Military Review

In the United States doubted the feasibility of repairing "Admiral Kuznetsov"

212
Russia will render NATO and the US Navy a tremendous service if, instead of building new nuclear submarines such as Yasen or small rocket ships, they will continue to invest heavily in repairing their only aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. This opinion was expressed by the expert of the United States Naval Institute Richard Moss and the commander of the US Navy Ryan West.


In the United States doubted the feasibility of repairing "Admiral Kuznetsov"


The authors of an article published in the journal US Naval Institute, they believe that Russia, instead of repairing its only aircraft carrier, needs to start building new nuclear submarines of the 885 Yasen project or building small rocket ships. Permanent repair of a ship, which in some measure is a legacy of the Cold War, forces Russia to spend enormous sums on it that could be spent on other projects.

Russia will render NATO and the US Navy an enormous service if it decides to spend the money, time and human capital necessary for the overhaul of an aircraft carrier that is clearly a burden to the cold war era

- write the authors of the article.

According to Richard Moss, the protracted repair and restoration of Admiral Kuznetsov is not due to the real needs of the Russian fleet in this aircraft carrier, and is a matter of national prestige. The ship has never had such military value as nuclear submarines or several high-speed intermarines. From the point of view of usefulness, the Admiral Kuznetsov is now a huge problem, not fitting into Russia's naval strategy. Throughout its existence, he never fulfilled his original mission, while remaining very expensive to maintain.

The only Russian aircraft carrier has never been a “reliable platform and has never been used with“ proper efficiency ”due to problems with the propulsion system, hull and aero-finisher. Continuing to invest heavily in the repair of this ship, Russia is doing a great service to NATO and the US Navy.

- sum up the American experts.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
212 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kars
    Kars 6 July 2019 12: 11
    +20
    In principle, something in these words is.
    1. den3080
      den3080 6 July 2019 12: 13
      +17
      Yes, Americans simply do not have to “poke their nose into someone else's question” and all matters.
      1. 777-3-59-97
        777-3-59-97 6 July 2019 12: 42
        +6
        Americans just don’t have to “poke their nose into someone else’s question” and all matters.

        laughing laughing
        1. Vasily Ponomarev
          Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 13: 42
          +1
          lol, well, what else to discuss, if not how much the flight hours of f35 cost, by the way, but about our parade there is such detailed information?
          1. sabakina
            sabakina 6 July 2019 14: 14
            +6
            Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
            lol, well, what else to discuss, if not how much the flight hours of f35 cost, by the way, but about our parade there is such detailed information?

            Vasya, are you definitely Vasya? Or maybe some kind of William? bully
            1. Vasily Ponomarev
              Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 14: 19
              -2
              do not understand? I would like that there was so much information about our much larger parade and it was discussed for more than one day, otherwise it just fiercely infuriates me that VO has slipped to such a level that it writes about Americans as much or even more than about our country, aren't you notice?
              1. sabakina
                sabakina 6 July 2019 14: 24
                0
                That's why you didn’t understand that there’s nothing to understand! Except us...
                1. Vasily Ponomarev
                  Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 14: 27
                  -1
                  so what didn’t suit you in my first comment?
          2. Pirogov
            Pirogov 6 July 2019 17: 03
            -3
            Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
            lol, well, what else to discuss, if not how much the flight hours of f35 cost, by the way, but about our parade there is such detailed information?

            Yes, people had enough pictures. In contrast to the mattress misunderstanding .................
      2. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 6 July 2019 13: 01
        +20
        Striped ears surprised. Such care, straight fathers! And all, I believe, in the presence of even a small, but grouping of carrier-based aircraft. There will be no ship, competencies will disappear, and it will be VERY difficult and long to restore them ... And the "Zvezda" is being built, I believe, not only for tankers and icebreakers. I hope ... and aircraft carriers can also be assembled.
        1. Starover_Z
          Starover_Z 6 July 2019 13: 17
          +6
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Surprised striatum. Such a care, right fathers!

          Permanent repair of a useless, to some extent, ship, a legacy of the Cold War,

          They took care straight ... And why do they support their dozen aircraft carriers and accompanying ships, if they are "the legacy of the Cold War"?
          The ship has never had such military value as nuclear submarines or several high-speed intermarines.

          So build yourself an MRK flotilla, and give the aircraft carriers to your NATO allies!
          1. bayard
            bayard 6 July 2019 15: 17
            +2
            "If Mymra didn’t like it, then it’s a worthwhile thing - we must take it."
            "If the enemy scolds you, then we are going the right way" - comrade. Stalin.
            Well, of course, they "only good" will advise ... especially MRK ... yes submarines, which are already being built.
          2. Normal ok
            Normal ok 6 July 2019 17: 23
            0
            Quote: Starover_Z
            They took care straight ... And why do they support their dozen aircraft carriers and accompanying ships, if they are "the legacy of the Cold War"?

