in the fleet of which remained the next 17 years.

Of course, our domestic TAVKR operated in much more difficult conditions than the American or French aircraft carriers. The North is not a joke, and the quality of operation (especially during the 90-s and the beginning of the 2000-s) was extremely far from American standards. But still, when carrying out the appropriate repairs, Kuznetsov TAVKR is quite capable of serving at least 45 years, that is, at least until 2036, or maybe even more.

However, this, of course, does not mean that we have reason to give up on the TAVKR and postpone the decision to build a new ship of this type for another 10 years. And there are at least three reasons for this.

The first of these is that the aircraft carrier today is one of the most important factors providing cover for the deployment areas of our SSBNs - the marine component of the nuclear triad. The TAVKR carrier-based aviation is able to provide the best response time to attempts by NATO patrol aircraft to approach and enter these areas. But in its present form, TAVKR has rather limited possibilities of air and surface lighting. In fact, it can only rely on reconnaissance carried out with the help of its radio engineering complex and deck fighters, of which the Su-33 have a good range, but outdated avionics, and the MiG-29K is still limited in range. And in any case, the use of reconnaissance multifunctional fighters not only weakens the capabilities of TAWS, "pulling" combat aircraft to perform tasks not inherent to them, but does not provide the quality of reconnaissance that can be provided by the DRLO and EW deck aircraft. In other words, one of the most important functions of a modern aircraft carrier is informational, but here in this very question, the capabilities of a TAVKR “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” are very weak. And the absence of a catapult launch, unfortunately, does not allow to base on it aircraft capable of effectively controlling the sea and airspace.

The second reason is that, having only one aircraft carrier, it is almost impossible to conduct systematic training for deck aviation pilots. Yes, in the Russian Federation there is a very high-quality “simulator of air decks” NITKA, but it, with all its advantages (and if it is repaired, of course) cannot be replaced by an aircraft carrier. It provides only the initial training of pilots, making it easier for them to adapt to the deck and reduce the risk of accidents for them, but that’s basically all. And it turns out that any long-term repair of a ship leads to the loss of its wing, so that when returning to service TAVKR to restore its combat capability takes long months, resulting in periods of time in which TAVKR is really effective, are significantly reduced.



The third reason largely follows from the second. The aircraft carrier in peacetime has a value that is almost more than in the military, being an excellent political argument and a means of projecting power in areas remote from our borders. One can argue with this thesis for a long time, one can ignore it, but its truth does not change at all. One can argue for a long time that one or two TAVKRs are no match for the top ten American supercarriers, that our fleet is not capable of equal resistance to the US Navy even at our borders, let alone in remote areas. But even small forces can make a big difference by being deployed in the right place at the right time. So, for example, at the beginning of the 70 of the USSR Navy, it was also strongly inferior to the American, not to mention the combined power of the NATO fleets, and our detachment of ships in the Indian Ocean could not pose a particular threat to American forces. But, nevertheless, when the next Indo-Pakistani conflict began, the active support of the warships of the USSR brought us great political dividends. Vice Admiral V.S. Kruglyakov later recalled:

“Later, Attache A. Popov told me that when the American unit led by Enterprise appeared near India, the Indian Defense Minister asked him to connect with the USSR Minister of Defense and expressed concern about the presence of Americans. A.A. Grechko immediately invited the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to his office. The one on the map talked about the forces and actions. After that, Grechko handed over to the Minister of Defense of India through our attache Popov: “The Enterprise” is our business, and let the Indians do their own work. ”This, of course, was a great support for India. The consequences of such a noble step towards us were very favorable for us. authority in India has grown immensely. ”


Of course, someone can say that at that time, in the Indian Ocean, the Soviet Navy did a good deal without aircraft carriers, and, of course, he would be right. But keep in mind that a modern aircraft carrier with multifunctional fighters on board is able to exert power not only on the fleet of “potential friends”, but also on land, which is extremely important today. Therefore, it is highly desirable for the Russian Federation to be able at any time to form a detachment of ships (albeit very small) headed by TAVKR, including aircraft capable of operating as drums, and direct the resulting aircraft carrier multipurpose group to where its presence is necessary. But today, having only one TAVKR in the fleet, we cannot count on it - the likelihood is that the TAVKR itself will be under repair, or its wing will not be fully operational at the time of such circumstances. This, in fact, happened during the last campaign of Kuznetsov to Syria, when "out of the blue" two planes were lost. Not that the event was very out of the ordinary (the same Americans had accidents and worse), but this could have been avoided if we had a fully operational flight group.

In general, the construction of a second TAVKR would largely solve these problems and minimize the time when there is not a single aircraft carrier at the disposal of the Navy. And ideally (hardly achievable in today's economic situation), the RF should have had a fleet of 3 TAVKRs, of which one will be under repair, one - of combat, and one more - either in the process of restoring combat readiness after repair, or in combat-ready state . As a matter of fact, it was these considerations that were once used to justify the need for 6 of such ships in the fleet, which would ensure that at least one (and for most part of the time are two) fully operational TAVKRs in the Pacific Fleet and SF, but of course, today a fleet of such numbers looks perfect fiction.

In order to avoid talking about the extremely high cost of building an aircraft carrier: there is no reason to believe that the creation of a TAVKR is somehow overwhelming for the national budget. Here are a couple of numbers: 2014, the general director of Nevskoye PKB, Sergei Vlasov, estimated the cost of building an aircraft carrier (depending on the performance characteristics) in 100-250 billion rubles, and the maximum assessment of the implementation of an aircraft carrier program (the entire program, the aircraft carrier itself should it was to be much cheaper) in open sources estimated at 400 billion rubles. maximum. In terms of prices at the end of 2018, even 400 billion are converted into 559 billion rubles. As you know, HPV 2011-2027 provides for the allocation of 19 trillion. rub. The fleet share, according to some data, will make 3,8 trillion. rub. But these funds, of course, will be allocated not all at once in 2018, but during all the 10 years of the program. Assuming that inflation in the period 2018-2027. will remain at the level of 4% per year (2017% was officially 2,72, 2018 was officially 2,89% from January to November) and money to the fleet will be issued evenly, then 3,8 trillion. rub. in prices 2018 g will be approximately 3,16 trillion. rub. and financing half of the aircraft carrier program (and no one is going to finance it entirely in the HPN 2018-2027) will total 8,83% of the total fleet re-equipment costs, including the construction of the aircraft carrier (more precisely, half of it) - 5,5%. Once again we will pay attention - not the total cost of maintaining the fleet, but only those allocated for the purchase of new military equipment and maintaining it in combat readiness.

Nevertheless, the prospects for building an aircraft carrier today are very vague, and the Ministry of Defense continues to "keep the intrigue." Back in 2014, reports began to appear on the resumption of work on the electromagnetic catapult: it must be said that in the USSR these works advanced so far that the question of replacing the steam catapults on the Ulyanovsk under construction with electromagnetic ones was raised. It seems that the supporters of the construction of the Russian aircraft carrier should have been happy, but alas - the news was not accompanied by news of the development of aircraft that could start with these catapults.

Our admirals no longer speak of aircraft carriers as "weapons aggression ”, on the contrary, their necessity for a balanced fleet is mentioned. The construction of a ship of this class is said to be a settled matter. For example, Viktor Bursuk, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy for Armaments, said at the end of November 2017 that: "We will begin the creation of a new generation aircraft carrier in the second program period of the state armament program." And he clarified that the second program period is from 2023 to 2028. You can also recall the words of the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Yuri Borisov: "Speaking specifically about aircraft-carrying cruisers, then (their development and tab are scheduled for) the end of the program." Alas, such promises have been heard for more than a dozen years, and if they were all fulfilled, today Russia would have much more aircraft carriers than tanks.

In fact, for the time being, there is no clarity as to whether any work on this ship (at least preparatory) is included in the new LG of 2018-2027. True, TASS 16 of this year, citing an unnamed source in the military-industrial complex, said that: "USC was instructed to submit its revised proposals (for an aircraft carrier - TASS note) before the end of the year) to the Russian Defense Ministry. One of the options, in particular, involves the construction of an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 75 thousand tons. " At the same time, if a positive decision is made on one of these projects, then the technical design of the ship will begin in 2019 g, and the bookmark may take place in 2021-2022. The source also confirmed that in the HPV 2018-2027's. laid the "seed funding" program to create a new aircraft carrier.

It seems that an unnamed source fully confirms the words of B. Bursuka, but there is very little specifics: “if you like ... then ... maybe”, and the USC answered the direct question about aircraft carriers with silence, not confirming, but not disproving this information. Also completely unknown is the type of new aircraft carrier, and the wildest rumors are circulating - from the monstrous supercarrier “Storm” in the 90-100 thousand tonnes of displacement to the carrier of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft, the development of which allegedly will also be financed under the LG-2018-2027. . There is an opinion that the ship will still be atomic, but it is based on the fact that once the draft design of the battleship Yamato ... Sorry, the destroyer Leader was approved from the nuclear power plant, then the aircraft carrier will be built with it. But this is just a consideration based on logical analysis, not a hard fact.

Thus, it can turn out in a very different way. On the one hand, an aircraft carrier is a status thing, and our president loves status things, and this inspires some optimism. On the other hand, it can easily happen that in the period from 2018 to 2023. work on an aircraft carrier will not go beyond the scope of pre-sketch design, or even go out, but then either the LG will be revised, or the president will go on a well-deserved rest (VV Putin may not go on 5 term, as in 2024. he will be 72 of the year), and even what will happen in the country after the change of power in the Kremlin, even Nostradamus could not have predicted.

Heavy nuclear missile cruisers (TARKR) project 1144.2 - 3 units. (and 1 project 1144)



In the article devoted to missile cruisers, we already presented the characteristics of ships of this type, but still briefly recall the performance characteristics of the most modern TARKR Peter the Great: standard displacement 24 300 t, full - 26 190 t (according to other data - up to 28 000 t) , maximum speed 31 knots. with 140 000 horsepower, 14 000 miles on 30 knots. (limited by provisions stocks, as the cruiser is equipped with a nuclear power plant). Armament - 20 SIC "Granite", 94 heavy missiles (48 in the composition of the S-300F "Fort" and 46 in the composition of the S-300FM) 16 PU SAM "Dagger" (128 SAM), two-gun mount AK-130, 6 SPORT "Dirk", 10 * 533-mm TA (20 torpedoes or rocket-torpedoes "Waterfall"), 1 RBU-12000, 2 RBU-1000, 3 helicopter Ka-27. The crew consists of 744 people including 18 people. as part of the air group.

The remaining two ships differ slightly in displacement (presumably they are smaller by 200-300 t) and the composition of weapons. For example, on Admiral Nakhimov, the number of heavy missiles was not 94, but 96 missiles, since the ship was completed with two C-300F SAMs, moreover, instead of 12 “Daggers” launchers, 2 * 2 SAM systems “Osa-M” (40 launchers ). An even older “Admiral Lazarev”, in addition to the above, had 8 * 30-mm AK-630 rapid-response installations instead of 6. The Dirk “Dirk” and RBU-6000 instead of RBU-12000.

In contrast to the overwhelming majority of modern warships in general, and from all rocket-artillery ships, on TARKR, in addition to powerful weapons, there is also a constructive protection from the effects of enemy ammunition. Alas, the information about her is too scanty to get an idea of ​​what exactly and how much it protects. According to some data (possibly incomplete) armor reserved:

1. Launcher PKR "Granit" - walls 100 mm (below the waterline - 70 mm) roof - 70 mm;

2. ГКП and БИП - side walls 100 mm, traverses 75 mm, roof 75 mm;

3. Helicopter hangar, fuel storage, ammunition cellars - walls 70 mm, roof 50 mm.

In total, four TARKRs were part of the national fleet. At the same time, the head Kirov entered service in 1980 and left it relatively young - in 2002, after which it began to be prepared for recycling. Then, however, they came to their senses, returned to the fleet (the ship was in a state of disrepair, but still) and were going to modernize. Alas, as often happens, good intentions were not enough, and in 2015, the final decision was made to dispose of the cruiser.

The second and third TARKR - “Frunze” (later - “Admiral Lazarev”) and “Kalinin” (“Admiral Nakhimov”) were commissioned, respectively, in 1984 and 1988. Alas, in the era of “wild 90-x” money for their maintenance and timely repair was not found, and the ships stopped at berths. At the same time, “Admiral Lazarev”, closer to the 2000 years, was wanted to be completely utilized, and “Admiral Nakhimov” in 1999 g was formally sent for modernization, but in fact - in sludge. At about the same time (1998), it was finally possible to finish building the fourth TARKR, Peter the Great - that was the only representative of nuclear cruisers in the Russian Navy and the "calling card" of our Northern Fleet.


Submarine in the steppes of Ukraine, you say? (In fact, "Peter the Great" is the Suez Canal, but the photo angle is such that the channel itself is not visible)


In the first decade of the 2000-s, the status quo described above was preserved, but then the era of the HPVs of the 2011-2020 years came. The political need for large ships capable of displaying the flag and representing the interests of the Russian Federation in the oceans was realized very well, but the number of cruisers, destroyers and BOD capable of going to sea was reduced not by day but by hour. Therefore, it is not surprising that the question of modernization at that time of not so old TARKR was on the agenda. In spite of the fact that the return of all four TARKRs to the existing fleet was formally considered, the decision that the third ship of the Admiral Nakhimov series will be the first to be upgraded spoke of quite a lot. When in 2013 there were reports of a contract for the modernization of Admiral Nakhimov, it was also announced that repairs and modernization would take 5 years, and that Nakhimov would return to the existing fleet in 2018. However, by this time the fourth TARKR, “Peter the Great”, would have already served 20 years, and, obviously, would require serious repair, which would make sense to combine with the modernization in the image and likeness of “Admiral Nakhimov”.

Since it was decidedly impossible to imagine that the country would be able to simultaneously conduct a deep modernization of two TARKRs, it turned out that even if the five-year modernization period was strictly observed, work on Admiral Lazarev could be started no earlier than 2023. And this, right let's say, could not have much meaning.

The fact is that the weapons installed on the TARKR according to the initial project are rapidly becoming obsolete both morally and physically. The same Granit anti-ship missiles are still quite formidable weapons, but they haven’t been manufactured for a long time, and those that have remained in warehouses have by no means endless expiration dates. The S-300F SAM was very good in the last century and has not lost its relevance today, but nevertheless it is the analogue of the land S-300PMU-1, which is significantly inferior to the new, more modern modifications of the S-300, and the S-400 has already been adopted in service 2020 ... In other words, it does not make sense to engage in simple restoration of the TARKR technical readiness after the 64, without a radical renewal of the composition of weapons. And to modernize it according to the Nakhimov type (with the installation of at least 80, and most likely 300 launchers for missiles of the Onyx, Caliber, Zircon families, the modernization of the S-2012F and the replacement of Daggers with Polyment- Redoubt ”) will be very expensive. The cost of upgrading Nakhimov was announced in 50 in the amount of 885 billion rubles, and this amount exceeded (not much, but nonetheless) the cost of building the newest nuclear submarine of the XNUMXM project Yasen-M.

So, if we evaluate on the scale of “cost / efficiency in a spherical vacuum,” then, instead of modernizing TARKR, it would be better to build nuclear submarines - if only because “Admiral Nakhimov” and “Peter the Great” will serve after the passage of years of 20-25, hardly more, but the same "Ash-M" may well "depart" under water years of 40. But we must understand that the fleet requires not only submarines, but also surface ships - carriers of long-range anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles and powerful means of electronic reconnaissance. Thus, within the framework of the concept of a balanced fleet and in conditions of an extreme shortage of surface ships of the 1 rank, the modernization of two or three TARKR still seemed quite a reasonable decision.

However, according to recent data, the modernization of "Nakhimov" "left" right up to 2022 r - this "good news" was reported by the company's general director Mikhail Budnichenko at the Army-2018 forum. Thus, instead of the original 5 years, the cruiser will be upgraded for at least 9 - from 2013 to 2022. And even if shipbuilders, having “filled their hands” on Nakhimov, will be able to modernize Peter the Great in 6-7 years, in this case, the opportunity to start Lazarev will appear no earlier than 2028-2029, and By this time, his age will reach 44-45 years! Of course, there are advantages to the fact that the overwhelming part of this time the ship was preserved, but even if its modernization is technically possible (the hull does not collapse during the dismantling of old weapons), then there will be no point in it anymore.

This means that the information about maintaining “Admiral Lazarev” in a more or less good condition (2014 d dock repair) does not indicate that the ship will ever return to service, but only to prevent it from being flooded before the start of disposal ( which in itself is not a simple matter, requiring a separate project and a lot of money). Today, unfortunately, there are no other options left for Lazarev.

Missile cruisers (RKR) project 1164 - 3 units.



Displacement (standard / full) 9 300 / 11 300 t., Speed ​​- 32 kn., Armament: 16 RCC "Basalt", 8 * 8 ZRK C-300F "Fort" (64 ZR), 2 * 2 -MA ”(48 ZUR), 1 * 2 130-mm AK-130, 6 30-mm AK-630, 2 * 5 533 torpedo tubes, 2 RBU-6000, hangar for Ka-27 helicopter.

In the previous article on missile cruisers, we expressed confidence that with proper care, all ships of this type would remain in service until their 45 anniversary. Considering the fact that Moscow "joined the fleet in 1983," Marshal Ustinov "- in 1986, and" Varyag "- in 1989, we assumed that these cruisers would plow the sea to 2028, 2031 and 2034. respectively. Alas, the latest news suggests that our forecasts turned out to be overly optimistic.