            First, because "Kuzya" is functionally limited.
            Secondly, because they (unlike Russia) have a dozen aircraft carriers and a full set of escort ships. That is, the possibility of massive use.
            Thirdly, because they (unlike Russia) have the appropriate carrier-based aviation and experienced pilots.
            Fourth, because they (unlike Russia) have a doctrine and experience of application.
            Etc. etc. ... ... ...
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 6 July 2019 17: 41
              +7
              Quote: Normal ok
              "Kuzya" is functionally limited.

              The Wright brothers' airplane was generally a "sewing machine", but everything that today flies at supersonic grew out of it. There will be no Kuzi - a whole branch of Russian "aeronautics" will die. This is the whole calculation of our overseas "well-wishers"! Well, who doesn't understand this yet?
            2. Victorio
              Victorio 6 July 2019 22: 27
              0
              Quote: Normal ok
              First, because "Kuzya" is functionally limited.
              Secondly, because they (unlike Russia) have a dozen aircraft carriers and a full set of escort ships. That is, the possibility of massive use.
              Thirdly, because they (unlike Russia) have the appropriate carrier-based aviation and experienced pilots.
              Fourth, because they (unlike Russia) have a doctrine and experience of application.
              Etc. etc. ... ... ...

              ===
              I think that blacksmiths are needed in order to have deck aircraft on which pilots fly, and the ship served this
        2. not main
          not main 6 July 2019 21: 56
          0
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Striped ears surprised. Such care, straight fathers! And all, I believe, in the presence of even a small, but grouping of carrier-based aircraft. There will be no ship, competencies will disappear, and it will be VERY difficult and long to restore them ... And the "Zvezda" is being built, I believe, not only for tankers and icebreakers. I hope ... and aircraft carriers can also be assembled.

          And if the enemy says that we don’t need an aircraft carrier, it means that he needs us!
    2. viralig
      viralig 6 July 2019 12: 19
      +2
      For me, these experts let them shut their opinions to hell. And let them count their money.
    3. Grits
      Grits 6 July 2019 12: 48
      +8
      Quote: Kars
      In principle, something in these words is.

      Yes, you can agree on something. True, the recommendations are somewhat alarming .. It is not in vain that they say - if the American military offers something, you need to do the opposite.
      1. Errr
        Errr 6 July 2019 15: 52
        +1
        Do not do as advised to you, but as your advisers do. wink
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 6 July 2019 17: 45
        +2
        Quote: Gritsa
        No wonder they say - if the US military offers something, you need to do the opposite.

        No, well, Ash-we do not stop building! Even if they do not hope. A dozen will definitely be their nightmare before the appearance of Laiki. So, let them wipe and pick up their drool!
      3. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 6 July 2019 19: 35
        0
        As regards the creation of a "mosquito" fleet, yes, it will not help the Russian Federation in any way.
    4. 1976AG
      1976AG 6 July 2019 12: 53
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      In principle, something in these words is.

      And will the Americans give us experience in the construction and operation?
      1. Vasily Ponomarev
        Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 13: 43
        0
        so I think the problem is not in technology, but in money, and what do you think?
    5. Greg Miller
      Greg Miller 6 July 2019 13: 25
      +2
      For the ruling in Russia a pack of "effective managers", defense is only financial flows and their activities in this area are not filled with any expediency, except for the possibility of "cutting" the budget. It will be profitable to "cut" the budget for repairs - they will repair, and if it is more profitable for them to cut "Admiral Kuznetsov" into scrap metal - they will cut it without hesitation for a second.
    6. Homo
      Homo 6 July 2019 14: 53
      0
      Of course there is something, American interests, or do you think that they care about our defense capabilities? Nobody in the world was able to build an analogue, it is necessary that we would not have it.
    7. Misha Honest
      Misha Honest 6 July 2019 19: 28
      -3
      Any adequate - say cut. New is cheaper. request
  2. svp67
    svp67 6 July 2019 12: 11
    +10
    For all the time of his existence, he never fulfilled his original mission, while remaining very expensive to maintain.
    And thank God. Since its main purpose is to provide air cover for the deployment areas of our SSBNs. And this can only happen with the beginning of the "atomic" war
    1. Kars
      Kars 6 July 2019 12: 22
      +1
      In theory, the protection of a plarb is stealth and dispersal, and not a ship dangling on the surface.
      1. svp67
        svp67 6 July 2019 12: 34
        +6
        Quote: Kars
        In theory, the protection of a plarb is stealth and dispersal, and not a ship dangling on the surface.
        But before that, they need to get out of their bases and get to where they can disperse and use freedom of secrecy. Not all of them are at sea
        1. Kars
          Kars 6 July 2019 12: 38
          -1
          That is, to get out of Vidyayev or Severomorsk, you need an aircraft carrier cruiser?
          And coastal aviation is not enough? Modern mbr on a submarine will reach America and straight from the piers of the bases of the submarines of the Russian Federation.
          Kuznetsova drove in Syria, and what did it give? Or how can 11 of American aircraft carriers help solve the problem of North Korea? These are useless exhibits from the times of the Cold War and the prospects for transatlantic convoys.
          1. svp67
            svp67 6 July 2019 12: 44
            +9
            Quote: Kars
            That is, to get out of Vidyayev or Severomorsk, you need an aircraft carrier cruiser?

            Desirable. And it would be better if not a cruiser, but a full-fledged aircraft carrier to disperse all NATO PLO aircraft
            Quote: Kars
            Is coastal aviation not enough?

            She has enough of her own work, and the response time is different, it’s faster and faster from an aircraft carrier
            Quote: Kars
            Modern MBR on a submarine will fly to America and straight from the piers of the Russian submarine bases.

            Not so simple. To do this, you need sufficient depth under their keel, otherwise it will simply break it after the first launch
            Quote: Kars
            Kuznetsov was driven in Syria, and what did it give?

            It gave an experience. I hope that it will be taken into account when designing new ships
            Quote: Kars
            Or how do 11 American aircraft carriers help solve the problem of North Korea?

            Well, it’s not the fault of the aircraft carriers, but the fault of the command. If you look at the history of the Korean War, then there the aircraft carriers proved their necessity and usefulness.
            Quote: Kars
            These are useless exhibits from the Cold War, and the prospects for transatlantic convoys.

            This can only be proved by a new military conflict.
            1. Kars
              Kars 6 July 2019 13: 06
              +3
              We will not convince each other. I am a longtime opponent of aircraft carriers, and until the Russian Federation starts printing dollars like the United States, or the world does not fill up the world with goods in a non-commodity segment like China, an aircraft carrier is a luxury.
              1. svp67
                svp67 6 July 2019 13: 09
                +2
                Quote: Kars
                We will not convince each other.

                I'm not going to do it. Just explaining the state of affairs
                Quote: Kars
                I am a longtime opponent of aircraft carriers, and until the Russian Federation begins to print dollars as the United States, or doesn’t flood the world with goods not in the raw materials segment, as China, an aircraft carrier is a luxury.

                Well, she manages to "fill" with oil and gas.
                1. Ross xnumx
                  Ross xnumx 6 July 2019 13: 26
                  +2
                  Quote: svp67
                  I'm not going to do it. Just explaining the state of affairs

                  So be it. But what can you say about the mandatory use of aircraft carriers in the Russian fleet based on the latest provisions of the military doctrine of the Russian Federation?
                  We are well aware that an aircraft carrier in the quality in which it exists does not justify the cost of its operation, nor its assigned objectives - a floating airfield. Among the most significant drawbacks (without AUG) is just a big target, and in the singular, because it is unlikely that the Russian Federation will begin to stamp similar ships, like Tula gingerbread.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 6 July 2019 14: 49
                    +1
                    Quote: ROSS 42
                    Among the most significant drawbacks (without AUG) is just a big target, and in the singular, because it is unlikely that the Russian Federation will begin to stamp similar ships, like Tula gingerbread.

                    Well, judging by what and how it is now entering the fleet, we can create a little AUG. Although it must be understood that "Kuzya" is not an attack aircraft carrier, but what was previously called a convoy aircraft carrier. That is, its main task is to cover other ships with its planes and to destroy some of the threats to them.
              2. Vasily Ponomarev
                Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 13: 47
                +3
                Russia also prints rubles, the problem is just that the economy will not pull, alas, but I would really like to see our aircraft carrier, at least a little comparable with the American, I admit to this and Kuzya likes that he is so one-of-a-kind, though useless
              3. sabakina
                sabakina 6 July 2019 14: 22
                0
                Quote: Kars
                We will not convince each other. I am a longtime opponent of aircraft carriers, and until the Russian Federation starts printing dollars like the United States, or the world does not fill up the world with goods in a non-commodity segment like China, an aircraft carrier is a luxury.

                Kars, as I recall, you are well versed in tanks. Do not go into the sea, well, nafig, well, it’s not yours.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 6 July 2019 14: 28
                  -2
                  Well, why, in ships, especially armored ones, I, too, do not understand well. And not once justified the useless tons of aircraft carriers as a class.
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 6 July 2019 18: 03
                    +4
                    Quote: Kars
                    in the ships, especially the armored ones, I also do not have a bad understanding

                    Pancake! Well, then PR about Iowa !!!
                    The last "armored" 68-bis (krl "Murmansk") sank off the coast of Norway in its last passage - for scrapping-sawing back in 1992 (But did not surrender to the enemies!) So, you have no subject for "investigation" in the domestic navy. IMHO.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 6 July 2019 18: 05
                      0
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      The last "armored" 68-bis (krl "Murmansk") sank off the coast of Norway in its last passage - for scrapping-sawing back in 1992

                      So stop, what is it worth in Novorossiysk? "Mikhail Kutuzov" what project will that be?
                      1. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 6 July 2019 18: 08
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        and in Novorossiysk what is it worth?