The first thing that needs to be said is that the equipment of the ships transferred to the fleet in the 80s of the last century is obviously outdated and does not meet today's requirements of naval combat. Accordingly, the RNR of the 1164 project in order to maintain combat capability requires a most serious modernization - and not to change the C-300F to "Redoubts", and "Volcanoes" to "Caliber" (they and the Vulkan anti-ship missiles will not find it so much), and to replace radar and radio equipment, communications, EW, etc. So, today, only Marshal Ustinov has undergone such modernization - and it is not too surprising that it lasted for five years (2011-2016).



The oldest of the three "Atlants", as the RNR of the 1164 project is called, the cruiser "Moscow" is now in very poor condition, with almost no speed. In an amicable way, the ship needs modernization in the volumes received by Marshal Ustinov, but a hitch came out.

The fact is that such modernization can be carried out only in the north, Moscow cannot get there by its own power, and nobody wants to tow it from the Black Sea in half the world. Of course, you can take and "patch up" the ship at the Sevastopol SRZ, returning his turn, which takes time from six months to a year, and a lot of money, since the 13-th SRH is simply not ready for such large-scale repairs for it - you will have to bring it to mind factory itself, and, of course, all this will cost more, and then still go to the "star", and ... what? If even a cruiser can arrive there in 2019, and its modernization will take, by analogy with Marshal Ustinov, 5 years, it turns out that he will finish it in 2024 g when he turns 41 year!

In general, the conduct of large-scale modernization of "Moscow" is a big question. And most likely things will be like this - the restoration of the technical readiness of “Moscow” at the Crimean enterprises will drag on for three years, after which it will be meaningless to talk about some kind of modernization, and they will pay for the ship moderately, that is, very soon it will require repair again. And either all this will turn into the next “repair epopee”, from which the ship will go to the scrap, or else it immediately, without torturing before dying, will be let into needles. Moreover, the other and newer cruiser of this project, the Varyag, is in dire need of modernization under the Marshal Ustinov scheme today.

Thus, if in the 2015 year we had 7 missile cruisers, of which TARKR (Kirov) had already decided to dispose, another 1 TARKR (Lazarev) was in a sludge, one TARKR (Nakhimov) and one RKR (“Marshal Ustinov”) were being repaired, and three missile cruisers — TARKR Peter the Great, Varyag, and Moscow — were in combat service, then the situation began to deteriorate as early as 2016 g - Ustinov went out of repair, but Here "Moscow", already practically incapable, did not get up for repairs. And now the fate of "Moscow" is not defined, "Varyag", in an amicable way, must be put on modernization, and it is very likely that only one of the 3 RRC project 1164 will remain in the lineup. And with the TARKR the situation will not improve, since as the Admiral Nakhimov is commissioned, the Peter the Great will immediately be upgraded, that is, we, as before, will have only one TARKR as part of the active fleet. That is, the situation is quite real, in which, formally having 6 missile cruisers (the Kirov should not be counted), we will have instead of three only two such ships in service.

But in fact, even worse options are possible. For example, in the news it was repeatedly said about the desire of our admirals to put "Peter the Great" on repairs even before Admiral Nakhimov came out of it - in 2020. This idea as a whole seemed to make sense, because, generally speaking, repair of "Peter the Great" oh how needed and they were going to start no later than 2018, when, according to initial estimates, "Nakhimov" was to return to the fleet. However, the timing of its transfer to the fleet left first before 2020-2021. - even in this case, the production of "Peter the Great" in 2020 would still make sense, because he could conduct much of the preparatory work for the repair in parallel with the finishing of "Nakhimov". But now the output of "Admiral Nakhimov" was transferred to 2022 g, and maybe further ... Will Peter the Great be able to serve before this date? Or is his technical condition such that he will be laid up in 2020 g no matter how long the modernization of Admiral Nakhimov will last? And then for several years in the structure of our fleet there will not be a single TARKR, and taking into account that Moscow will also be under repair, we will have exactly 4 2 cruisers on the 1164 fleet - all the other atomic and the only aircraft carrier will be stand in repairs or in sludge.

It may also happen that “Moscow” will go into long-term repair, and Varyag will not find money for a deep modernization (especially since in the situation described above, it will also be sent to upgrade it, reducing the number of cruisers in the fleet to only one). “Marshal Ustinov.” The scenario described above is good at least in the fact that with a general reduction in the number of our missile cruisers, we will still have four deeply modernized and fully combat-ready ships — the two TARKRs (Peter the Great and Admir l Nakhimov "and two RKRs (" Marshal Ustinov "and" Varyag "), although the last two will be close to the deadlines. But if there is no money for the" Varyag ", then with the same amount one of our ships as part of the fleet will be a museum rarity with radio-electronic systems half a century ago.

By the way, according to the latest data, they still undertook to repair "Moscow" in Sevastopol ... As for the money, it should be understood that the death of the floating dock PD-50 punched a huge hole in our military budget - this building was extremely necessary for the repair of ships of all classes (Often, several ships were driven there at the same time!) and now, left without this grand engineering structure, we will need to somehow compensate for its absence. This, of course, cannot but affect our other shipbuilding and ship repair plans.

As for the new ships of the class "missile cruiser", today destroyers of the type "Leader" appear as such. It is assumed that ships of this type will have a displacement occupying an intermediate position between the TARKR and RKR of the 1164 project, and in terms of the composition of their weapons they will only slightly concede to the modernized Nakhimov. According to recent news, the Russian Defense Ministry finally decided on the type of power plants for these ships - they will be nuclear.

By and large, the creation of such ships for the domestic fleet looks extremely dubious event, since the construction of a series of such "Yamato battleships" is quite comparable in cost to the implementation of the aircraft carrier program, while their combat effectiveness will be significantly less. Therefore, information that the creation of a technical project has been postponed to 2019-2022, after which the first ship of this type can be laid out ... Let's say that if our designers were now working hard on the 22350M project, which is the transformation of a frigate 22350 into a full-fledged 8 000 destroyer with a full displacement or even more, the news about the next shift to the right along the "Leaders" could only please. Building a series of ships on the project 22350M looks much more efficient investment, and much more useful fleet than a few "Leaders". However, according to recent data, all the rumors about 22350M remain rumors, the order for the development of this ship has not been heard, and the “Leaders” remain the only surface ships of 1 rank for which some work is being done. And although it can be stated with confidence that the destroyer program of the type “Leader” will end in a fiasco (the ship’s 2-3 will turn into an epic and extremely expensive unfinished), but ... We don’t seem to expect anything else.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future
Russian Navy. A sad look to the future (part of 2)
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 3. "Ash" and "Husky"
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 4. "Halibut" and "Lada"
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 5. Specialty boats and this weird EGSONPO
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 6. Corvettes
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 7. Small rocket
Russian Navy. A sad look into the future: a mine-catastrophe
Russian Navy. A sad look into the future: domestic destroyers
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Frigates
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Missile cruisers
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Coastal troops
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Marines
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Coastal troops. findings
197 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 6 December 2018 05: 26
    +8
    A little more, and from the Russian cruisers there will be pictures, and a bunch of wonderful memories. From the destroyers too. crying


    - The Leaders remain the only rank 1 surface ships on which some work is definitely being done.

    On paper and in promises.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 6 December 2018 13: 26
      +6
      the Russian Navy is a pale shadow of the USSR Navy .... alas ... and I don't see any prospects, but I've heard enough talkers .... here's Kuznetsov, I think it's already questionable ... they've been thinking for too long what to do after an accident with the dock ... is there no reason to write off the problem ship? what kind of "leaders and storms" are there.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 6 December 2018 23: 17
        +1
        -fleet of Russia- pale shadow of the Navy of the USSR ....-

        The USSR was forced to send ships and ships for repair to Poland, Bulgaria, Greece, Finland, Yugoslavia. They ordered ships for the OVS and GA in Finland, Poland, the German Democratic Republic, Yugoslavia. The technical and operational ship repair capabilities were also reduced significantly.
      2. Kawado
        Kawado 5 February 2019 17: 38
        0
        Russian fleet- pale shadow of the USSR Navy .... alas

        The USSR Navy was inflated ... Such a huge Fleet is not needed by Russia, the tasks now are different and fewer.
        We need a small but effective Fleet capable of completing combat missions.
        I do not see any prospects, but have heard enough of the talkers ...

        There are prospects. Now they make good ships, it is far from the USSR, but too much has been destroyed since then. Big ships will be built gradually (if by that time they will still be needed of course). Since armaments are being actively developed now, the range of missiles is significantly increasing, air defense and electronic warfare are developing ... It is quite possible it will not be necessary to build such huge ships if small frigates are able to complete their tasks, because the cost of several frigates is less than the cost of one TARKR, both in construction and in operation.
        here is "Kuznetsov", I think it is already questionable ... they have been thinking too long what to do after the accident with the dock ...

        Hardly in doubt. First, you need a dock, and secondly Kuznetsov himself. Therefore, both this and that will most likely be done. In addition, Kuznetsov is far from a problem ship and quite modern.
  2. Conductor
    Conductor 6 December 2018 05: 32
    +5
    Assessment of construction in 100 - 250 yards of rubles !!! Nothing for yourself so price spacing !!!!!
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 6 December 2018 05: 55
      +1
      Professionals, economists do not exchange trifles. wassatPacing, so pacing!
      1. bayard
        bayard 6 December 2018 15: 53
        +5
        G. Donetsk.
        The range of prices is due to different types of possible aircraft carriers - from "average" 40 tons to a price of 000 billion rubles. , with a "super" of 100 tons in 100 billion, respectively + development, preparation of production, equipment, coastal infrastructure, aircraft wing ... Expensive pleasure ... But necessary - air defense aircraft carriers are needed both in the north and in the Pacific Fleet. The question is which type to choose. If only for air defense, then the "Vikramaditya type" with an air wing of 000 fighters will be sufficient, and the A-250M \ A24 will provide coverage from the shore. And the price of this is just around $ 50 billion. rub.
        And if you use the reserve (and it will be used) of the future icebreakers "Leader" (NPU), then it is necessary to build a multipurpose AV type "Storm" ... or at least 75 tons. With a catapult, AWACS aircraft, percussion functions and the ability to work for a long time at "distant shores".
        When the previous shipbuilding program was being imposed - in the fat years, it seemed a pity that if you give the industry money, it will build everything because it has longed ... And she ... was disqualified. There are no ship diesels, running gears for ships of the 2nd \ 1st rank, there are no gas turbines, the shipyards need to be modernized or new ones built ... And this is done. But something serious can be built in about three years.

        On cruisers ... "Moskva" with its age, it would be good to have repaired the chassis in Sevastopol, leave it as it is (but what is the state of the radio-technical complex there), so that for another five years the Black Sea Fleet strengthened its defenses with its missiles. And the Varangian for repairs ... but where? In the north ? Or on their own - at the Pacific Fleet?
        It is normal for Peter the Great to be repaired in 2020. His departure will be insured by two fresh "Gorshkov" ... and during his repair two more will do. Nakhimov has a delay due to the unprepared Zircons, the modernization of the Petr will take place much faster - in the regular 5 years.
        1. bayard
          bayard 6 December 2018 16: 11
          +3
          Donetsk.
          And of course "Super-Gorshkov" looks like the optimal ship for a large series - about 20 pieces - 8 for the Pacific Fleet, 6 for the Northern Fleet, 6 for the Black Sea Fleet. But when will the turbines be? And will there be enough?
          And for the "Leader" the nuclear power plant is almost there - it is unified with new icebreakers. This is probably why this project is being promoted. But it would be better to use the production facilities prepared for them (and the funds) for the construction of UDC and BDK.
          And minesweepers (!!!).
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 6 December 2018 23: 14
          +2
          -But necessary - air defense carriers are necessary both in the north and in the Pacific Fleet. The question is which type to choose -

          So far, there’s not enough money even for cruiser repairs. MRCs, patrolmen, TFRs can build.

          -And if you use the reserve (and it will be used) of the future icebreakers "Leader" (NPU), then it is necessary to build a multipurpose AB of the "Storm" type -

          This is for discussion with younger draftees. There is no one to start building.

          -Modernization of "Peter" will take place much faster - in the regular 5 years.

          They can’t even make a repair list so far.

          - Unread Zircons -

          Zircon, without an engine it.
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 6 December 2018 13: 27
      0
      Quote: Conductor
      Assessment of construction in 100 - 250 yards of rubles !!! Nothing for yourself so price spacing !!!!!

      confused with Gazprom ...
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 December 2018 13: 31
      +5
      Quote: Conductor
      Assessment of construction in 100 - 250 yards of rubles !!! Nothing for yourself so price spacing !!!!!

      But you take into account the spread in quality :))) In the first case, it was a gas turbine ship within 10 000 tons, in the second - about an atomic ship over 14 000 tons. When this fork was called, they were still undecided from the TTX of the ship, the spread was huge , well, and the price, respectively
  3. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 6 December 2018 05: 34
    0
    - that our forecasts were overly optimistic -

    Ship repair enterprises, especially in the Far East, niac are in no hurry to modernize, and will be rapidly replenished with qualified personnel of all categories.

    -By the way, according to recent reports, “Moscow” still undertook to repair in Sevastopol-

    With the help of the Severodvinsk working landings. And snailing pace. It will be more likely not a repair, but a parachute to slow the decay of the Guards RKR.
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 7 December 2018 10: 22
      -3
      Quote: gunnerminer
      Ship repair enterprises, especially in the Far East, niac are in no hurry to modernize, and will be rapidly replenished with qualified personnel of all categories.

      Why is this staff so irresponsible?
      Maybe it’s time to make the graduates of the relevant universities and technical colleges restricted to travel abroad and attach to enterprises? Directions to the place and accommodation, essno, at your own expense.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 9 December 2018 02: 14
        +2
        Why is this staff so irresponsible?

        Because they are not personnel at all, the personnel are those who work at the enterprise. And in this proposal we are talking about people who do not exist in nature.
        Maybe it’s time to already leave the graduates of the corresponding universities and technical schools

        And who will go to study at these universities and why? Will we produce even more accountants and even less engineers? How will this affect shipbuilding?
        1. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 9 December 2018 13: 40
          -3
          Quote: alexmach
          And who will go to study at these universities and why?

          They won’t go on their own - one must recruit according to forced distribution.
          1. Megamarcel
            Megamarcel 2 February 2019 08: 46
            -2
            And they did not try to attract people with salaries, social guarantees, etc. Not? Why was it necessary to destroy the union if in the end we can’t build anything new and the whole collapse of the USSR was reduced to the fact that the main assets are in the hands of the pro-Western alligarchs protected by the gentlemen from the Lake KP?
            1. huuttinpui
              huuttinpui 3 February 2019 22: 49
              +1
              Quote: MegaMarcel
              And they did not try to attract people with salaries, social guarantees, etc. Not? Why was it necessary to destroy the union if in the end we can’t build anything new and the whole collapse of the USSR was reduced to the fact that the main assets are in the hands of the pro-Western alligarchs protected by the gentlemen from the Lake KP?

              There will never be enough gingerbread for everyone, all the more so, behind the cordon they can always offer gingerbread more and sweeter. But whips are always enough.
              Do you think that Peter I could set up arms production without serfs assigned to factories, but only on the principle of free hiring?
              1. Megamarcel
                Megamarcel 5 February 2019 10: 00
                -1
                Peter and Stalin did not have such a reserve as the current ruler. And the fact that all modern Russian weapons were created on the basis of Soviet ones only confirms this.
  4. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 6 December 2018 05: 38
    -5
    - that the vast majority of this time the ship was mothballed, -

    The hull of the ship, its underwater part, could be suspended conditionally.

    -Also, the source confirmed that in the GPV 2018-2027. the "initial funding" of the program for the creation of a new aircraft carrier was laid.

    Lies source. Lies.
  5. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 6 December 2018 05: 59
    -1
    The main thing is that there is no "cutting the dough", as it was at the Vostochny cosmodrome, the most terrible disease, and technically and technologically no problems, now a shipyard in the Far East, in the Bolshoy Kamen Bay, will be put into operation, and then we can talk about aircraft carriers and other large combat ships as a reality, the main thing is patience and hard work. Thanks to the author for the detailed article and also for the entire cycle, it is better to know your problems and solve them than to lie and do nothing.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 6 December 2018 06: 16
      -1
      - and then we can talk about aircraft carriers -

      At this shipyard, the infrastructure for the aircraft carrier will not be made. Like aircraft wing and pilots. And ships are assembled from sections welded in South Korea. Like other details.
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 6 December 2018 06: 26
        -2
        You are a pessimist, or you have first-hand info, then the facts to the studio.
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 6 December 2018 06: 38
          0
          Read yesterday’s or yesterday’s issue of the Kommersant newspaper. Or read the sites of the long-range press. There you can read more.
  6. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 6 December 2018 06: 19
    0
    - as well as comparing it with NATO aircraft carriers -

    Comparison in style - the Su-33 crew is fighting a horse for a horse with American or French colleagues, with the rest of the Americans and NATO circling and barring, waiting for their turn. tongue
  7. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 6 December 2018 06: 21
    -9
    -Submarine in the steppes of Ukraine, you say? (In fact, "Peter the Great" is on the Suez Canal, but the angle of the photo is such that the canal itself is not visible) -

    Strange. The water surface is quite clearly visible. Such riddles are even on the shoulder of Kosin cadets of younger age.
  8. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 6 December 2018 06: 25
    -6
    -PKR "Volcano" will be beaten like that - it won’t seem a little), -

    From the factory wall. The scare of the plant’s direction. As a rule, the ammunition is unloaded before repair.

    Onyx "," Caliber "," Zircon ", -

    Zircon, without an engine it.
    1. bayard
      bayard 6 December 2018 16: 18
      +1
      Donetsk.
      "Nakhimov" would have arranged me without "Zircon". "Onyx" and "Caliber" are quite a ammunition load. After testing, you can and replenish.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 6 December 2018 23: 10
        0
        -m-

        After the tests, without desalting, transfer to the customer. And create the KPUG.
  9. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 6 December 2018 06: 28
    10 th
    -According to some information (possibly incomplete), the following are protected by reservation:

    1. Launcher PKR "Granit" - walls 100 mm (below the waterline - 70 mm) roof - 70 mm;

    2. ГКП and БИП - side walls 100 mm, traverses 75 mm, roof 75 mm;

    3. Helicopter hangar, fuel storage, ammunition cellar - walls 70 mm, roof 50 mm .-

    Gray backwardness. It will not protect to even partially survive. But it will help to reduce the detection range by radar. And the enemy also has torreds. There is no need to throw them on the deck or on the superstructure.
    1. bayard
      bayard 6 December 2018 16: 19
      +3
      Donetsk.
      This is from fragments and fragments of the Kyrgyz Republic, shot down in the near zone.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 6 December 2018 23: 09
        -2
        The maximum from fragments. Managed ammunition is high-precision, because any reservation is an unnecessary waste of money, time. And increased visibility.
  10. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 6 December 2018 06: 30
    10
    A little more about cruisers

    Andrey, as always, is optimistic in his forecasts. But let's be realistic. Ustinov will remain in a single copy, Petya may survive, but not a fact, the rest of the corpses. In ten years there will be a roar for the dead and in the hope of looking at the models of "promising" Leaders.
    PS: the remaining ones will be toothless because both Granite and Volcano survived all possible operating periods. Granites on Pete for 20 years, Volcanoes on Ustinov even more. Ten years later, trying to launch them will be fraught with life and health.
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 6 December 2018 11: 36
      +2
      Quote: Puncher
      But let's be realistic. Ustinov will remain in a single copy, Petya may survive, but not the fact, the remaining corpses.

      I hope that they will finish Nakhimov
    2. alma
      alma 7 December 2018 09: 05
      0
      Quote: Puncher
      Granites on Pete for 20 years, Volcanoes on Ustinov even more.

      You are not mistaken? It seems that the Granites are older than the Volcanoes. And before the Granites went Basalts (stood on my ship)
  11. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 6 December 2018 08: 10
    16
    Smiled a sudden session of realism from the author.
    V.V. Putin may not go for the fifth term, since in 5 he will turn 2024

    Like, a short phrase, but how much is said!
    1. The decision of the question whether Father and Genius will or will not go to the fifth (or seventh and a half 1999 + 4x6) term does not depend in any way on technical details, such as the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Moreover, one should not take into account the opinion of the so-called. "voters".
    2. Whoever later becomes the president of Russia (if this issue remains relevant at all) will certainly not build an aircraft carrier.
    It is strange that the author does not want to admit that the second part of his thesis seems to close the debate about whether or not such a ship is needed in Russia.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 December 2018 13: 32
      +4
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Like, a short phrase, but how much is said!

      Clever - enough :)))))))
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Whoever later becomes the president of Russia (if this issue remains relevant at all) will certainly not build an aircraft carrier.

      Everything can be, but it’s still not certain :)
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 6 December 2018 15: 13
        -1
        What does it mean exactly or inaccurately? Do you guys look at the president under the pillow every night, holding a candle? In the Kremlin, now such a cabin is about how and what will happen next, and you have already decided everything for yourself. Hurry up. I now believe that the new president, if he appears in the foreseeable future, will be objectively interested in raising the degree of conflict, and not in stoic inaction.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          6 December 2018 20: 31
          10
          Quote: MooH
          What does it mean exactly or inaccurately? Do you guys look at the president under the pillow every night, holding a candle? In the Kremlin, now such a cabin is about how and what will happen next, and you have already decided everything for yourself.

          Andrey, but there’s nothing to solve. In essence, there are 2 scenarios if Putin leaves.
          Option 1 - He will present his successor. And his successor will be from a close circle, and in a close circle he generally rolls around, there are no adequate presidential candidates there. And he will choose not according to professional suitability, but according to the principle of personal loyalty and, possibly, the ability to keep the rest of his "friends" in check. In general, in the best case, it will be the same Putin, only worse.
          2 version - there is no successor, then his neighbors will scuffle for the presidency, but whoever would eventually get into it - Sechin is there, or someone else, he will break everything that Putin did not break very quickly. They, with rare exceptions, destroy everything that they touch.
          There is Shoigu, but he is not the president. There is a strong Lavrov in his field, but alas, he is also not the president.
          Quote: MooH
          I now believe that the new president, if he appears in the foreseeable future, will be objectively interested in raising the degree of conflict, and not in stoic inaction.

          The question is, who would take this post, to clear up everything that Putin left him he will not be able to. Now there are no such people in power.
          1. Mooh
            Mooh 7 December 2018 02: 03
            -2
            Firstly, the issue of transfer of power is being seriously discussed. It seems that Putin understands him like this: himself in the kingdom or in the ayatollah-successor in the presidency and look after him for several more years.
            Secondly, Putin himself was already experimenting with Medvedev; he was terribly dissatisfied. We conclude that if such a successor is chosen not from politicians and officials, but from the security forces.
            Third, Putin is a cunning and clever man. He can play an absolutely unenviable figure like Valuev-Kadyrov.
            In short, it is absolutely not clear who will be raking and most importantly what. I strongly believe in one unpleasant fact that Putin entered the game not in his league. I look with interest how it will come out. And everything else is a matter of attitude and awareness. I prefer to be in optimistic positions, it makes life easier for me :)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 December 2018 07: 22
              +9
              Quote: MooH
              Firstly, the issue of transfer of power is being seriously discussed.

              It is NOT discussed. Putin is silent, the “ilits” are in mild panic.
              Quote: MooH
              It seems that Putin understands him like this: himself in the kingdom or in the ayatollah-successor in the presidency and look after him for several more years.

              Is not a fact. So far, only Putin knows about it (or maybe he does not know)
              Quote: MooH
              Secondly, Putin himself was already experimenting with Medvedev; he was terribly dissatisfied. We conclude that if such a successor is chosen not from politicians and officials, but from the security forces.

              Where there are no suitable people all the more
              Quote: MooH
              Third, Putin is a cunning and clever man. He can play an absolutely unenviable figure like Valuev-Kadyrov.

              After that, you can put an end to the Russian Federation.
              Quote: MooH
              In short, it is absolutely not clear who will be raking and most importantly what. I strongly believe in one unpleasant fact that Putin entered the game not in his league.

              Putin’s main problem is his complete inability to assemble a capable team. And now he is already old, and deals only with what is interesting to him. And I don’t expect anything good after his departure
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 7 December 2018 09: 39
                +6
                Quote: MooH
                yourself to the kingdom or to the ayatollahs

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It is NOT discussed. Putin is silent, the “ilits” are in mild panic.

                It is being discussed by "experts" from the telegram. You need to entertain yourself somehow.
                However, the very fact of discussing the Libyan and Iranian options for Russia shows very well who exactly Russia was catching up with instead of Portugal.
                In the meantime, the basic, which is pretty obvious, is the Turkmen version. Former energy superpower with increased sovereignty.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Where there are no suitable people all the more

                You have strange ideas about the transit of power.
                If the situation can be kept within the law, the prime minister decides. I remind you that if tomorrow the Father and Genius will be tied up by partners at the next twentieth for stealing spoons, then the acting President will be Medvedev. He will decide the question of the beginning of the third world, yes.
                Thus, the favorite question "if not Putin, then who" will turn into "if not Medvedev, then who." And the answer is well known: anyone.
                If the situation can be kept at the level of snuffboxes, special services decide. Most likely the FSB.
                If the situation moves to the plane of public policy, then the decision will obviously be made by voters. There are not as many voters in Russia as is commonly believed. Only 2 divisions, 2 nd GVMD and 4 nd GVTD + 27th brigade. Whether they will be able to formulate their political position is a key issue in the transit of power.
                Quote: MooH
                He can play an absolutely unenviable figure like Valuev-Kadyrov.

                I won’t say anything about Valuev, but Ramzan Akhmatovich is an intelligent guy, he knows how to wage a civil war. And he has quite enough enemies, not everyone understands his manner of resolving issues with other Heroes of Russia.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                After that, you can put an end to the Russian Federation.

                As if during the civil war in a nuclear state, the partners did not freak out and did not send tridents with democracy.
      2. Wildcat
        Wildcat 7 December 2018 03: 14
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Like, a short phrase, but how much is said!

        Clever - enough :)))))))
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Whoever later becomes the president of Russia (if this issue remains relevant at all) will certainly not build an aircraft carrier.

        Everything can be, but it’s still not certain :)

        As long as there is no "interested person" capable of "pushing through" the solution of the issue with the construction of an aircraft carrier, no one will build it. As long as there is no such "interested person", money and resources will be divided for other purposes. As soon as the "interested party" convinces the MOST of the need to build an aircraft carrier (for any reason, I like this (insert the right one): "in order to provide independent access to ______________, guaranteed implementation of international and commercial programs, reduce costs for _____________ and improve socio-economic setting in __________ ") - will be built (like the Vostochny cosmodrome). fellow
        Since the only possible "interest" in the aircraft carrier theme is ... (we will not point our finger at him and his avatar repeat ), it remains only for him to go into politics, with Dmitry R., a well-known journalist, to take an example (only the dachshund does not need to be drowned ... only if it is very necessary sad ) ... All other options are without a chance.
        hi
    2. Newone
      Newone 7 December 2018 22: 41
      -2
      You don’t relax your American rolls :)))) First, we will restore the coastal infrastructure, build the infrastructure for the operation of first-class ships, restore normal LAG, and then we will build aircraft carriers turning LAG into AUG.
    3. Kawado
      Kawado 5 February 2019 17: 17
      0
      Moreover, one should not take into account the opinion of the so-called. "voters".

      This is in vain ... about the constitution - it is certainly true, but you are fundamentally wrong about the voters, Putin still has considerable support among the people, despite even the pension reform.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 5 February 2019 18: 44
        0
        Quote: Kawado
        Putin still has considerable support among the people, despite even the pension reform.

        Follow the news from Venezuela?
        1. Kawado
          Kawado 6 February 2019 11: 57
          0
          No, I have enough Russian news.
          In addition, Russia is not Venezuela. And Putin is not Maduro.
  12. EvilLion
    EvilLion 6 December 2018 08: 33
    +3
    For 100-250 billion, you can build 50-125 Su-35, which in utility will do this trough an order of magnitude.

    That, obviously, is well understood in the Ministry of Defense, respectively, and all sorts of "leaders" in the size of a pollinker are only interested in admirals.
    1. jonht
      jonht 6 December 2018 08: 44
      +9
      Unfortunately, not every fighter (more precisely, not one) will reach the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and will return.
      1. max702
        max702 6 December 2018 11: 29
        0
        Quote: jonht
        Unfortunately, not every fighter (more precisely, not one) will reach the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and will return.

        Why should they fly there? What kind of goal is this?
        1. jonht
          jonht 6 December 2018 12: 50
          +6
          This is a response to the proposal to build fighters, in the place of ships and no more.
          1. max702
            max702 6 December 2018 13: 23
            -5
            Quote: jonht
            This is a response to the proposal to build fighters, in the place of ships and no more.

            The fact of the matter is that airplanes have goals and objectives, and ships have no sane goals and objectives .. I’ll repeat sane ones ..
            1. jonht
              jonht 6 December 2018 14: 37
              +4
              Eka you are enough !!!! The fleet is over 300 years old, and how poor it has been all this time, it has existed without purpose and tasks.
              Just if you don’t see or see these goals and objectives doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
              A simple example: the fleet is an element of our nuclear forces, and what nuclear tasks, you think, you know, or perhaps you guess ...
              And yet, each branch of the army has set its goals and objectives for a long time.
              hi
              1. max702
                max702 6 December 2018 15: 00
                +2
                Quote: jonht

                Eka you are enough !!!! The fleet is over 300 years old, and how poor it has been all this time, it has existed without purpose and tasks.

                300 years ago there was no aviation, no missiles, no satellites, not nuclear weapons ... But the fleet was several millennia, and so what? On horseback, too, for thousands of years, cavalry rode there and so on, and where is it now? So in the role of entertainment and no more ..
                Quote: jonht
                A simple example: the fleet is an element of our nuclear forces, and what nuclear tasks, you think, you know, or perhaps you guess ...

                Yes, there is such a thing, though again, with the growth of technology, the role of naval carriers of nuclear weapons decreases, why did they need nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons? And in order to go into the ocean closer to the vorom and shy away all the ammunition for the right hour .. But now the time has passed and it’s not necessary to sail somewhere, the range of the missiles allows anyone to get from the pier .. So the question is, is it necessary Do we need an expensive platform for protection of which even more expensive surface and underwater (AUG \ NPL) components are needed? Could it be easier to place a hundred other strike complexes in the vast country under the protection of air defense and air forces? I understand the fleet is beautifully romance and all that, but in the conditions of limited manpower and means, it is necessary to choose the most effective solutions ... And yes, ground-based systems will be cheaper because of their mass, unlike the perfect other product in the form of a fleet .. We have beautiful missiles , promising aviation, space (if you put things in order there) why do we need a fleet? This is an outdated solution, like cavalry in the 21st century ..
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  6 December 2018 15: 25
                  +6
                  Quote: max702
                  what were the nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons for? And in order to go into the ocean closer to the vorom and shy away all the ammunition for the right hour .. But now the time has passed and it’s not really necessary to swim somewhere

                  Fir-trees, well, study you why SSBNs are needed :))))) For stealth, they are needed so that, if you overslept the first blow, you have the potential to strike back. Therefore, no one will shoot "from the pier" - the whole point is lost in this case, since the naval base will be destroyed in the first place.
                  Quote: max702
                  Could it be easier to place a hundred other strike complexes in the vast country under the protection of air defense and air forces?

                  Maybe easier. That's what EXACTLY does not need to be done - it is riveting the SSBN, not being able to ensure their deployment
                  1. max702
                    max702 6 December 2018 16: 09
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Firs, well, learn why you need SSBNs :))))) For stealth, they are needed so that if you overslept the first blow, you have the potential to strike an answer.

                    If we oversleep the first strike, then there will be no sense in shooting back! It will be enough for everyone, to destroy the Zaporizhzhya NPP and there will be no survivors in Europe .. The consequences of this blow will be such that in 10-15 years there will be no clean places for living around the world .. Imagine that Chernobyl (one unit) stood and fonil in full growth so far .. And when you hit us everything will be worse by orders of magnitude ..
                    And how strange it is that you get the vorog and in one blow destroyed everything that we have .. Yeah .. That is, the intelligence slept through everything and everything and did not notice the enemy's preparatory period, and this is in the age of mass communications of satellites and much more about what we are do not know .. All the scenarios are somehow fantastic, only on the one hand .. But it is with such a fantasy that they explain all kinds of needs for different solutions thereof .. It's like in the joke "A cruiser appears on the parade ground! Your actions are a cadet! - I'm torpedoing him! - And where will you get the torpedo? - The same place where you got the cruiser!
                    Set REAL tasks, not unscientific fiction .. New technologies allow new solutions, like nobody uses punch cards, but more flash drives and the Internet .. Could not fly missiles with an SSBN from the pier to the enemy, there was a need for them as in the fleet for their coverings made a step forward in rocket science and the need for this tool disappeared, especially since its price is clearly superior to efficiency in the light of new possible solutions ..
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      6 December 2018 16: 39
                      0
                      Quote: max702
                      The consequences of this blow will be such that in 10-15 years there will be no clean places to live around the world.

                      Yes, he will remain in bulk.
                      Quote: max702
                      Imagine that Chernobyl (one block) stood and fonil would have been in full growth so far ..

                      What would happen? :))))) I'll even tell you. The situation would be 3-4 times worse than what we actually have. But it, generally speaking, did not lead to anything other than the formation of the 30 kilometer exclusion zone, and even there its dimensions were taken with a large margin
                      Quote: max702
                      Set REAL tasks, not unscientific fiction ..