                        Museum! Moreover, not on the move. No money left. This is the Yankees after modernization and overhaul - in the museum ... but in our country, Aurora was barely kept as a "ship of revolution."
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 6 July 2019 18: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                        Museum! Moreover, not on the go. No money left.

                        It seems that they are going to pull it to Sevastopol for repair
                      3. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 6 July 2019 18: 16
                        +1
                        Do not know. But, judging by the turn to dock the combat units, - "not to mushrooms, Petka!" - as Vasily Ivanovich would say. The new GK's ass hurts for the forces of the PG, and not for the museum exhibits. Trust the "former deputy of the former State Duma" (K. Vorobyaninov).
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 6 July 2019 19: 28
                      0
                      For me, Oleg Kaptsov is hovering on armor on ships. And yes, the Iowans can still recover to a combat state.
              4. Paranoid50
                Paranoid50 6 July 2019 15: 53
                +2
                Quote: Kars
                I am a longtime enemy of aircraft carriers

                It sounds ominous, like a kamikaze oath. laughing Kars hi
                1. Kars
                  Kars 6 July 2019 16: 40
                  +2
                  Well, not straight to the extent that in zero to climb wrapped his head with a white towel.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 6 July 2019 17: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Well, not straight to the extent that in zero to climb wrapped his head with a white towel.

                    And what in "Zero" then, we can offer "Onyx" as a vehicle and a noble "sewed" pour before the flight.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 6 July 2019 19: 29
                      +1
                      You offer me another Iranian boat with explosives)
                      1. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 6 July 2019 20: 56
                        +2
                        You offer me another Iranian boat with explosives)
                        Only a kayak with oars. Full stealth.
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 6 July 2019 21: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        You still offer me an Iranian boat with explosives

                        We can and Iranian, business then ....
              5. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 6 July 2019 17: 54
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                aircraft carrier is a luxury.

                "A car is not a luxury, but a means of transportation!" (from)
                The aircraft carrier is an attribute of a balanced fleet capable of solving tasks in the DMZ and the ocean, apart from the umbilical cord of the coastal bases. If the realization of this simple truth is not old enough, there is nothing to blame on the mirror! bully
                1. Ross xnumx
                  Ross xnumx 6 July 2019 18: 16
                  -2
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  An aircraft carrier is an attribute of a balanced fleet that can solve tasks in the DMZ and the ocean, in isolation from the umbilical cord of coastal bases.

                  In the US strategy, an aircraft carrier (AUG) is a means of suppressing sovereignty, a means of destroying the statehood of countries in the eastern hemisphere. The entire application of an aircraft carrier is to use aircraft for delivering missile and bomb strikes in order to destroy enemy air defenses with the subsequent suppression of all aircraft structures.
                  But those who assume that a country possessing perfect coastal, sea and air-based missile weapons (RF, PRC) are right are capable of destroying these AUGs at much lower costs, and North Korea and even Iran are capable of "softly puzzling" American admirals by confusing their maps and correcting goals.
                  Convince that this is not so. Prove that any (except the USA) country, aircraft carriers are simply necessary, as a means of continuing the policy in a different way ...
                  With the advent of supersonic carriers of hypersonic missiles, all this bulky metal turned into excellent targets, and for the failure (not even destruction) of this entire colossus, one two hits on the deck is enough.
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 6 July 2019 18: 37
                    +3
                    Quote: ROSS 42
                    Prove that any other (except the US) country aircraft carriers are essential,

                    1982 year UK. The war over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). China - the provision of general-purpose forces and SSBNs in the RBD. France - support for ground forces in operations in Africa. But you confuse two directions: NK against the coast and NK against NK.
                    With the advent of supersonic carriers of hypersonic rockets, this whole bulky metal has become excellent targets,

                    Regarding PKR and BR anti-shipping against AB. With the beginning of the database, when the artificial satellite will be swept away with an iron broom, and NK will be silent as drowned people, who will give TsU to use weapons if the AVU is covered with electronic warfare and false targets-imitators !? And if you consider that in a day the AVM can move to 1000 miles (!), Then this will be another task. So, not everything is as simple as drawing on the sofa.
                    AHA.
                    1. Ross xnumx
                      Ross xnumx 6 July 2019 18: 54
                      -1
                      Let's immediately clarify that the speed of a carrier of the Gerald R. Ford type (maximum) is 30 knots, which in a day will allow it to go through only 720 nautical miles, which will be more than 1334 km.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      And if you take into account that the AVM can move 1000 miles (!) In a day, then this will be that task.