                      Sorry, but while you are engaged in unscientific fiction.
                    2. Avior
                      Avior 7 December 2018 11: 47
                      0
                      You're dramatizing. Do you know that excursions are carried to the Chernobyl zone overnight?
                      And people live there, albeit informally.
                2. jonht
                  jonht 6 December 2018 15: 35
                  0
                  Based on your logic, then planes without junk airfields, and without headquarters all the country's armed forces.
                  But it’s just the diversity and diversity of funds that makes the armed forces stable in a big war.
                  And as they say for every ass there is a bolt with a screw, and something else on the bolt.
                  And let’s say so at the moment, those studies that the GUGI conducts give hope to our boats, and therefore to us.
                  And your ignorance of the fleet’s goals and the capabilities that can be used (for example, Status 6) does not negate the importance of other components of our defense. And to withdraw most of the warheads of ICBMs, it’s easy just even with space debris sent to orbit on time. The truth about manned astronautics will have to be forgotten for a long time.
                3. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 9 December 2018 21: 10
                  +1
                  I hold not need surface ships, but large from the word at all. But nuclear submarines are very necessary, because they overcome air defense and come nearer to you can get out of your territory. For their access to the sea, cruisers are not needed, only minesweepers and a small number of auxiliary ships of small displacement are needed. On the Seas 3 ranks, and on the oceans frigates no more than Gorshkov.
  13. jonht
    jonht 6 December 2018 08: 42
    +2
    I agree with many things, but according to the Leader, we simply have no options left. There is no gas turbine for these types of ships, but the atomic heart (rhythm-200) is already there and it has been worked out, now it will undergo operational development on icebreakers and take its place in the destroyers. MO after the failure with the frigates, to know more detailed elaboration of projects and the pairing of equipment and weapons, and this is again the deadline.
    I really hope that the Leader will be designed taking into account all the errors received on the frigates, and they will not shove everything new and not worked out into it.
  14. Avior
    Avior 6 December 2018 10: 52
    +3
    a couple of comments
    1. And in Nikolaev there remained almost completely completed pr.1164. But Serdyukov agreed to take it only for free - the question was not about the appearance of the ship at the fleet, but about the opportunity to earn money, and even better to steal when building something. Now the question has disappeared, of course. Anyway, the break with the shipyard in Nikolaev in the 90s-2000s is an obvious miscalculation. well, and 2014 finally finished off this Soviet backlog in shipbuilding.
    2. The opportunity now to build a catapult aircraft carrier in Russia is from the realm of fantasy, primarily technologically, and financially is also not easy. And if without a catapult, so far Kuznetsov has visually refuted the real combat effectiveness of this type of ship even in greenhouse conditions. And the opportunity to build it is a little less fantastic, but nevertheless does not go beyond the genre. Again - do you need a ship that scares the enemy or just smokes and makes fun?
    3. Undoubtedly, a carrier ship is needed, the author is absolutely right. Reasoning about what they say is a whim is that they have already appeared among the Turks. This is a real opportunity to radically improve the capabilities of the fleet. And even if the fleet as a whole is not capable now not only of fighting the States at sea, but even, perhaps, of some Spain or Italy, the need to be able to send at least one or two expeditionary groups that have at least a deterrent to shores of allies or potential allies, undoubtedly.
    Now the authorities of Venezuela or Cuba actually rely on the unwillingness of the States to do this. But Russia has a trump card up its sleeve in the form of nuclear weapons, and the enemy’s possible decision to attack Russian ships will be taken with this factor in mind. In the meantime, the States are not needed to neutralize the Russian fleet, Italians or Spaniards will cope if necessary. And the States will stand by and wait. So, what is next? Missiles in Italy to shoot and get a response from the States?
    4. There was practically no Soviet backlog in shipbuilding; the dock was drowned as well. But there is still groundwork in aviation. The only possibility that Russia can get a carrier ship to any extent beyond the scope of the fiction genre is to make such a ship under SKVP according to civil standards, as the Spaniards do. This is quite technologically possible, and realistically in finance. It is clear that it is necessary to develop the SKVP first, no one will sell the F-35.
    But it's still easier than an aircraft carrier from scratch.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 December 2018 11: 47
      +4
      Quote: Avior
      And in Nikolaev remained almost completely completed pr.1164. But Serdyukov agreed to take it only for free - the question was not about the appearance of the ship at the fleet, but about the opportunity to earn money, and even better to steal when building something.

      In fact, none of our defense ministers of recent years wanted to pay for an unfinished ship, which stood at the wall for a quarter of a century. Yes, and created for no longer manufactured weapons models.
      Quote: Avior
      Anyway, the break with the shipyard in Nikolaev in the 90s-2000s is an obvious miscalculation.

      And don’t talk. They profiled such a chance for Ukraine to replenish its fleet with the requisitioned Russian ships under construction. smile
      Quote: Avior
      This is quite technologically possible, and realistically in finance. It is clear that it is necessary to develop the SKVP first, no one will sell the F-35.
      But it's still easier than an aircraft carrier from scratch.

      Making SECs easier than building a classic AB? And you, my friend, an optimist ... smile
      What for AV SKVP, what for classic AV will have to do the whole set of take-off and landing equipment. Unless you can save on a catapult.
      And the question remains with the power plant - how much it will be necessary to stick the gas turbine engine from 22350 in order to disperse the AB SKVP to 28-29 nodes. Or do I put a nuclear power plant? Because there are no other options.
      1. Avior
        Avior 6 December 2018 14: 30
        +2
        In fact, none of our defense ministers of recent years wanted to pay for an unfinished ship

        in 2013 they decided to buy it, but did not have time ..
        And don’t talk. Profuka such a chance of Ukraine ....

        do not confuse cause and effect. if the old ties remained Soviet, then 2014 would have gone differently ...
        What for AV SKVP, what for classic AV will have to do the whole set of take-off and landing equipment.

        nothing like this. for the classic one you need a catapult (which no one except the Americans in the world can do at the moment), a steam generator, aerofinishir, the appropriate staff and, as a result, a sharp increase in the price and size of the ship — it’s specific expensive to manufacture, to use devices that aren’t anywhere else apply.
        For SKVP, you need only the usual navigation and landing system, which is used everywhere, including the classic aircraft carrier.
        Soviet aviation remained on aviation; on ships they are completely out of the word, frigates cannot build.
        therefore, it makes sense to build a relatively simple ship with SKVP aircraft; other options are technically impossible today.
        see how the Spaniards decided this-https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_I_ (L-61).
        price 500-600 million, built according to civil standards, maximum speed 21 knots.
        Displacement 27 t
        Xnumx length m
        32,0 width m
        Draft 6,9 m
        Power 30 hp
        Speed ​​21 knot
        Cruising range 9000 miles (15 knots)
        243 crew
        +172 people air group
        Landing capacity of 1200 Marines
        An excellent expeditionary ship at the price of a frigate, with all the shortcomings, it greatly enhances the capabilities of the fleet.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          6 December 2018 15: 17
          +3
          Quote: Avior
          For SKVP, you need only the usual navigation and landing system, which is used everywhere, including the classic aircraft carrier.

          For SKVP, first of all, SKVP is needed. Its development will cost several billion dollars - ONLY development. Then it is still unknown what money will have to pay for the organization of its production.
          Quote: Avior
          therefore, it makes sense to build a relatively simple ship with SKVP aircraft

          Which, in terms of efficiency, will even lose to Kuznetsov, since there will never be any airborne warning system and electronic warfare, and instead of adequate aircraft with a decent radius of action, we will get an SEC
          Quote: Avior
          look how the Spaniards decided

          An example of how not to build warships
          1. Avior
            Avior 7 December 2018 02: 31
            0
            For SKVP, first of all, SKVP is needed. Its development will cost several billion dollars - ONLY development. Then it is still unknown what money will have to pay for the organization of its production

            with a catapult aircraft carrier, multiply everything by ten or more. If this is possible in principle. And this is just technically impossible now. There are no Soviet groundwork, but nobody will create a new one.
            Which, in terms of efficiency, will even lose to Kuznetsov, since there will never be any airborne warning system and electronic warfare, and instead of adequate aircraft with a decent radius of action, we will get an SEC

            it’s not serious about Kuznetsov, he didn’t confirm combat readiness at all, AWAC is just a helicopter, it's true, electronic warfare is quite possible according to the Groler principle.
            But this is real, not a projection of a super-vera-bearer.
            In any case, the capabilities of even such a light aircraft carrier are several times higher than any surface ship, even without AWACS.
            Moreover, UDC is needed no less than an aircraft carrier. And so, two in one. And the fact that the cut-down opportunities, so for a little hat.
            Quote: Avior
            look how the Spaniards decided

            An example of how not to build warships

            Five samples.
            We are already talking about the fifth side, they are building on the stream. And do not dream about a wunderwaffe.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 December 2018 07: 25
              +2
              Quote: Avior
              with a catapult aircraft carrier, multiply everything by ten or more. If this is possible in principle. And this is just technically impossible now. There are no Soviet groundwork, but nobody will create a new one.

              There is nothing to multiply, for him there is almost everything, and I already spoke about this. If you do not like it - well ... it's not my fault :)))
              Quote: Avior
              it’s not serious about Kuznetsov, he didn’t confirm combat efficiency at all

              Confirmed. He even in a sky-ready state managed to fight in Syria.
              Quote: Avior
              Five samples.

              What are the five samples? :)))))
              1. Avior
                Avior 7 December 2018 11: 06
                0
                One for Spain, and two for Turkey and Australia
              2. Avior
                Avior 7 December 2018 11: 08
                +1
                Confirmed. He even in a sky-ready state managed to fight in Syria.

                yeah, but what about. Two destroyed aircraft at his own expense recorded. At least draw stars on board
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  7 December 2018 14: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: Avior
                  yeah, but what about.

                  Yes, just like that :)))) Without restoring combat readiness after repairs, with an unworked MiG-29, with an unfulfilled program for restoring pilots' skills, he came and fought.
                  Quote: Avior
                  Two destroyed planes chalked up

                  Can you prove that the crash of the MiG-29K is the fault of the Tavkr, and not the plane itself?
                  Quote: Avior
                  One for Spain, and two for Turkey and Australia

                  Ihtamnet
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 December 2018 19: 26
          +2
          Quote: Avior
          do not confuse cause and effect. if the old ties remained Soviet, then 2014 would have gone differently ...

          Really? And why then did the old contacts of Yuzhmash, Motor Sich, and Zori-Mashproekt, actively working with Russia, not help?
          Quote: Avior
          For SKVP, you need only the usual navigation and landing system, which is used everywhere, including the classic aircraft carrier.

          The fleet will not miss. smile
          Because the first question from the Customer will be - how to plant SKVP, in which the fuel supply does not allow it to land vertically. That is, the aerofinisher and hook will be 100%.
          Quote: Avior
          look how the Spaniards decided

          You see, what's the matter ... the Spaniards built their AB on the basis that they are part of NATO. And that, in which case, behind their backs of misunderstanding will loom a full-fledged AUG with "Nimitz".
          1. Avior
            Avior 7 December 2018 02: 42
            0
            Really? And why then did the old contacts of Yuzhmash, Motor Sich, and Zori-Mashproekt, actively working with Russia, not help?

            from past contacts there were miserable mistakes, and nobody believed there that they would stay for a long time.
            The same Motor Sich perfectly understood that even if the Klimovites would make the VK-2500 worse than the Motor (as it is, by the way), nobody would order engines from the Motor. The motor has long reoriented to the Chinese. The Chinese aircraft engines have always been a sore spot, but now this problem goes away - the colossal Soviet experience of Motor went to China.
            Russia now needs to wait for competitors in the markets.
            The fleet will not miss.
            Because the first question from the Customer will be - how to plant SKVP, in which the fuel supply does not allow it to land vertically. That is, the aerofinisher and hook will be 100%.

            there will be no hook and finish.
            SKVP can sit down horizontally and without it, reducing the speed to the required mileage.
            You see, what's the matter ... the Spaniards built their AB on the basis that they are part of NATO. And that, in which case, behind their backs of misunderstanding will loom a full-fledged AUG with "Nimitz".

            It will be, but not always. In the Falklands did not loom.
            And behind the back of the Russian, vigorous missiles and nuclear submarines will loom.
            No one says that an aircraft carrier will solve all problems. But it will greatly enhance the capabilities of the fleet, even this.
            Actually, this is the global trend - UDC as a light aircraft carrier or an aircraft carrier under the F-35v - England, Spain, Australia, Turkey, Korea on the way, Japan. The Egyptians and those got Mistral.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 December 2018 07: 26
              +2
              Quote: Avior
              It will be, but not always. In the Falklands did not loom.

              As a result, the British failed air defense units a little more than completely
              1. Avior
                Avior 7 December 2018 10: 56
                -1
                Yeah, we lost the war. lol
                The subsonic attack aircraft actually worked miracles there.
                But miracles have borders.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  7 December 2018 14: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: Avior
                  yeah, we lost the war

                  They won the war, and the air defense failed. It is a fact. Acting under ideal conditions for themselves (Argentine planes worked to the maximum radius) despite the fact that the Argentines did not realize the superiority in numbers (the number of sorties was comparable), the Argentines attacked British ships 32 times, with individual planes and groups, in total in 32 attempts participated 104 aircraft. Harriers were able to repel as many SIX attacks as they could not miss 19 aircraft. That is, 85 aircraft from 104 passed to ships in 26 attacks from 32.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 7 December 2018 11: 03
              +2
              Quote: Avior
              from past contacts there were miserable mistakes, and nobody believed there that they would stay for a long time.
              The same Motor Sich perfectly understood that even if the Klimovites would make the VK-2500 worse than the Motor (as it is, by the way), nobody would order engines from the Motor.

              Come on. Boguslaev had a good idea - what will be the volume of output in Shuvalovo, and how long Russia will order engines in Ukraine. EMNIP, we still have the production of helicopters with TV3-117 / VK-2500 exceeds the production of engines - the missing engines mysteriously condense from vacuum. In addition, some TV3-117 purchases are not limited. What are the An-124, Be-200, An-12, IL-38, Mi-26 flying on? wink
              Quote: Avior
              there will be no hook and finish.
              SKVP can sit down horizontally and without it, reducing the speed to the required mileage.

              They know how. But this landing requires additional fuel consumption. Which the plane may simply not be. And then - lose a working machine?
              Quote: Avior
              It will be, but not always. In the Falklands did not loom.

              So "Invincibles" did not count on such a war at all. They grew out of the PLO helicopter carrier, which first received a solid deck ("control cruiser with a solid deck"), and then - "harriers" to protect against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft outside the range of the ship's air defense missile system DD (hehehe .. . "Condors" are immediately remembered, circling around the convoys). They were generally classified as cruisers until the early 80s. And their air group was sharpened specifically for PLO: 9 helicopters and 4 "Harrier".
              1. Avior
                Avior 7 December 2018 11: 58
                0
                Come on. Boguslaev had a good idea - what will be the volume of output in Shuvalovo, and how long Russia will order engines in Ukraine. EMNIP, we still have the production of helicopters with TV3-117 / VK-2500 exceeds the production of engines

                everyone understands that this is a matter of time. and Boguslaev too. The motor has long been focused on the Chinese and on the repair, replacement and restoration of engines around the world.
                They know how. But this landing requires additional fuel consumption. Which the plane may simply not be. And then - lose a working machine?

                yeah. If suddenly a couple of kilometers does not reach, give the pilot a canister lol
                Forget it, nobody ever put a hook on SEC. Including Soviet Yaki, by the way.
                So "Invincibles" did not count on such a war at all.

                not calculated. nevertheless, they strengthened the fleet fundamentally qualitatively - both in the air defense they forged the Argentines, and in supporting the landing, they played a huge role.
    2. Eremin AB
      Eremin AB 6 December 2018 14: 42
      0
      I agree that no one would have bombed such forces in Yugoslavia with the Russian Federation at one time. And I wouldn’t ask for NATO with such zeal.
  15. Eremin AB
    Eremin AB 6 December 2018 13: 31
    +2
    All is correct. Fleet problems are just a consequence. The reason for the decline of industry. We are happy to build frigates for 9 years. engines for them and do not build. The nuclear installation is not a solution to the problem, but the United States has therefore gone to nowhere to build ships with it. Only aircraft carriers where it is extremely necessary. We will build a destroyer or a cruiser with a displacement of 10 thousand tons for about 15 years. Even if it is laid down tomorrow, we won’t see it during our lifetime. And one more remark. The ship should be built where it will serve. Since in case of war it will not be possible to drive him for one or another repair through half the world. And for this, shipyards are needed both in the Baltic and the Black Sea and in the Barents and the Far East. and in our country only the Nevskoye Design Bureau appears. It is in the Baltic, but in fact the Baltic Fleet does not really need large ships. The Baltic, in which case, is blocked by Denmark in a minute. So, as a house is not being built from the roof, but from the foundation, so should the fleet be built. First, the industry is able to carry out such projects within a reasonable time, and then the cruiser Aircraft carriers, etc. in the meantime, we will be content with MRC Corvettes and under-frigates (because without an engine).
  16. Decimam
    Decimam 6 December 2018 13: 59
    +3
    Or maybe turn to China? For some reason, the author did not consider this possibility. And obviously it will be cheaper. As a payment, you can offer preferential posting of Chinese caravans with consumer goods along the Northern Sea Route.
    1. Avior
      Avior 6 December 2018 14: 31
      +1
      this is also a real way out.
      only classical carriers with catapults in China yet
      1. Decimam
        Decimam 6 December 2018 14: 45
        +2
        But they have them in the plan, and knowing the Chinese, I can say that they are taking real plans now, in contrast to the times of the "cultural revolution".
        1. Avior
          Avior 7 December 2018 02: 44
          0
          somehow there are stories about not very high quality work. but specifically with this you need to wait for what and how.
    2. Eremin AB
      Eremin AB 6 December 2018 14: 38
      +1
      Buying ships and not building is not an option but a dead end. Hello from the Mistral. China today smiles at us and what will happen tomorrow is not known.
      1. Avior
        Avior 6 December 2018 14: 44
        0
        correct too.
        but if you can’t build, then buy a way out.
        but at the same time prudently conduct foreign policy
        1. Eremin AB
          Eremin AB 6 December 2018 14: 56
          +1
          Foreign policy can only be carried out with a strong army, including the navy. Otherwise, this is not politics but a masquerade. Once again, the Mistral Mountains proved this to us perfectly. One can recall gas turbine plants from Ukraine. In addition, construction is the engine of everything. jobs science taxes again and so on and so forth. and if you abandon it all, then you can’t scrape up money to buy a boat, not just for an aircraft carrier or a cruiser. In addition, China does not need a strong Russian fleet in the long run.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 December 2018 15: 21
      +1
      Quote: Decimam
      Or maybe turn to China? For some reason, the author did not consider such a possibility.

      Because no one will turn to China for such a thing. Firstly, the risk of getting "not a mouse, not a frog, but an unknown animal" at the exit is too great, and if we want a NORMAL aircraft carrier, we will have to teach the Chinese to build it. Which is exactly what we absolutely do not need.
      Quote: Decimam
      As a payment, you can offer preferential posting of Chinese caravans with consumer goods along the Northern Sea Route.

      Why does China need it? :))))) Forget about the Northern Sea Route, it will never be a world transport artery.
      1. Decimam
        Decimam 6 December 2018 16: 56
        +1
        "... and if we want a NORMAL aircraft carrier, we will have to teach the Chinese to build it."
        Somehow the thesis does not look indisputable, because "WE" of "NORMAL" aircraft carriers not only did not build, but did not really design. So even the exploitation of the Soviet legacy, as in literally all areas of weapons. it won't work.
        And one can argue about China’s interests in the Arctic. Remember the Chinese position on Russia's attempts to prove their rights in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on an additional part of the Arctic shelf.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          6 December 2018 17: 45
          0
          Quote: Decimam
          Somehow the thesis does not look indisputable, because "WE" of "NORMAL" aircraft carriers not only did not build, but did not really design

          Both designed and built, "Ulyanovsk" was a first-class aircraft carrier. Moreover, judging by the progress with magnetic catopults, the union would have survived - it would have been completed with them. And so - there was absolutely everything - atomic propulsion systems, aerofinishers, special coverage of the flight deck, flight control systems, steam catapults (on NITKA), etc. etc.
          1. Decimam
            Decimam 6 December 2018 20: 05
            +1
            I will not argue about how first-class the ship would not have been, since it is difficult to discuss the functional advantages or disadvantages of an object that never existed. As well as how unrealized projects allow someone to learn
          2. Avior
            Avior 7 December 2018 02: 46
            0
            this is not serious.
            it’s just a project, unknown to what would end and not confirmed by anything.
            There was a prototype catapult on Nitka, but planes never took off from it.
            Creation problems too complex
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 December 2018 19: 34
          +1
          Quote: Decimam
          Somehow the thesis does not look indisputable, because "WE" of "NORMAL" aircraft carriers not only did not build, but did not really design.

          Projects 85, 1160, 1153, 11437. Moreover, EMNIP, Morin wrote that 11437 was not another iteration during the development of project 1143, but a return to 1153.
          We even made a steam catapult and tested it. Things didn’t get to the Gosovs - Ustinov and Amelko directed the works to be covered in directives, and they didn’t have time to finish them after the revival of the topic in the late 80s.
          1. Avior
            Avior 7 December 2018 02: 48
            0
            made a catapult in an experimental version, but not a single aircraft was ever launched from it.
            The projects you have listed are not projects, but projects. A pencil on paper (well, we can ink)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 December 2018 07: 30
              0
              Quote: Avior
              The projects you have listed are not projects, but projects. A pencil on paper (well, we can ink)

              Nah, these are exactly the projects, and the seventh was embodied in metal. There was nothing from projection there - they created a ship for which there was EVERYTHING in the USSR. I repeat, the fact that you do not like this is understandable, and it is clear that you are obviously biased here.
              Quote: Avior
              made a catapult in an experimental version, but not a single aircraft was ever launched from it.

              Sergei, well, don’t, huh? Launched planes from her, even as they launched. How do you think the air finishers have experienced? :)))))))
              1. Avior
                Avior 7 December 2018 11: 01
                -1
                Andrei, you don’t know, they never launched airplanes, they tested them with carts.
                You see, it’s not enough to do, it is necessary for this to work reliably in real conditions, and not at the training ground or during experiments. And while this is not verified, no experience, consider, no.
                S-130 Americans planted and took off from aircraft carriers, however, this does not mean that this can be used in hostilities.
                The same Kuznetsov is a project as a project, but Kuznetsov himself turned out to be not very good.
                Ulyanovsk also stuffed Granitov, by the way and screwed the springboard.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  7 December 2018 14: 10
                  +3
                  Quote: Avior
                  Andrey, you don’t know, planes never started, tested with carts

                  Even if I was wrong, the LAC simulators were launched, and the cattopult worked fine. For "Ulyanovsk" already made a serial copy. What else do you need?
                  Quote: Avior
                  You see, it’s not enough to do, it is necessary for this to work reliably in real conditions, and not at the training ground or during experiments. And while this is not verified, no experience, consider, no.

                  Sergey, as for me, this is pure maximalism. That is, your position - if you did not embody it on a ship, then none of this in the USSR was and did not work, it is understandable, but it cannot be accepted. I repeat. For the aircraft carrier we needed
                  1) Reactor. It was made by him as a modification of those installed on the TARKR; there is no reason to think that there was anything wrong with him.
                  2) Flight control systems - actually implemented on Kuznetsovo
                  3) Aerofinisher - actually implemented on Kuznetsovo
                  4) A special coating of the flight deck that protects against the effects of gas jets of engines - actually implemented on Kuznetsovo
                  5) Aircraft lifts and other equipment for servicing aircraft - actually implemented on Kuznetsovo
                  6) Catapults. In the presence of the BS-1 that successfully fired LAC mock-ups on the tests of air finishers and the actual start of the construction of cat-guns for Ulyanovsk, it is obvious that we had them too. That is, there is a product that provides acceleration with the necessary parameters, what else? That it will not tragically work on a ship? And why? What, designers in our USSR sharply stupefied that they did not understand ship features? Can you give an example of the technical equipment that would be made in the USSR, put on the ship, but it still did not work and was not brought to mind later?
                  So, we have a lot of experience - on the actual operation of nuclear power plants and on ALL AB systems except for the cat panel, and the cat panel was in the USSR at the highest stage of readiness - it was built for a specific ship, this says something. Against this background, your thesis "We have nothing for AB" looks a little strained :)))
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 7 December 2018 11: 09
              0
              Quote: Avior
              The projects you have listed are not projects, but projects. A pencil on paper (well, we can ink)

              Uh-huh ... 11437 was especially "paper".

              By mid-1991, the cruiser's readiness was 18,3%, 27000 tons of structures were erected, and the ship's hull was almost formed.
              1. Avior
                Avior 7 December 2018 11: 42
                -1
                27000 tons of metalwork do not say anything about what a real ship would have turned out.
                With the case as a whole, no one doubted that it would work out. But everything else is a question.
                In any case, this experience has long been lost.
  17. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 6 December 2018 14: 26
    -1
    With Lazarev, everything is a little different. They want to finish building the Zvezda plant, and then think about it. Because the original idea was what exactly was on Zvezda. Nobody was going to drag it to the west. Yes, and it is not known in what exact condition. And the money? Aligarchs squander more a year. Good luck to our fleet.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 December 2018 15: 22
      0
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      Everything is a little different with Lazarev. They want to finish building the Zvezda plant, and then think about it.

      When this happens it will be too late to think.
      1. faiver
        faiver 6 December 2018 15: 39
        0
        Lazarev had to send upgrades to the Chinese ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          6 December 2018 16: 02
          +1
          Quote: faiver
          Lazarev had to send upgrades to the Chinese ...

          laughing How do you imagine this? :)))) Send an atomic ship to a country that has no idea about its reactor? Which alone did not build a single surface ship with a nuclear power plant? And weapons - how? We’ll also give it to the Chinese to study and duplicate it? And give all the parameters of our weapons control systems too (without this, repairs can not be done)?
          Рњ-РґСЏ ...
          1. faiver
            faiver 6 December 2018 16: 14
            0
            and send our specialists, or rent a shipyard from them, and this is how a dog turns out in the hay, I won't give it to others and I won't give it to others ...
  18. Tektor
    Tektor 6 December 2018 14: 42
    -1
    The accents are right. But we will have to build an aircraft carrier, if only because it is a status thing: you cannot be a respected power if you do not have an aircraft carrier. Therefore, 250 billion rubles for its construction will have to be found and another 300 billion - for its armament, a dock, a base with housing for the crew. Our aircraft carrier will be able to become full-fledged even without a catapult if its wing includes the Yak-133BR "Proryv-RLD" radar-UAV or similar.
    1. Avior
      Avior 6 December 2018 14: 45
      0
      Turks are building a second
  19. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 6 December 2018 14: 43
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    But Serdyukov agreed to take it only for free - the question was not about the appearance of the ship at the fleet, but about the opportunity to earn money, and even better to steal when building something

    A very smart political move, if there is no desire to get another ship in your Navy. See for yourself - on the one hand, the ship remains at the wall and is not being completed, but on the other - it turns out that Serdyukov wants too much, and the bad Ukrainians do not want to negotiate. That the conditions are quite ... Peculiar - the tenth matter: you can always say that the cruiser was built under the USSR, and Russia, as its heiress, has the right not to pay for it, which will not only allow to crank (or rather, not to crank) this business, but also earn political points at the expense of their own patriots.

    By the way, in 2012-2013 there were rumors in Nikolaev that Yanukovych wanted to finish building the "Ukraine", but Russia refused to sell weapons to him, which is why the ship continued to rot at the wall - rebuilding 1164 for a different, western weaponry is clearly a thankless task and expensive. On the one hand, these are just rumors, on the other, under Yanyka in Nikolaev, the first corvette "Vladimir the Great" was laid for their own needs, so an attempt to finish building a cruiser, which stands almost ready at the wall, does not look like something fantastic ...
    1. Eremin AB
      Eremin AB 6 December 2018 15: 00
      0
      I can imagine what would happen in the spring of 2014 if Ukraine had RRC. Some polite people would not have cost then. At best, they would get a trophy cruiser; at worst, they would lose half the Black Sea Fleet.
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 6 December 2018 15: 10
        +1
        Quote: Eremin AV
        at worst, they would have lost half the BSF.

        This is doubtful. Despite all the events and orders of individual politicians and commanders, nobody really really resisted the actions of Russia in Crimea, since nobody wanted a war. Extra RKR would not change anything here. In addition, I sincerely doubt that in a year and a half it would have been possible to agree, conclude a contract, manufacture weapons, put it in Ukraine and install it on a cruiser, and after Maidan it would still be unfinished.
    2. Avior
      Avior 7 December 2018 02: 51
      0
      Ukraine did not need a cruiser, except to try to sell it to the Chinese or Indians.
      But Vladimir the Great is a misunderstanding of the Lord, a corvette frigate at the price of destroyers-admirals to roll abroad. Not surprisingly, unfinished.
      It was more correct for this money heels - a dozen missile boats to build
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 7 December 2018 03: 28
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        And Vladimir the Great is a misunderstanding of the Lord, a corvette frigate at the price of a destroyer

        With a size of more than 20380 (700 tons heavier), the declared price tag of the project 58250 was at the level of the Russian analogue (250 million euros for the lead ship - about 10,2 billion rubles at the rate of 2011, at the time of laying Vladimir, or 17 billion rubles for 2015 year). In the same 2011, "Arlie Burke" was worth about $ 2,2 billion, or 1,58 billion euros. "Vladimir the Great" is 6 times cheaper than a destroyer, not "a frigate at the price of a destroyer" laughing Andrei’s colleague could still compare price tags by PPP, but I don’t think it is urgently needed. I don’t know what sources you have, but they obviously drove them away, Ukrainian corvette frigates were not so expensive according to the project.
  20. faiver
    faiver 6 December 2018 15: 23
    0
    in my opinion, it’s already time to order a series of frigates from the Chinese, and at the same time five DKVD fives ....
    1. Avior
      Avior 7 December 2018 02: 56
      0
      if you still be confident in the quality of work
  21. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri 6 December 2018 16: 23
    +2
    Andrey, welcome hi ... As soon as I read the preamble to the article, my soul grew warmer, I remembered your promise to go over the Leader's project in more detail, but apparently all the same next time. I would especially like to hear something about his kupalamakovka, because as I understand it, the Russian Orthodox Church is going to carry out the projection of power (forgive "grace") also across the sea. And what is not an answer to the Uraians - a mobile temple, which can snap back (though the principle of the right / left cheek breaks down here, but who and when worried about it laughing ) For me - so the best option of those that can be found after the implementation of the notorious autocephaly. But I'm exaggerating this.
    A little information on Lazarev: on the rusarmy website in the section "Status of Project 1144 cruisers" in September 2014, photos of where the ship is docking were published (http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/threads/sostojanie-krejserov-proekta-1144.9/page -50) and then what it looks like after (http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/threads/sostojanie-krejserov-proekta-1144.9/page-54). It is clear that the question of the state of iron remains open, but I suppose if the timing of Nakhimov had not shifted to the right, the ship would have had every chance of being upgraded. And the fact that it is relevant - no doubt, remember at least the theses from a recent article about the principles of building the American fleet, which would be good to learn. Well, to please Kaptsov - after all, the last ships with some kind of armor. Moreover, the ships receive a new "stuffing", and the S-400 (which is not particularly needed by the landowners, and such a pace of purchases, because everyone is waiting for the S-500) is fundamentally no different from the 300-ki - it would fit in like a native if its naval version were available to our industry.
    In general, I have always said and continue to say that the modernization of existing resources should have started not even yesterday, the day before yesterday - in the midst of some "fat" XNUMXs. And then at least we could have today:
    SF - 6 units 1155 Ave. (transformed into full-fledged destroyers, but at the same time having not lost their specialization - this is from the category why it is so important to create an inclined installation for ЗС-14. It seems that one of the creators of the Caliber said that if such a task would come from the MO this the work could be done in six months, because the inclined start is easier than the vertical one), 2 units 1144 and 1 units 1164 Ave., tied in a rigid coupling to the 1-th unit. 1143.5 Ave., the main strike wing of which should be MIG-29K (I insist on this, because they clearly feel much better on the ship than SU-shek, the latter could be transferred even to the Kuril Islands or to other places with limited runway) + according to the 1 frigate 22350 for each unit of the 1155 Ave., which had to be riveted even without air defense (the same 1155 how many went without it, and some continue to serve only with AK-630), total the same 6 ships. + for each 22350 unit there should be 2 corvette 20350, i.e., in total, on the fleet of 12 pennants;
    Pacific Fleet - 1 units 1144 Ave. (Admiral Lazarev), 2 units 1164 (Varangian and Moscow, the latter is still not in the closed waters of the Black and Mediterranean Seas, but in the great part of the ocean), 2 units 1155 + 1 units + 1 units 1155.1 Ave. (it is more necessary there than to the north). To all this good (meaning pr. 1155 and 1155.1) also add to each 1-th unit. 22350 ave. and 2 units 20350, total 3 pieces and 6 others.
    Black Sea Fleet - it’s almost unchanged, only instead of departing Moscow to place 2 units of 956 Ave., one in Tartus and one in Sevastopol and constantly rotate them + bring the number of 11356 to 4 units, but underwater forces limit 4- My name was Varshavyanki, not 6 as planned, (because, as you see, the main problem is the straits, and the boats in them are more likely auxiliary weapons).
    BF - also 2 units, etc. 956 and 2 units. 11540 (with full and not castrated weapons) and at least 4 corvette 20380 + 2 Varshavyanka to 3 available Halibut.
    But my humble opinion is the fleet we need the least (the alignment is understandable only for winged surface ships), which we can afford, however, given the fact that all the ships have undergone timely modernization and are equipped with relatively modern weapons. It is a pity that my Wishlist never come to life. And why? Because someone in the General Staff or the Admiralty wants too much. As an example, this kind of Wishlist is a polymer-redoubt at 20350 Ave., when there would have been enough for the air defense system. As a result, soon nothing will remain of the fleet at all. All this is very sad.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 December 2018 16: 55
      0
      Quote: Dante
      Andrey, welcome

      Good evening, Cyril!
      Quote: Dante
      I remembered your promise to go through the Leader’s project in more detail, but apparently still the next time

      Hmmm ... usually, I do not forget about my promises, but, in my opinion, I already wrote about them once :)))) And so far there is nothing new about them.
      Quote: Dante
      In general, I have always said and continue to say that the modernization of existing resources should have started not even yesterday, the day before yesterday - in the midst of some "fat" XNUMXs.