                      The entire short week in the campaign may end before ... And as for the satellite, the ability of Russia to deprive the USA of its much-praised GPS is also not weak ...
                      As for the use of aircraft carriers by other countries, such wars can be called wars with a big stretch. Our teachings are much larger ...
                      And the last one. I have more faith in the performance characteristics of Russian anti-ship missiles than in the unsinkability of American aircraft carriers.
                      1. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 6 July 2019 19: 07
                        +2
                        Quote: ROSS 42
                        I believe more in the performance of the Russian anti-ship missiles than in the unsinkability of American aircraft carriers.

                        Andrey from Chelyabinsk wrote: "Questions of faith are sacred to me!" - I join.
                        In fact. If the anti-ship missile enters just the body, and not the critical nodes of the AVM, then it is not fatal. He will even be able to produce and receive aircraft. If the damage is not affected by the hydraulic cylinders and the mechanisms of the aerofirensters - it is combat-ready. The remaining combat damage (even the flight deck!) Repair team eliminates during the day !!! The possibilities for straightening the hull, given its displacement, are enormous! Believe me, who started service on the TAKR, who later visited AVM, is an extremely serious killing machine. To fill it up, you will need 10-12 Zircons, or on the order of 20 heavy anti-ship missiles. Either 10 torpedoes from one side.
                        And in another way - no way!
                        But.
                      2. Ross xnumx
                        Ross xnumx 7 July 2019 04: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                        Believe me, who started the service at TAKR,

                        Why not believe it. Only sometimes can a fallen crane break through a deck.
                        Here the other day "Dagger" was presented. With hitting accuracy:
                        In February 2019, “Dagger” rockets completed the test with success in difficult weather conditions, hitting at the same time targets no larger than a passenger car at a distance of 1 thousand kilometers.

                        and with the US tendency to return to the development of low-power nuclear warheads, there are very few guarantees that the rigging of Russian anti-ship missiles specifically against American aircraft carriers will not be just that.
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 6 July 2019 19: 27
                      0
                      I think China is more interested not in covering nuclear forces, but in the possibility of blockade of Taiwan. And operations in the area of ​​disputed islands. And then the Chinese are building stationary airfields there.
            2. Artavazdych
              Artavazdych 6 July 2019 14: 47
              0
              Why, it was already - in Yugoslavia and Iraq.
              1. Kars
                Kars 6 July 2019 15: 18
                +3
                In Iraq, 10 provided aircraft carrier percentages of air departures; I remember Yugoslavia, but they were replaced just because they were, there were plenty of air bases around.
                Now, if the Russian Federation is going to fight with Somalia, or if there is any island state of the Pacific Ocean, an aircraft carrier would be useful.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 6 July 2019 17: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  Now, if the Russian Federation is going to fight with Somalia, or if there is any island state of the Pacific Ocean, an aircraft carrier would be useful.

                  Duck, we have a different story. Very large spaces in the North and in the East, not covered by a proper network of airfields. So that they will not be superfluous to us. Like UDC. Moreover, they plan to launch manned ships from Vostochny, which means it will be necessary to secure them in the primary section above the ocean in case of emergency splashdown.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 6 July 2019 19: 24
                    -1
                    An aircraft carrier in the north is strong.
                    Build on the east, or rebuild Soviet airfields, develop infrastructure. Shamelessly, it is unlikely that a normal aircraft carrier of the Russian Federation will get to the year before 30.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 6 July 2019 21: 30
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      An aircraft carrier in the north is strong.

                      So the North is not the same.
                2. Artavazdych
                  Artavazdych 6 July 2019 18: 55
                  0
                  Who knows, maybe they are going to Somalia. Just consider options, then not from scratch. About the Mistals, how many screams were there - and they would have seemed to be by the way in Syria. It’s lucky that they managed without them.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 6 July 2019 19: 25
                    0
                    Not sure what Mistral would have helped in Syria. Even if there were still a lot of space for additional airplanes at the existing airfields.
                    1. Artavazdych
                      Artavazdych 7 July 2019 00: 32
                      0
                      Uh, I thought you were in the subject.
                      The danger was the lack of transports. Collected wherever possible rusty junk
                      1. Artavazdych
                        Artavazdych 7 July 2019 00: 50
                        0
                        This is when only a few blocks of Damascus remained behind the Syrian army.
          2. donavi49
            donavi49 6 July 2019 12: 52
            +9
            In Vidyaevo, 1 Kuzbass should ensure the deployment of 2 of the latest Boreevs + an old BDR + 2 Batons.

            They will be lined with at least 5-6 Moose and 5-6 Virginia. This is without taking into account the most powerful aircraft PLO of any Poseidons, without taking into account allies, for example, the same Japanese in Sorya.

            However, again, now yes - the aircraft carrier is not needed for these purposes, even if they bring its combat effectiveness to the level of Liaolin. It is much more necessary to bring back at least one additional Pike-B to life or build another Ash-tree. In Soviet times, when it was built, yes there.

            Of course, the rocket can be launched from the base, but I have a QUESTION, Why then spend billions on it?


            If you can much, much cheaper to buy this.