      That's for sure. Alas.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 6 December 2018 18: 23
        0
        Yes, yes, in my opinion, there were something about Leaders 2-3 articles in a cycle ago. It's just that since that time, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge and I, a sinful thing, hoped maybe you learned something else on this topic, especially against the background of statements about "super-Gorshkov", which have recently turned from so to speak longed-for desires fans of the fleet are quite a working version of the further vector of its construction (if you take the liberty of counting the statements of the USC representatives as such).
    2. frog
      frog 6 December 2018 18: 54
      +4
      A very good selection according to possible options ... Unfortunately, it does not take into account one small nuance .... And this problem is not that now there are no "fat" zeroes ", and not even in the wish list of the General Staff or the Admiralty. As Philip Philipovich said, the problem is in the heads. Taking into account the quality of management practically throughout the country, it makes absolutely no difference whether they are obese or not, but not the current years. And if suddenly, by means of an inhuman attitude towards the goldfish, it is suddenly possible to solve this problem, then automatically the wishlist of the same General Staff becomes quite sane. But where can I get that fish?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. frog
          frog 6 December 2018 22: 04
          0
          As I understand it, it should be read like this: "We will not let you develop - forget it. All the best to you." In essence, such ubiquitous statements, coupled with the ongoing transformations, mean genocide of the Russian people, no more and no less.
          It's not entirely clear here, sho there is "We" and to whom it is "you" ..... I can be absolutely biased)))) and in every possible way a villain, but ..... IMHO, a very significant number of the population for these, sorry suffering just doesn't give a damn. And not because of some kind of ideology, but simply. Well, they are not interested in all this ... Interesting is the rate of the national currency to ..... the currency itself. Loan interest. New iPhone. Ischo some kind of garbage. Bo, if we are serious about rebuilding the country, then everyone will have to suffer, and we do not like this. Let someone get hurt, just not me. That's the whole national idea on this issue.
          So your interpretation of this replica is not entirely ........ comprehensive. IMHO. Not to mention the fact that there are few good locksmiths (and other performers))), although nowhere without them. But as for the managers, without whom it would certainly not work, everything is much more boring. And everywhere. After all, how are we, characters with MBA diplomas are a heap, and there is nobody to work. And it will not work .... Alas ....
      2. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 6 December 2018 23: 19
        0
        -And this problem is not that now there are no "fat" zero ", and not even in the wish list of the General Staff or the Admiralty. As Philip Filippych said, the problem is in the heads. -

        There is also a failure with skilled workers, which they are not in a hurry to restore.
        1. frog
          frog 6 December 2018 23: 47
          0
          So, therefore, do not rush ...
          For there is a certain effective manager sitting there, with the same above and below .... And who is there to rush? If he understands at all what a "skilled worker" is and why he is needed. At the marvelous "Krasny Sormovo" at one time, and maybe even now, there was a tendency to invite guest workers and pay them, and not their own. With the same quality. You can save on payroll ..... If the second person in the design bureau came there from the bottle production / warehouse - what questions?
          And to whom and where to restore these same frames?))
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 7 December 2018 04: 41
            0
            -If the second person in the design bureau came there from the bottle production / warehouse - what are the questions? -

            Yeah .... Sailors have no questions.
  22. Disorder
    Disorder 6 December 2018 19: 37
    -2
    As soon as the author did not drown from so many sad thoughts.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 December 2018 19: 57
      +2
      Quote: Trouble
      As soon as the author did not drown from so many sad thoughts.

      This is not surprising, another is strange - how you were able to master them. They probably didn’t read it, but figured out the volume of the text? :))))
      1. Disorder
        Disorder 8 December 2018 02: 17
        0
        And why overpower them when after the words "To be continued ..." you yourself lay out a list of your sad thoughts.
  23. Newone
    Newone 6 December 2018 19: 55
    0
    I’ll duplicate my question from a neighboring topic: What tasks can the coastal aviation of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea not be able to solve, which the aircraft carrier can solve?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 December 2018 20: 20
      +2
      Quote: Newone
      What tasks is incapable of solving the coastal aviation of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea, which the aircraft carrier will solve?

      Destruction of enemy aircraft over the Barents Sea :)))) Providing a "clear sky" regime over the areas of SSBN deployment. They discussed it like, didn't they? :)))
      1. Newone
        Newone 6 December 2018 20: 28
        0
        Andrei, the destruction of enemy aircraft over the Barents Sea is a fully feasible task for coastal aviation.
        The range of SU-35 is -1000 km (without hanging tanks) with hanging tanks of -2000 km. The distance from Severomorsk to Svalbard is approximately 1030 km. The distance from Novaya Zemlya to Svalbard is approximately 930 km.
        Simply put, all the Barents Sea is within the range of SU-35, even without the use of air refueling.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          6 December 2018 20: 44
          +2
          Quote: Newone
          Simply put, all the Barents Sea is within the range of SU-35, even without the use of air refueling.

          So what? In your opinion, if the goal is within reach, is everything all right and the problem is solved? :))))) So I hasten to disappoint - it is not at all solved.
          So, here we have the eve of the conflict, SSBNs are leaving the bases. In the sky - "Poseidons". How are you going to squeeze them out with the coastal Su-35? Well, Su flew in, Poseidon left (there is no war yet, you can't shoot down). Su returns to the airfield, Poseidon returns to the search square, sow the reasonable, the good, the eternal, and a little sonar buoys.
          In general, in order to really squeeze them out, you must constantly be on duty in the air, and for this no Su-35 will be enough, at least drive them there from all over the country.
          Well, let's say, the four Su-35 patrols provided. Next, the war begins. We still do not know about this, the enemy has already decided everything. And now our flying radar captures the appearance of large enemy air forces kilometers in 300 from the patrol area. What we are going to do? Raise alarm squadrons from Severomorsk? So do not have time. The enemy will break his face. Su-35 will lead his poseydons to the area.
          In general, in such "games" it is the speed of reaction that decides, that is, the distance to the airfields. The aircraft carrier wins here by a wide margin
          1. Newone
            Newone 6 December 2018 22: 09
            0
            Andrew,
            1) Well, if we are talking about trifles, then the SSBN is ALREADY in deployment areas on combat duty during the threatened period (and not even in the threatened one). Alas, under Yeltsin, alas, they did not stand at the pier. And these areas, unlike the 70s, are not in the Atlantic, but in the Kara and eastern parts of the Barents Sea
            2) "Poseidon departed (there is no war yet, you cannot shoot down)." Well, in general, during the threatened period (and in Soviet times and in ordinary times it was so), continuous combat patrols are organized (where necessary, and with the help of refueling in the air). The organization of such patrols is easier than the organization of patrols from an aircraft carrier due to the fact that takeoff and landing on an aircraft carrier in the north is much more difficult than refueling in the air. The massive use of Poseidons in officially OUR (in our opinion) territorial waters (and this is the border to the Pole), as it were, is not a sickly bell about the forthcoming and the possibility of the enemy raking a counter strike.
            3) "And now our flying radar detects the appearance of large enemy air forces 300 kilometers from the patrol area."
            Did they teleport there? If not, then they probably took off either from the AUG or from ground airfields. The patrol zone, suddenly, is not above the SSBN location, but 1500 km west. Both the AUG and the airfields are being watched (peace time, no one bothers). And suddenly it would appear 300 km in peacetime, it was possible during the Second World War, perhaps it was possible in the 60s. It's not possible now. Continuous radar field created. AUGs and airfields are being watched. AUG's exit to the line of attack is at least a yellow alarm. Mass take-off from aircraft carriers AUG, which reached the line of attack, is red. Norms of launching the Strategic Missile Forces less than 10 minutes Such an attack is a great opportunity for a potential adversary to recognize the full power of our nuclear deterrence forces.
            Then, even on the assumption that the time has come for EBN again and they crawled out at 300km. How will an aircraft carrier help here? Harpoon launch line 180km, AIM-6 -180 km. Anti-radar missiles - 300 km. The exit of the group of super Hornets to the launch line is 3 minutes (they will go to the afterburner so that as little as possible is in the air defense zone). Under the conditions you set, the aircraft carrier will release 3 aircraft and then drown.
            4) "The enemy will break the face. The Su-35 will lead its Poseidons to the area." The patrol zone of the air radar is about 1500 km from the SSBN deployment zone. Poseidons will fly there for 2 hours. During these two hours of drying, they will have time from any coastal ground airfield along the perimeter to fly to any area of ​​the Barents Sea, to knock down Poseidons / cover group (I remember your opinion that in modern air combat they can only win with melee missiles provided they have electronic warfare, but here the SU-35 there is no equal) and come back.
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 6 December 2018 23: 24
              0
              -During these two hours of drying, they’ll have time to fly from any coastal ground airfield to any area of ​​the Barents Sea, beat down the Poseidons / cover group (I remember your opinion that in modern aerial combat they win only with melee missiles, provided EW, and here SU- 35 there are no equal) and will go back .-

              As for the electronic warfare. There are no radars with AFAR on the Su-35S. Yes, and the missiles are outdated. And the number of dryers is not enough. That is, even if they are not damaged or knocked down.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                7 December 2018 07: 46
                0
                Quote: gunnerminer
                On Su-35С there is no radar with AFAR

                So what? Yes, Su will have some problems with conducting aerial combat and simultaneously mapping the terrain :))) How will this help Hornet? :))) Which by the way, not everyone has AFAR ...
                Quote: gunnerminer
                and missiles obsolete

                All the most modern, which are - RVV-SD, MD and te te.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 December 2018 07: 44
              +1
              Quote: Newone
              Well, if we're talking about little things, then the SSBN is ALREADY in deployment areas on combat duty during the threatened period (and not even in the threatened one).

              And not close. There is KOH, there are ships that can go to sea right away, there are - who can do this in a few days, weeks. So saturation will be gradual, and this is not very important. District air defense must be provided.
              Quote: Newone
              Well, actually, during the threatened period (and in Soviet times and in ordinary times it was like that), continuous combat patrols are organized (where necessary, with the help of air refueling).

              And here coastal aviation demonstrates all its limitations. You are simply lazy to calculate the number of aircraft needed to ensure that the 1 car is on duty at a distance of, say, 600 km from the airfield. And if we are talking about large quantities ... In the process, you threw me a topic for the article :)))
              Quote: Newone
              Did they teleport there?

              Take-off from the airfields of Norway, hook to the north. Everything.
              Quote: Newone
              AUGs and airfields are being watched.

              Who and what? :)))
              Quote: Newone
              Then, even on the assumption that the time has come for EBN again and they crawled out into 300km. How will an aircraft carrier help here?

              The rise of the regiment.
              Quote: Newone
              Harpoon launch line 180km, AIM-6 -180 km. Anti-radar missiles - 300 km. The exit of the group of super Hornets to the launch line of 3 min. (At the afterburner they will leave so that as little as possible is in the air defense zone). Under the conditions you set, the aircraft carrier will release the 3 of the aircraft and then drown.

              Detection is not in 300 km from AB, but in 300 km from the border of the protected area :)))))) And as for the attack on AB - I hasten to disappoint, this does not work. Everything is much more complicated and slower there, without any afterburners, and without firing rockets at the maximum range.
              Quote: Newone
              The patrol zone of the air radar is separated from the deployment zone of the SSBN somewhere at 1500 km. Poseidons will fly there for 2 hours.

              They will not, they are already there - at the borders of the district. Or are you going to push Su-1500 over 35 km from the borders of the district? :)))))
              Quote: Newone
              and these two hours of drying will be in time from any coastal ground airdrome

              Not so. Poseidons are coming. Su are being squeezed out. Those retreat to a certain distance, and then large enemy air forces are detected.
              1. Newone
                Newone 7 December 2018 18: 19
                0
                "And not close."
                Andrey, if in threatened period The SSBN cruisers will be standing at the piers, and not on combat duty / unscheduled access to the combat deployment area, then the fleet commander and his chief of staff must shake off the stars from their shoulder straps, remove their tunic and boots, put on boots and take a broom - sweep the parade ground. In wartime, such people are shot.
                KOH is a statistic and does not reflect actions during a threatened period. And it reflects the ability of the rear services of the fleet to quickly serve fleet ships in a continuous mode. So the KOH indicated by Lebedko at 0,23 reflects only the deplorable state of the rear infrastructure of the fleet, which, in general, needs to be improved. The aircraft carriers KON RPKSN do not improve, obviously, but only worsen.
              2. Newone
                Newone 7 December 2018 18: 55
                0
                "It's just lazy for you to count the number of aircraft required to ensure that 1 aircraft is on duty at a distance of, say, 600 km from the airfield."
                An SU-34 with an active electronic intelligence reconnaissance container, 1 PTB and 2 medium-range missiles R-77-1 and 2 short-range missiles R-73 can patrol a front 600 km away from the base airfield at a distance of 600 km for 3 hours. The flight time to the line is 0,5 hours. Accordingly, 2 (two) aircraft are required for round-the-clock duty.
                For understanding, 600 km from Severomorsk is just Bear Island.
              3. Newone
                Newone 7 December 2018 19: 39
                0
                "Who and what? :)))"
                Means of long-range electronic intelligence :))))))
              4. Newone
                Newone 7 December 2018 19: 48
                0
                "The rise of the air regiment."
                And how much will you lift planes from an aircraft carrier in 6 minutes? 3 pcs? Given that a likely adversary against your aircraft carrier will organize a minimum of 3 AUGs with 270 aircraft?
                And with guaranteed sinking, your aircraft carrier will fulfill its task (with a 3 -10-fold advantage of forces and means, sinking our aircraft carrier is guaranteed) - taking control of airspace on a theater — after all, you swelled all the money into the aircraft carrier and therefore you have less aircraft and there is no ground infrastructure and no air defense either.
                Great plan :))))
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  7 December 2018 20: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Newone
                  And how much will you raise planes from an aircraft carrier in 6 minutes? 3 pcs?

                  Where did the figure in 6 minutes come from? :)))
                  Quote: Newone
                  3 pcs?

                  In fact, from 6 to 9, most likely 6 will be in the air, and 3 will be at the starting places.
                  Quote: Newone
                  Is a likely opponent against your aircraft carrier organizing a minimum of 3 AUGs with 270 aircraft?

                  That is unlikely. I would say the maximum is 2.
                  Quote: Newone
                  And with guaranteed sinking, your aircraft carrier will fulfill its task (with the 3-xNUMX-fold advantage of forces and means, sinking our aircraft carrier is guaranteed) - taking control of the airspace

                  It's too late :))))) the rockets started.
                  Task A is to prevent a disarming strike against the SSBN. And, if they found him, if he was accompanied, then NATO will have to spend time and effort on its neutralization, and not on the search and destruction of the SSBN. Which, in fact, was required.
                  And yet - where did 6 minutes come from? :)))))
                  1. Newone
                    Newone 7 December 2018 22: 16
                    0
                    Where did the figure in 6 minutes come from
                    You yourself called the attack range of 300 km. Hence the figure.

                    In fact, from 6 to 9, most likely 6 will be in the air, and 3 will be at the starting places.

                    It's fine. But this is what prevents coastal aviation (on new land, for example) from holding 8 aircraft in the air? Stories about the difficulties of supply, please do not tell - Khmeimim can cope without aircraft carriers. From the point of view of flying time to the SSBN deployment areas, the aircraft carrier and the land strips in the Novaya Zemlya area are the same. Moreover, EXISTING Air Force planes that fly faster and further away and carry more armaments than existing and promising aircraft capable of operating from an aircraft carrier can be based on ground strips.

                    It's too late :))))) the rockets started.

                    And what prevents them from starting when deploying aviation on the shore? Moral principles?

                    NATO will have to spend time and effort on its neutralization, and not on the search and destruction of the SSBN

                    An aircraft carrier is not a needle you can’t just hide it. In any case, finding a carrier in the sea is much easier than finding a submarine. And if you have Poseidons curling in the areas of combat deployment of the SSBNs in peacetime, what prevents you from adding a couple of white Hokkaevs to the pack of Black Poseidons?
                    But when deploying aircraft forces on the shore on a large number of small airfields (as was actually assumed in Soviet times), the enemy still needs to decide where the planes really are and where the models are inflatable. Yes, and to destroy the land strip to the state of non-restoration, many tomahawks need. And if there are more than 50 such bands? The aircraft carrier in this regard is much less resistant to the first strike. And repair it MUCH longer and more expensive.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      9 December 2018 17: 09
                      +1
                      Quote: Newone
                      You yourself called the attack range-300km

                      And after that I repeated - 300 km to the border of the protected area, and not to the aircraft carrier :))))
                      Quote: Newone
                      But what prevents coast-based aviation (for example, on new land) from keeping 8 planes in the air?

                      Let me think ... maybe there is only one airfield? And the fact that to ensure the round-the-clock duty of 8 aircraft in the air at least 600 km from the airfield during 2 sorties / day, about 28 machines are needed?
                      Quote: Newone
                      From the point of view of flying time to the SSBN deployment areas, both the aircraft carrier and the ground bands in the area of ​​Novaya Zemlya are the same.

                      In fact, it’s completely different; you look where Rogachevo stands
                      Quote: Newone
                      And what prevents them from starting when deploying aviation on the shore?

                      PLO aircraft
                      Quote: Newone
                      And if such bands are not one but 50?

                      10 aircraft carriers cheaper :)))))
                      1. Newone
                        Newone 9 December 2018 23: 18
                        0
                        300 km to the border of the protected area

                        Given the fact that this area is getting narrower to 0, when the planes need to fly from an aircraft carrier to intercept and expand to infinity in all other cases, you can discuss such walking values ​​only after clarifying their parameters.
                        maybe the presence of a single aerodrome there?

                        And what prevents to place on already built aerodrome 28 cars. And expand the capabilities of this airdrome by building the necessary number of runways?
                        In fact, it’s completely different; you look where Rogachevo stands
                        Here I look. Perfectly worth it. Maybe you have an SSBN deployment zone again in the Atlantic Ocean according to plans of the 60s?
                        PLO aircraft
                        Which coastal aviation has already driven away at a distance?
                        10 aircraft carriers cheaper :)))))
                        Are you going to build airports for receiving first-class passenger airliners there? Or do you have aircraft carriers - models from the center of Krylov? This I am silent about that we can technically build and build QUICKLY deploy runway deployment. Avot to build an aircraft carrier (and then compare the cost) you need:
                        1) To develop a concept for the application of our possible ACG.
                        2) Under the concept to develop an aircraft carrier project.
                        3) Under the concept to develop projects of escort ships;
                        4) Under the concept, find and design a point / points of permanent basing, providing the possibility of the cheapest service and repair of an aircraft carrier.
                        5) Under the concept, find and design a point / points of permanent basing, providing the possibility of the cheapest service and repair of escort ships.
                        6) Build shipyards capable of building an aircraft carrier. (Now there are simply NO shipyards in Russia).
                        7) Select / find shipyards capable of building escort ships.
                        8) To build point of permanent basing of an aircraft carrier.
                        9) To build points of permanent basing of escort ships.
                        10) Build escort ships.
                        11) BUILD FINALLY CARRIER
                        12) Build an aircraft wing for an aircraft carrier.
                        13) Train pilots capable of working from the deck of an aircraft carrier.
                        14 ) Repeat steps 5-13 10+ times (if the characteristics of an aircraft carrier will be equal to the characteristics of the American Gerald Ford).
                        15) [b] Repeat paragraphs 5-13 another 10+ times (for the Pacific Fleet) in view of the impossibility of promptly relocating our ACG to the Pacific Ocean. Well, either build a fleet of icebreakers capable of dragging a few AUG through the ice.
                        And is this all going to be cheaper than a dozen additional runways?
                        It would be funny if it weren’t very sad ...
              5. Newone
                Newone 7 December 2018 21: 03
                0
                "Take off from airfields in Norway, hook north. That's it."
                And the mass take-off and construction of hundreds of aircraft in battle formations, our long-range radio intelligence equipment does not see :))))) A fog of war like ....

                "Who and with what?" Should I write your full name, titles and awards? :)))))
                Regarding the means of aerial reconnaissance, I have already written to you - read, about the naval reconnaissance, look at the Monolith long-range radar detection station, for example, the Voronezh ZGRLS, the Kolchuga, Vega, Valeria RTR stations. Enough?

                "They won't, they are already there - at the border of the district." Well that is you propose to drive them away only from the borders of the SSBN combat duty area? Clearly marking this very area? Another GOOD PLAN which is already there :))))
                And it will be the aircraft carrying the AWAC function that will be engaged in driving away? GOOD PLAN ^ 2
                Those retreat to a certain distance, and then large enemy air forces are detected.

                This is where they go? How far away? And how does this withdrawal save them at the "H" hour? If anything, from coastal airfields on the new land to the areas of SSBN deployment, fly for 3 minutes on a MiG-31. And from the border of TromsE, Bear Island, about. White support group fly 60 min. And without a support group MIG-31, one 4 Poseidon is guaranteed to shoot down two missiles.
                Well, in general, an EXCELLENT PLAN to fly into a low-speed clumsy hefty machine for 1500 km into the enemy air defense domination zone :)))))
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  9 December 2018 17: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: Newone
                  Well i.e. Do you intend to drive them away only from the borders of the combat duty area of ​​the SSBN? Clearly indicating thereby this very area? Another GOOD PLAN which is already there :))))

                  A great. For outside the district - many hundreds of miles of this very district, look - I do not want :))))
                  Quote: Newone
                  This is where they go? How far away? And how does this withdrawal save them at the "H" hour?

                  by the fact that their flight duration is much longer than the Su-35 and they can return quickly - after the demolition
                  1. Newone
                    Newone 9 December 2018 23: 56
                    0
                    For there are many hundreds of miles of this region outside the district
                    You have an area of ​​combat duty of the SSBN for some reason WELL VERY SMALL for an aircraft carrier aircraft and BISCANEAL large in all other cases. An aircraft carrier in general, though a big thing, but not a black hole, does not affect the properties of time space :)))))
                    by the fact that their flight duration is much longer than the Su-35 and they can return quickly - after the demolition

                    Warp jumping, you know, in EVE-online, but not in real life :))))) Or the Poseidons will be pushed out of the range of early warning radar detection i.e. 1500 km, after which they will certainly be able to return, but only after 2 hours. Or they will be destroyed when an attacking group is found.
          2. Avior
            Avior 7 December 2018 02: 54
            +1
            , sow a reasonable, good, eternal, well, a little sonar buoys.
            good good
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 6 December 2018 23: 22
          +2
          -Range of action SU-35 -1000 km (without hanging tanks) with hanging tanks -2000 km-

          These Su-35S barely regiment of combat readiness will be composed of four fleets and four military districts. All of these operational units are just four combat-ready A-50U. And the Diaghilev Aviation Regiment of old tankers based on the IL-78. There is no operational efficiency.
          1. Newone
            Newone 7 December 2018 00: 49
            0
            Russian Air Force SU-35 - 70 units. Is this a barely combat-ready regiment?
            A-50U - 4 pcs. Just A-50 another 7pcs.
            MiG-31-250 pcs. And for the purposes of patrolling and reconnaissance in combat MiG-31, in my opinion, is the best aircraft. Anyway, it’s much better than hokka.
            And the SU-34 of which 109 units can be turned into containers with a flying radar.
            Any of the SUs quietly turns into a tanker by installing a special unit.
            1. Newone
              Newone 7 December 2018 01: 09
              0
              And one more question. Flight range SU-35 with two PTB-4500km. All of Russia from Kaliningrad to Chukotka is less than 9000 km. One landing in the center of the country. All available videoconferencing forces can be concentrated in the selected direction in one day. Where do you get more responsiveness then?
              1. Newone
                Newone 7 December 2018 02: 39
                0
                "As for the electronic warfare. There is no AFAR radar on the Su-35S .."
                AFAR is generally concerned with electronic warfare insofar as. And there is no AFH-Khibiny.
                And in the confrontation with the F-22 and F-35 (do you mean them right?) There is one thing: the entire invisibility of these devices is against the k-band. Long-wave radars see them. Just as they are seen by passive electronic intelligence tools. So they will appear in large groups in front of an amazed audience. If we consider the oncoming battle, then I saw information that the radio control channel and passive guidance of the AIM-120 work up to 100 km, after which the AGSN works. AGSN AIM-120 AFAR does not have Khibiny + over-maneuverability (well, traps) are more likely to neutralize this missile. Thus, the advantage of the F-35, although it is, is far from overwhelming. Closer than 80 km, the SU-35 OLS and the R-77-1 radio control are already operating, and here the chances of the SU-35 are already higher due to over-maneuverability. When working on the rear hemisphere, again, the SU-35 can be much more efficient (such a thing is super-maneuverable - you still need a pilot for it)
                "Yes, and the missiles are outdated" R-77-1 is not obsolete at all. Quite at the level of the rocket.
                1. gunnerminer
                  gunnerminer 7 December 2018 04: 40
                  +2
                  -AFAR in general, it refers to electronic warfare insofar as. And AFAR no-Khibiny is .-

                  Khibiny for radar with AFAR will not create radical problems. For this, AFAR was developed.

                  - Here already the chances of SU-35 are higher due to over-maneuverability. -

                  Over-maneuverability was relevant in the late 50s. Only a trained pilot can withstand overloads, no longer than one and a half two minutes.

                  -When working on the rear hemisphere, again, the SU-35 can be much more efficient (such a thing is super-maneuverable - you still need a pilot for it) -

                  This is completely for the naive.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    7 December 2018 07: 50
                    +1
                    Quote: gunnerminer
                    Khibiny for radar with AFAR will not create radical problems. For this, AFAR was developed.

                    Complete nonsense. You absolutely do not understand what you are writing about.
                  2. Newone
                    Newone 7 December 2018 17: 13
                    0
                    "Khibiny for radar with AFAR will not create radical problems. For this, AFAR was developed."
                    Andrei correctly answered this remark for you.
                    "Super-maneuverability was relevant in the late 50s. Only a trained pilot can withstand overloads, no longer than one and a half two minutes."
                    The missile dodge maneuver lasts significantly less. "Trained pilots in anti-G suits can tolerate G-forces from −3 ... −2 g to +12 g" [Aerobatics of light vehicles]. The maximum overload for which the AIM-120 is intended is just 12g.
                    For the most naive to believe that an object with a wingspan of 1,5 tens of meters has an EPR like a crow. But you believe.
                    1. Lozovik
                      Lozovik 8 December 2018 18: 21
                      0
                      Quote: Newone
                      "Trained pilots in anti-G suits can tolerate G-forces from −3 ... −2 g to +12 g

                      At low altitudes and high subsonic speeds ny rasp = 12 is possible, however, local destruction can occur, which will entail the destruction of the entire aircraft structure. And so, ny extra = 9, provided that the mass is less than or equal to the calculated one.

                      PPK or VKK with PPU do not increase tolerance of negative overloads and in general such overloads should not be given.
                2. Avior
                  Avior 7 December 2018 11: 03
                  +1
                  Long-wave radars see them. Just as they are seen by passive electronic intelligence tools.

                  Not seen not in Iraq, not in Yugoslavia.
                  Is that point blank.
                  1. Newone
                    Newone 7 December 2018 21: 09
                    +1
                    Likely about that F-115, which the Serbs shot down, they learned through divine insight.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 10 December 2018 11: 37
                      0
                      f-117.
                      by coincidence. shot down on the fifth day, and then for months could not bring down a single
              2. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 7 December 2018 04: 38
                +1
                - with two PTB-4500km-

                With the PTB, they will maneuver more slowly, with halved ammunition.

                -All available videoconferencing forces can be concentrated in the selected direction in one -

                They will beat comprehensively, from all directions. Not expecting such concentrations.
            2. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 7 December 2018 04: 36
              0
              -SU-35 Russian Air Force - 70 units-

              This is an arithmetic number. All aircraft produced as of December 2018. Excluding those under repair, reserves and other activities that exclude their full combat readiness.

              - MiG-31-250 pcs. -

              The same. Including those stored outdoors in the steppe. Without engines. There are a maximum of 30 combat ready units in all districts and fleets.

              -Yes and SU-34 of which 109 units can be converted into flying radar using containers.

              Of these, there are a maximum of 50 running ones. The Su-34, due to its armored capsule, is not intended for air battles, is clearly visible on the radar, and is not too quick.

              Any of the SU calmly turns into a tanker, by installing a special unit-
              The more such self-made tankers, the fewer fighters. They are already with a gulkin nose.
              1. Lozovik
                Lozovik 7 December 2018 21: 08
                0
                Comrade gunnerminer as always, he cuts off his shoulder, although he does not understand how a combat-ready aircraft differs from a serviceable one and does not distinguish between combat readiness and combat readiness.

                Let's see how things are with the MiG-31 on the example of the Skolol airfield. February 2018


                Attendants on alert 2 and 3.


                The squadron’s parking lot is live in green circles and firewood in red.


                Another squadron.


                DTT, it is clear that flights are in progress. Several sides have already left.


                TEC, 2 more should be in the hangar.
              2. Newone
                Newone 7 December 2018 22: 34
                0
                It’s just interesting where you got the data how many combat-ready, serviceable and in the steppe without aircraft engines where is it? Did the dark gods whisper? Or BillingCat or whatever?
            3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 December 2018 07: 49
              +1
              Quote: Newone
              Russian Air Force SU-35 - 70 units.

              In the Navy - not a single one.
              Quote: Newone
              MiG-31-250 pcs.

              Less than 200, of which hundreds are upgraded.
              Quote: Newone
              MiG-31, in my opinion, is the best aircraft. Anyway, it’s much better than hokka.

              Than?:)))))))
              1. frog
                frog 7 December 2018 12: 22
                +2
                Than?:)))))))

                Sorry, I could not resist wink
                "Socialism is better than capitalism.
                What?
                Than capitalism. "
                1. Newone
                  Newone 7 December 2018 21: 19
                  0
                  Than capitalism

                  "Sometimes it's better to chew than say" Sorry could not resist
                  1. frog
                    frog 7 December 2018 21: 58
                    +2
                    Duc, I will survive wink
                    That's just how well he sees the 31st? In real life .... And as a hokai sees .... Who rarely dangles without cover. Yes, about the wonderful rockets with which the 31st will take him from an insane distance, you can not remember. And how much can the 31st (number one) hang out and how much - an AWACS plane?
                    1. Newone
                      Newone 7 December 2018 22: 29
                      0
                      What do you think, how can a plane specially designed to intercept small-sized low-flying targets see?
                      Yes, about the wonderful rockets with which the 31st will take him from an insane distance, you can not remember.
                      Why? By the way, the MIG-31 can speed up and fly up.
                      And how much the 31st (number not one) can hang out and how much - an AWACS plane
                      No less than the planes of the Hokkai cover group by number, by the way, is also not one. So where the MiG-31 will need one refueling in the air, the AWACS group will suddenly need 2.
                      1. frog
                        frog 7 December 2018 23: 52
                        +1
                        Sorry, I kind of talked about real .... If not, I furiously apologize. I heard a lot of things about this device. And good and not very. Given the brilliant achievements of recent times in the field of quality of domestic production, reference data are not very interesting to me.
                        As for missiles and approaches - I'm sorry I will not comment.
                        Suddenly, the hokai sees a little further and better. And he does not need to go far from dad. And he hangs out for 4 hours. Given that this is not a fighter, the difference is noticeable for the pilot.
                        However, all this is meaningless, so all the best ....
                      2. Newone
                        Newone 8 December 2018 01: 25
                        -1
                        Sorry, I kind of talked about real

                        Who will tell you about the real, when this is a military secret in general. So all from open sources.
                        Suddenly, the hokai sees a little further and better
                        Suddenly, ZGPLS on ships see even further and even better Hokkai. And ships can patrol for weeks. But for some reason, it is believed that Hokka, as a long-range radar surveillance system, is much better. Analyze why.
                        And he does not need to go far from dad.
                        Actually, it’s not just necessary, but critically necessary. Otherwise, the zone of radar detection around the AUG in 1200 km will not work. Considering the fact that modern planes fly 1100 km in half an hour of lifting an air group, so that the AOG can most effectively repel a massive air strike, at least one hockey should hang 900 km from the aircraft carrier.
                        However, all this is pointless.
                        If for you all this is pointless why do you fit in?
                        Goodbye.
                      3. Lozovik
                        Lozovik 8 December 2018 18: 36
                        +1
                        Quote: Newone
                        Given the fact that in half an hour the rise of the air group, modern planes fly 1100 km

                        For modern combat aircraft, cruising is 800-900 km / h.
                      4. Newone
                        Newone 8 December 2018 20: 39
                        0
                        The family of SU 1,1 Mach is out-of-speed. 1380 km / h
                      5. Lozovik
                        Lozovik 8 December 2018 22: 25
                        +1
                        Quote: Newone
                        1,1 Mach jerk speed. 1380 km / h

                        In the atmosphere, such a high speed of sound is impossible. And she is not cruising.

                        Quote: Newone
                        SU family

                        For the Su-27, M≈0,97-0,98.
                      6. Newone
                        Newone 9 December 2018 01: 23
                        0
                        With AL-41F engines, the SU family (since the possibility of this upgrade is indicated on the manufacturer's website) has a super cruise mode, a cruising supersonic speed of 1380 Km / h. [Dr C Kopp. Supercruising Flankers ?. www.ausairpower.net. ], [r. Carlo Kopp. International Assessment and Strategy Center> Research> The Flanker Fleet -The PLA's 'Big Stick'. www.strategycenter.net.]

                        And do you think that planes will fly in the enemy’s air defense zone at cruising speed?
                      7. Lozovik
                        Lozovik 9 December 2018 19: 55
                        +1
                        Quote: Newone
                        With AL-41F engines, the SU family (since the possibility of this upgrade is indicated on the manufacturer's website) has a super cruise mode, a cruising supersonic speed of 1380 Km / h. [Dr C Kopp. Supercruising Flankers ?. www.ausairpower.net. ], [r. Carlo Kopp. International Assessment and Strategy Center> Research> The Flanker Fleet -The PLA's 'Big Stick'. www.strategycenter.net.]

                        There is no such number. The author believes that the product 20 (confuses with 117) in size corresponds to the product 99, although its dimensions are closer to 48. The jaundice is old, and also old.

                        Quote: Newone
                        And do you think that planes will fly in the enemy’s air defense zone at cruising speed?

                        What kind of air defense? What tasks do we solve?
                      8. Newone
                        Newone 9 December 2018 22: 22
                        0
                        There is no such number.

                        "The same report claimed that 27 ship sets of the demonstrator Al-41F configuration were built by Saturn / Lyulka in their Moscow facilities to date. Thrust to weight performance for the engine was cited at 11: 1, and sustained supercruise speeds of Mach 1.6 to 1.8 were claimed. "here's a direct quote from the article.
                        The article is icteric
                        The article, of course, is old, but on the topic, in a thematic Australian magazine and in which the characteristics of the engines coincide with the generally available characteristics on the manufacturer's website. Give a refutation with reference to a more authoritative source.

                        What kind of air defense?
                        The tasks of the air defense system are natural. It is rather strange, in my opinion, to get into a dispute without having read it all. The conversation was about how far the distant AWACS patrol should be.
                      9. Lozovik
                        Lozovik 9 December 2018 23: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Newone
                        "The same report claimed that 27 ship sets of the demonstrator Al-41F configuration were built by Saturn / Lyulka in their Moscow facilities to date. Thrust to weight performance for the engine was cited at 11: 1, and sustained supercruise speeds of Mach 1.6 to 1.8 were claimed. " here is a direct quote from the article.

                        At the time of writing, flight tests of the engine were not conducted. The thrust of 18 tf, which the author operates on, was issued by the real AL-41F, product 20 for MiG MFI, and not product 117.



                        Quote: Newone
                        The tasks of the air defense system are natural. It is rather strange, in my opinion, to get into a dispute without having read it all. The conversation was about how far the distant AWACS patrol should be.