            It will be cheaper, much cheaper, that is, you can put more missiles than with the Boreas. Moreover, survival is much higher. In Vidyaevo 100% will arrive nuclear greetings and not one, and in the first wave. The big question is whether the marine component will be able to shoot back or remove it from the affected area (and not lose US components from Elk / Virginia / PLO)? Well, mobile soil complexes are guaranteed to be driven out of the location, this time. Two eggs can be dispersed - so the defeat of one point of temporary deployment will lead to the loss of say 3 ICBMs from 21. In a submarine this is not the case. Well, again, catch Yars in the same Kamchatka - oh what a difficult task. Unlike SSBNs.

            The only rationale for spending on SSBNs is a dagger strike and regular patrols. However, this requires the provision of multi-purpose boats, which flew en masse to eternal repairs and sucks, and Ash trees are very tight.
            1. Artavazdych
              Artavazdych 6 July 2019 18: 48
              0
              So after all, this is the key - if the boat dived into the depths of the ocean, you can no longer search for it. And it scares more than poplars
              1. donavi49
                donavi49 6 July 2019 19: 26
                +1
                If the boat dived, then this is work for the reference and positional areas of the PLO. All kinds of Poseidons will fly in squares. Somewhere bottom systems of sensors lie. Again, Elk and Virginia will actively work there with their own funds.

                Well, similarly, if Poplars left the location, it’s not easy to look for them.
                1. Artavazdych
                  Artavazdych 7 July 2019 00: 48
                  0
                  I’m not a drop expert, but ... did you see the Pacific Ocean? What is bad there, I don’t understand? I don't believe it's a bluff.
      2. loki565
        loki565 6 July 2019 12: 34
        +9
        If a Poseidon is flying over their heads and freely scattering sonar buoys, no amount of stealth will help them.
    2. Normal ok
      Normal ok 6 July 2019 17: 25
      -2
      Quote: svp67
      For all the time of his existence, he never fulfilled his original mission, while remaining very expensive to maintain.
      And thank God. Since its main purpose is to provide air cover for the deployment areas of our SSBNs. And this can only happen with the beginning of the "atomic" war

      Actually, this is the task of basic aviation.
  3. TTX
    TTX 6 July 2019 12: 13
    +8
    I also doubted the expediency ... But after the US statement, for some reason I am sure that Kuzya will be modernized in full and what will be inside, this is what the US fears!
    Try guys, we all need this in Russia! hi
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 6 July 2019 13: 39
      +4
      Quote: ttx
      But after the US statement, for some reason I am sure that Kuzya will be fully modernized and that there will be inside, this is exactly what the USA fears!

      But there is an assumption that the Russian Federation, in which case, can first to engage what will the Kuzi have inside and what does the US fear?
      The duration of the military confrontation in a modern war between countries possessing a "gentleman's set" of weapons will not be long. How will the Russian Federation "frighten" the USA with the modernized Kuzey without changing, without entering the home port, without maintenance and current repairs? The United States can only fear that it really cannot intercept or calculate. And I'm not sure that the American navy will become afraid of the interior of the ship, which will take at least ten years to repair and modernize "in full" in the current political situation.
      Of particular concern is the presence of a Russian-made powerplant for this monster. And by the time they put it into operation, both the qualifications of carrier-based aviation pilots and the availability of ship-class vehicles.
  4. cniza
    cniza 6 July 2019 12: 14
    +4
    In the United States doubted the feasibility of repairing "Admiral Kuznetsov"


    If the United States doubted, then it is definitely necessary to restore and modernize it.
    1. vasilii
      vasilii 6 July 2019 12: 31
      +5
      If the US says you don’t have to jump out the window, will you jump out?
      1. cniza
        cniza 6 July 2019 12: 34
        +1
        No need to write nonsense, but when the enemy praises it is bad ...
        1. vasilii
          vasilii 6 July 2019 12: 42
          +3
          I recommend to keep in mind that if you always do something in accordance with someone’s words, this someone controls your actions. If you always do something strictly contrary to someone’s words, then in this case this someone also controls your actions.
          1. cniza
            cniza 6 July 2019 13: 07
            +1
            You simplify everything very much, we are not children and we understand what it is about.
          2. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 6 July 2019 13: 07
            +3
            Quote: vasilii
            I recommend to keep in mind that if you always do something in accordance with someone’s words, this someone controls your actions. If you always do something strictly contrary to someone’s words, then in this case this someone also controls your actions.

            Oh my God! How to live now? laughing From all sides overlaid! belay
    2. knn54
      knn54 6 July 2019 12: 57
      +3
      First, we need to resolve the issue of replacing the dock. And "Admiral Kuznetsov" will find work, especially in the Black Sea.
      BUT I would like (maybe I am mistaken) to note that the names "Admiral Kuznetsov", and especially "Admiral Nakhimov" (see ship, nuclear cruiser) should not be assigned to new ships.
      It turns out that it is impossible to write off the repair. The comma should not be set to us ..
  5. kot423
    kot423 6 July 2019 12: 18
    +2
    Well ... the striped ones also do a favor, trying to kick the "penguin" smaller, so that he could fly, repairing the zamvolt, so that as "Zaporozhye" did not have to weld to the pier, etc ...
  6. loki565
    loki565 6 July 2019 12: 19
    +7
    At first, the dock sank almost turning the ship over, now the United States began to advise us how it would be better, Coincidence ???))) Yes, from the Chinese clones of this aircraft carrier, the Amer’s hair stand on end at the fifth point))))
  7. Nycomed
    Nycomed 6 July 2019 12: 20
    -3
    Absolutely.
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 12: 24
    +13
    Without a doubt, the preservation of Russian carrier-based aviation for the United States is completely inappropriate.
    1. 777-3-59-97
      777-3-59-97 6 July 2019 12: 50
      0
      Without a doubt, the preservation of Russian carrier-based aviation for the United States is completely inappropriate.

      No doubt the 26 Mig-29 and Su-33 are a huge threat to the US Navy.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 13: 14
        0
        Quote: 777-3-59-97
        No doubt the 26 Mig-29 and Su-33 are a huge threat to the US Navy.

        Navy - no. But the territory of the United States is very large, downright colossal.
        1. Vasily Ponomarev
          Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 13: 51
          -1
          simply unimaginably colossal, 26 airplanes, or you have such humor, I may not understand something))
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 13: 54
            +8
            Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
            simply unimaginably colossal, 26 airplanes, or you have such humor, I may not understand something))

            And what is there not to understand? The task of Kuznetsov is in cooperation with ground-based aviation to prevent NATO anti-submarine flights from flying over potential patrol areas and exit routes to them in SSBNs. Taking into account other means (including ground ones), he is fully capable of solving this problem, because detecting it and destroying it is, of course, possible (and even unavoidable), but it will take precious time.
            So, those restrictions that Kuznetsov creates for PLO aviation significantly, I will not be afraid of this word - they multiply increase the combat stability of the SSBN in the north. Consequences of this for the territory of the United States to explain, or guess?
            1. Vasily Ponomarev
              Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 13: 58
              -1
              so I didn’t write about it, I don’t argue with that, you wrote above that 26 planes are a huge danger to the United States, which surprised me somewhat
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 14: 24
                +4
                Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                Above, you wrote that 26 aircraft carry tremendous danger to US territory.

                So they carry it - covering the SSBN. Because, excuse me, one saved "Borey" is an average of 96 nuclear warheads with a capacity of 150 kilotons.
                1. Vasily Ponomarev
                  Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 14: 29
                  -2
                  That is, you want to say that 26 aircraft on TVD will be able to protect the submarine from NATO naval aviation?
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 6 July 2019 14: 42
                    +2
                    Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                    that 26 aircraft on tvd can protect

                    And how many planes can the United States drive there? All your Air Force?
                    1. Vasily Ponomarev
                      Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 14: 43
                      -1
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                      that 26 aircraft on tvd can protect

                      And how many planes can the United States drive there? All your Air Force?

                      no, of course not everything, we discussed naval aviation, where the Americans have a clear advantage
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 6 July 2019 14: 46
                        +3
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        we discussed naval aviation, where the Americans have a clear advantage

                        And from the fact that we abandon our MA, this advantage will disappear?
                        In addition, their MA is also located on more than one carrier, so in any case it will be necessary to cover not from hundreds, but from dozens of aircraft.
                      2. Vasily Ponomarev
                        Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 15: 00
                        -1
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        we discussed naval aviation, where the Americans have a clear advantage

                        And from the fact that we abandon our MA, this advantage will disappear?
                        In addition, their MA is also located on more than one carrier, so in any case it will be necessary to cover not from hundreds, but from dozens of aircraft.

                        I didn’t understand, but I didn’t write about the abandonment of Kuzi, their carrier-based aviation numbers hundreds of units, but Andrei wrote that these unfortunate 26 aircraft can protect them from their MA, which, until Kuzi himself, I think we should already think about a new generation that will replace him, still Kuzya will not live forever, and I hope we will have aircraft carriers in the future
                      3. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 6 July 2019 16: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        I didn’t understand, I wrote not about giving up Kuzi

                        I understood exactly that.
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        but Andrei wrote that these unfortunate 26 aircraft could protect against their MA

                        Depends on the number of enemy aircraft, although 26 is really not enough.
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        then I think we should already think about a new generation that will replace it

                        Ideally, yes, but when it will not be clear yet.
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 15: 07
                    +5
                    Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                    That is, you want to say that 26 aircraft on TVD will be able to protect the submarine from NATO naval aviation?