                        Then where does Drying come from? They will be able to accompany the missile carriers to the launch line, the missile carriers themselves will approach at subsonic speed, after launch, if the remainder allows, they can go to supersonic in the 100-200 km section.
                      10. Newone
                        Newone 9 December 2018 23: 39
                        0
                        The thrust of 18 tf, which the author operates on, was issued by the real AL-41F, product 20 for MiG MFI, and not product 117.
                        Not betrayed, but betrayed. And what's the difference as an author means an experienced, at the time of writing, engine, if we now know that an engine with the characteristics given by the author in the article has already been created and is being produced?
                        Then where does Sushka
                        Despite the fact that the SU-34 is able to carry X-35U anti-ship missiles and their combat radius with refueling in the air, they can attack the AUG in the most likely areas of their deployment.
                      11. Lozovik
                        Lozovik 10 December 2018 19: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Newone
                        Not betrayed, but betrayed. And what's the difference as an author means an experienced, at the time of writing, engine, if we now know that an engine with the characteristics given by the author in the article has already been created and is being produced?

                        That engine sank into oblivion along with the IFI, on the Su-35S there is a descendant of AL-31F with a thrust of 14 tf.

                        Quote: Newone
                        Despite the fact that the SU-34 is able to carry anti-ship missiles X-35U

                        Such farting, yes an aircraft carrier? It's funny laughing MSA is no more, the FBA would be able to solve its main tasks ...

                        Quote: Newone
                        and their combat radius with refueling in the air allows

                        For RUG, refueling may be relevant, for the rest it is unlikely. In any case, normal tankers will provide YES.
                      12. Newone
                        Newone 10 December 2018 23: 39
                        0
                        That engine sank into oblivion along with the IFI, on the Su-35S there is a descendant of AL-31F with a thrust of 14 tf.

                        And this engine also provides supercruise mode.
                        Such farting, yes an aircraft carrier? It's funny

                        Well, a KUG attack by an aircraft carrier aircraft link is considered even worse as a serious threat.
                        FBA would be able to solve their main tasks
                        The adoption of the X-35U and installing them on the SU-34 hint that the use of the main forces of the airborne forces against enemy ships is considered a standard option.

                        To consider the possibility of attacking the AUS of a potential adversary NOT by all available VKS forces is complete stupidity. The Americans are capable and will create AUS, where the number of carrier-based aircraft is simply numerically greater than all VKS combined. That is why the recreation of MPA does not make sense. We will not be able to saturate the MRA with a sufficient number of aircraft for at least a possible breakthrough of the air defense system of the AUS, since for this it is necessary to have the number of aircraft numerically approximately equal to all existing combat aircraft of the Russian armed forces. With a single blow with all the forces of the airborne forces, with the use of a combination of various means of destruction and the use of SBC there is at least some chance.
  • Newone
    Newone 7 December 2018 21: 18
    0
    What?

    Speed ​​and altitude.
    1) Hockey cannot evade air combat. MiG-31 can evade any air combat. It’s very difficult to impose air combat on a plane flying 1,5 times faster than you.
  • Newone
    Newone 7 December 2018 21: 23
    0
    In the Navy - not a single one.

    And in the reflection of mass airstrikes, only naval aviation will participate. GOOD PLAN :)))))
    Less than 200, of which hundreds are upgraded.

    Therefore, instead of aircraft, which are not enough, it is necessary to build an Aircraft Carrier; he will grow planes in himself. BEST PLAN :)))))
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 December 2018 12: 16
    +3
    Quote: Newone
    What tasks is incapable of solving the coastal aviation of the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea, which the aircraft carrier will solve?

    Air defense support of ship formations on the northern flank of the "bastion" in the area of ​​the same island. Bearish.
    If the time of approaching the reserves of IA from coastal airfields is less than the delta between the time of detection of enemy aircraft and the time they reach the launch distance of the RCC, then we can’t talk about any air defense by coastal aviation. Arriving reserves can only fix the coordinates of sinking ships and downed pilots of the duty group.
    And to constantly keep in the air above the ships IA forces sufficient to repel a raid by air groups 2-3 AUGs is unscientific fiction.
    And this I am not yet considering the option when the detected targets turn out to be false - and the departed reserve will have to go the same way back. And for the time of this journey and refueling, you will have to keep one more reserve on the shore. smile
    1. Newone
      Newone 7 December 2018 17: 00
      0
      Can an aircraft carrier against 10 supercarriers of a potential adversary solve this problem? Really? Personally, I doubt it.
      The question arises: why is this very group of ship formations there? What is its composition, tasks?
      Could it be easier to abandon a task that cannot be realized even in the foreseeable future and change tactics?
  • Tests
    Tests 6 December 2018 20: 38
    +1
    Andrey, thanks for the next article!
    Dear VO commentators, today correctly recalled the “fat” “zero.” Before the 2008 crisis, money was poured into the defense industry, although later money flowed into the defense industry, and some of that money was poured into what pockets were needed. If you have time, please watch the video from the Severodvinsk Garrison Military Court, I draw your attention to the fact that the verdict has not entered into legal force: http://tv29.ru/new/index.php/bk-obshchestvo-2/17664-semero-predatelej -rodiny-v-severodvinske-osudili-prestupnuyu-gruppu-pilivshuyu-gosoboronzakaz
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 December 2018 20: 46
      +1
      Quote: Tests
      Money in the defense industry before the crisis of 2008 was poured not small

      Alas, almost nothing in the defense industry. There were no system purchases
  • Wildcat
    Wildcat 7 December 2018 02: 49
    0
    hi
    A small clarification from a historical example: "But even small forces can be of great importance, being deployed in the right place at the right time. For example, in the early 70s, the Soviet Navy was also much inferior to the American, not to mention the total power of the NATO fleets. , and our squadron of ships in the Indian Ocean could not pose a particular threat to the American forces.But, nevertheless, when the next Indo-Pakistani conflict began, the active support of the warships of the USSR brought us great political dividends. Kruglyakov later recalled:
    “Later, Attache A. Popov told me that when the American unit led by Enterprise appeared near India, the Indian Defense Minister asked him to connect with the USSR Minister of Defense and expressed concern about the presence of Americans. A.A. Grechko immediately invited the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to his office. The one on the map talked about the forces and actions. After that, Grechko handed over to the Minister of Defense of India through our attache Popov: “The Enterprise” is our business, and let the Indians do their own work. ”This, of course, was a great support for India. The consequences of such a noble step towards us were very favorable for us. authority in India has grown immensely. ”
    “There really were political dividends, and the Indians believe that we helped them then.” V. S. Kruglyakov also believes
    At the same time, some researchers believe that Kruglyakov, to put it mildly, is not right: "the events that the admiral speaks about did not actually take place." And to put it mildly, "we need to figure it out."
    "According to a study by the Center for Naval Analysis, the events the Soviet Admiral described did not happen during the war. Because of the long-distances, the American task force did not arrive on station in the Indian Ocean until after foreign nationals had left and just one day before the Pakistanis surrendered. Adm. Kruglyakov's task group, however, arrived three days after Enterprise and was not in position to block the task force from entering the Bay of Bengal if it wanted to. The British fleet, by that point, had already left the scene. Some of the Soviet warships did seek out the Enterprise, according to the CNA study. Otherwise, all American sources I've read say nothing really about any Soviet naval threat.
    So is Admiral Kruglyakov speaking the truth? Was there nearly a major naval confrontation as there almost was when the Soviets deployed four victor class attack submarines in response to the mining of Haiphong Harbor? Or is this just a legend carried on for propaganda purposes? "Https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14724/did-the-us-and-soviet-navies-really-come-close-to-blows-in -the-indian-ocean-in-1
    (data on the links are kindly provided by "timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)").
    A good example of "even small forces can make a big difference when deployed in the right place at the right time":
    It is recognized that the threat of the USSR fleet to disrupt the transfer of British forces to Libya (and, accordingly, the rejection of it) helped Gaddafi to remove Idris 1969 from power in 1.
    the influence of the USSR fleet on the outcome of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war is recognized to a lesser extent (although the forces in 1973 can no longer be called "small").
    hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 December 2018 07: 52
      0
      Quote: Wildcat
      At the same time, some researchers believe that Kruglyakov, to put it mildly, is not right: "the events that the admiral speaks about did not actually take place." And to put it mildly, "we need to figure it out."

      Specify the names of "some researchers"
      Quote: Wildcat
      According to a study by the Center for Naval Analysis

      Sorry, we are discussing the impact of the Navy on Soviet-Indian relations. What does the English-speaking sources have to do with it? :)))))
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 7 December 2018 10: 51
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Wildcat
        At the same time, some researchers believe that Kruglyakov, to put it mildly, is not right: "the events that the admiral speaks about did not actually take place." And to put it mildly, "we need to figure it out."

        Specify the names of "some researchers"
        Quote: Wildcat
        According to a study by the Center for Naval Analysis

        Sorry, we are discussing the impact of the Navy on Soviet-Indian relations. What does the English-speaking sources have to do with it? :)))))

        Ok, I’ll get to clarify the names, it will take some time.
        English-speaking sources say that the influence was more propaganda than something real.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          7 December 2018 13: 26
          +3
          Quote: Wildcat
          English-speaking sources say that the influence was more propaganda than something real.

          Remember, the fact is that there are 3 facts and they are immutable. Fact One - The Americans tried to put pressure on the Indians through the Navy. The second fact - the Soviet Union, using its Navy, convinced the Indians that if something happened this problem would be solved. And the third fact - the Indians believed this and stopped complexing about this.
          But English-speaking sources (I am sure on 100500) claim that the detachment of ships of the USSR Navy could not really threaten the AUG. Well, it’s known without English speakers laughing
          Nevertheless, a political result was achieved, the Indians ignored the Americans, and our relations improved, and here no English source is able to change anything.
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 7 December 2018 17: 40
            +1
            I almost agree. hi
            The question is in accents: "to put pressure on the Indians" - what is it? Demonstration of readiness / willingness to fight on the side of Pakistan? Or a national feature like "I was always glad to know that near the place where there is international tension, we just have an aircraft carrier" (in a pop version performed by Harrison Ford (as President of the United States): "
            - what will the USA say -
            - the Iraqi ambassador claims that these are exercises -
            - let's not waste time, send Nimitz there ")
            But I’ll look for sources, the topic is interesting, but the books still had to be taken apart! winked
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 7 December 2018 09: 19
    +1
    The fact is that such modernization can be carried out only in the north, “Moscow” cannot get there on its own, and nobody wants to tow it from the Black Sea halfway across the world.

    So it is necessary to build a channel. Straight from the Black Sea. And then Rotenberg's "Stroygazmontazh" was left without orders.
    1. Newone
      Newone 7 December 2018 16: 59
      0
      You can start. Right in your garden. Rotenberg will catch up.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 December 2018 12: 06
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    If the situation moves to the plane of public policy, then the decision will obviously be made by voters

    And the rest will again watch Swan Lake through all channels. smile
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    There are not as many voters in Russia as is commonly believed. Only 2 divisions, 2 nd GVMD and 4 nd GVTD + 27th brigade.

    Not certainly in that way. In the case of a transfer of the situation to the plane of public policy, one should also take into account the possibility of a radical resolution of the issue by some participants by addressing their opponents or depriving them of the opportunity to act. So you should not discount from the accounts of special forces of various departments, which will begin to operate much faster than the army will deploy.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 7 December 2018 12: 51
      +2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And the rest will again watch Swan Lake through all channels

      Least.
      Obviously, such a decisive man as R.A. Kadyrov in the presidents will not be scared by ducks. So people with good faces in such a situation have nothing to catch.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      do not discount the accounts of various departments

      According to my classification, this is still "the level of snuff boxes", not public policy.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      which will begin to act much faster than the army will deploy.

      Special services are stronger than the army only in peacetime.
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 7 December 2018 17: 58
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And the rest will again watch Swan Lake through all channels

        Least.
        Obviously, such a decisive man as R.A. Kadyrov in the presidents will not be scared by ducks. So people with good faces in such a situation have nothing to catch.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        do not discount the accounts of various departments

        According to my classification, this is still "the level of snuff boxes", not public policy.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        which will begin to act much faster than the army will deploy.

        Special services are stronger than the army only in peacetime.

        The question will not be who is stronger and who is faster. In a situation where, as the classic said, “when crowns are lying on the pavements and no one bends down to pick them up,” another “classic” described the way out: “in Russia, whoever took the first stick is a corporal”. The reaction of the military and special services is well written in the memoirs of 91 and 93 (or 53, if anyone is interested in antiquity). People who have a clear goal and understand that they can either take everything or lose everything will be faster, more efficient and ultimately present everyone with a fact.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 7 December 2018 18: 38
          +2
          Quote: Wildcat
          The reaction of the military and special services is well written in the memoirs of 91 and 93

          Probably.

          What are you leading to?

          What do the new leaders of the new Russia eat each other without involving the mentioned forces? This happens, but just in the 91st and 93rd - did not happen.
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 9 December 2018 03: 04
            0
            "That the new leaders of the new Russia eat each other without involving the aforementioned forces? It happens, but just in 91 and 93 it did not happen."
            I agree.
            If you look at 53, 64, 91, 93 years (variants of "hard" transitions of power), you can see a tendency that over time, the winning side tends to show less and less violence towards the losing side and even agrees to the losing side's participation in public life, since the harm from this a little. The military in the broad sense of the word is inclined to go with (or for) politicians, and not "take power by force" (attempts by the military to participate in politics on their own are rather unsuccessful, sometimes fatal).
            In general, they will not eat each other, but the "excesses of the performer" are certainly possible.
            In the "soft" variants of the transfer of power, there is generally a massive transition to the winner and isolated cases of "eating" and "retiring." As soon as a new "center of power" appears, it turns out that everyone in the soul is close to it.
            We hope for the best and preferably without cannibalism!
            hi
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 9 December 2018 21: 53
    0
    Andrey, as a journalist, deliberately muks this topic for his beloved holivar .... the reality is that Moscow is being written off. Petya (apparently no longer able to go out to sea because urgent repairs are needed, "the operational resource has been developed") at Varyag too soon (the last repair was in 2015, that is, in 2025 he was modernized, and he will be too old morally), and Lazarev in general, it is questionable, Nakhimov and Kuzya will be out of repair, hopefully by 2025. Ustinov (now the only working cruiser in Syria) will be scrapped around 2027, because then it makes no sense to upgrade it by age. That is, both remaining 1164 will be written off around 2025, just by that time all cruisers in the world (Ticonderogs) will be decommissioned and it will become obvious that no one needs them. Just to replace 1164m, Nakhimov and Kuzya come, and one or two TARKs go out for repair (rather, they do not go out, but are written off). Most likely, the fleet will finally get used to having one cruiser per ocean (crew. Supply) and Lazarev will also be written off in 2025, and perhaps together with Petya if Nakhimov turns out to be expensive, and he turns out to be ........ About new ships of the AB, EM class and KR ....... no need to shake the air, they will not. So after 2025, two different types of cruisers! Kuzya and the TARK will ensure the continuity of being on the ocean along the cruiser (Kuzya, after all, is also his cruiser in the Pacific Fleet to the repair base, the PD 50 rusted from old age and its repair is almost impossible, or it will sink again after repairs) reality that one CR is enough for all tasks like Syria and other prestige. By 2045 Kuzya and Nakhimov will be written off.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 9 December 2018 22: 00
      0
      in 2025, project 1164 will be 45 years old, and the ships themselves will be 36 years old or more
  • Good neighbor
    Good neighbor 11 December 2018 01: 47
    +1
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk loves the fleet very much, and aircraft carriers in the fleet! And I’m ready to write such a fantasy, backed up by so much factual material that many take for reality.
    1. There is no mission for our only aircraft carrier - we have to invent a "cover for the SSBN area." Well, there will be no such area in a nuclear war - from there everyone who could have shot back, and there is no longer any need for anyone to break through there! And the US AUGs also have no reason to go to our north in a NUCLEAR war. And in the "threatening period" during deployment, how will Kuznetsov cover - shoot down PLO aircraft? then it is a war that turns into a nuclear one ... The aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" in a nuclear war, like all other aircraft carriers, does not decide anything - it is unlikely to survive, and even with such a miracle there will be nowhere to be based. Therefore, we will be glad that we have one "suitcase without a handle", and they have already 11.
    2. In peacetime, for conflicts such as Syria or the Falklands, it is much more necessary to have a supply vessel - the "Syrian Express" for you to understand reality.

    The result is a good article, competent in details and fantastic in attempts to justify the "necessity" of aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy.
  • Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 15 December 2018 23: 38
    0
    Quote: Conductor
    Construction assessment in 100 - 250 yards of rubles !!! Nothing to yourself so price span !!!!!

    The bloodsucking oligarchs have a similar order of numbers:
    "The cost of 20 yachts of Russian oligarchs is estimated at 584 billion rubles. This money could support all Russian pensioners for two months, buy a budget car for each large family, or donate 7,5 million rubles to every veteran of the Great Patriotic War. "
  • Megamarcel
    Megamarcel 2 February 2019 09: 55
    0
    Nobody will build anything big. At best, Rosneft is a gas carrier. The Dallas plan goes according to plan, and some in the Kremlin head this plan. After all, being a traitor for such grandmas is not only pleasant, but also very profitable. So everything is clear without a word.
  • Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to a member function delete () on null in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php:1135 Stack trace: # 0 / var / www /topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(529): HTML_Node-> deleteChild (false) # 1 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/ pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 2 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(559): HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 3 / var / www / topwar / html / topwar.ru / vendor / ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php (531): HTML_Node-> clear () # 4 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/ pharse / pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 5 [internal function]: HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 6 {main} Next Error: Call to a member function delete () on null in / var / www / topwar / html / topwar.ru / vendor / ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php: 1135 Stack trace: # 0 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(529 ): HTML_Node-> deleteChild (false) # 1 / var / www / topwar / html / topw in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php on line 1135