                    Yes maybe. Surprisingly:)))))
                    According to the plans for the deployment of the US Navy, Norway, even in the best years, was supposed to operate the 2 aircraft carrier. And they had to just hang out off the coast of Norway and not climb somewhere further.
                    So, to control the nuclear submarines that are deployed in the Barents Sea (or follow through it to the deployment areas), it is necessary to overtake all kinds of Orions and other patrol aircraft there. So, when there is no aircraft carrier, they will feel relatively at ease over the water area, because the capabilities of land-based fighters are limited, and besides, it is possible to hit their coastal airfields in the first place. And the Orions can destroy the SSBNs they identified at the very beginning of the conflict. But if there is an aircraft carrier, and sits somewhere in Barents, then sending Orions there is to send them for slaughter. Because Orion is Orion, it is quite easy to detect it from the same A-50U or something similar, and to intercept it from an aircraft carrier is no problem. It is pointless to hide the Orions with US fighters, because the latter have the wrong range - they cannot stay in the air for so long.
                    In other words, in order to clear the way for Orions, Americans must first find our TAWCR (and this is not easy) and then, in the course of a proper attack, destroy it, and this will most likely have to drag AUS to the Barents itself, and all this, generally speaking , and stressful and unsafe for the United States. But the most important thing is that such an operation lasts a long time - it is necessary to detect TAVKR, to organize an attack, yes, most likely, not one more. And all this time, the application of Orion will be extremely limited.
                    In general, the destruction of TAVKR will take tens of hours, or even a day or even more. That is, the time required for the "Start!" and he wins its implementation - even at the cost of his own death
                    1. Vasily Ponomarev
                      Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 15: 20
                      -2
                      your situation should take place in a virtual world where the threat of war looms between our countries, which means that NATO also doesn’t forget, but what about this
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                      That is, you want to say that 26 aircraft on TVD will be able to protect the submarine from NATO naval aviation?

                      Yes maybe. Surprisingly:)))))
                      According to the plans for the deployment of the US Navy, Norway, even in the best years, was supposed to operate the 2 aircraft carrier. And they had to just hang out off the coast of Norway and not climb somewhere further.
                      So, to control the nuclear submarines that are deployed in the Barents Sea (or follow through it to the deployment areas), it is necessary to overtake all kinds of Orions and other patrol aircraft there. So, when there is no aircraft carrier, they will feel relatively at ease over the water area, because the capabilities of land-based fighters are limited, and besides, it is possible to hit their coastal airfields in the first place. And the Orions can destroy the SSBNs they identified at the very beginning of the conflict. But if there is an aircraft carrier, and sits somewhere in Barents, then sending Orions there is to send them for slaughter. Because Orion is Orion, it is quite easy to detect it from the same A-50U or something similar, and to intercept it from an aircraft carrier is no problem. It is pointless to hide the Orions with US fighters, because the latter have the wrong range - they cannot stay in the air for so long.
                      In other words, in order to clear the way for Orions, Americans must first find our TAWCR (and this is not easy) and then, in the course of a proper attack, destroy it, and this will most likely have to drag AUS to the Barents itself, and all this, generally speaking , and stressful and unsafe for the United States. But the most important thing is that such an operation lasts a long time - it is necessary to detect TAVKR, to organize an attack, yes, most likely, not one more. And all this time, the application of Orion will be extremely limited.
                      In general, the destruction of TAVKR will take tens of hours, or even a day or even more. That is, the time required for the "Start!" and he wins its implementation - even at the cost of his own death

                      then in the event of a sudden attack, our submarines will be able to strike, and the question is, how then can you protect yourself from aircraft carriers? all the more so with us, are submarines located only in the northern fleet?
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 15: 24
                        +3
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        Your situation should take place in a virtual world where war threatens between our countries, so NATO does not forget either

                        I do not forget, therefore, in due time I did analytics by the forces of the parties. On the results of this analytics you and inform.
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        then in the case of a sudden attack our submarines will be able to strike

                        May not be able to. If the United States conceives the first blow, then they have very good chances to destroy our SSBNs before they receive an order to use nuclear weapons. This, alas, is a fact emerging from the practice of foreign maneuvers in the same Barents Sea.
                      2. Vasily Ponomarev
                        Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 15: 31
                        -2
                        Yes, I really like to read you, you are one of your favorite
                        [/ quote] If the United States conceived the first strike, then they have very good chances to destroy our SSBNs before they receive orders to use nuclear weapons. This, alas, is a fact evolving from the practice of foreign maneuvers in the same Barents Sea [/ quote]
                        Come on, well, I don’t believe so that all our submarines are without any damage, so I don’t believe it and everything, so that no one has time to shoot at least one of them is just incredible
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 15: 37
                        +4
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        Come on, well, I don’t believe so that all our submarines are without any damage, so I don’t believe it and everything, so that no one has time to shoot at least one of them is just incredible

                        Questions of faith are sacred to me laughing
                        Well, if we take the harsh reality, then we need to understand that if the United States risks launching Armageddon, we will receive news of this with a certain delay (when we discover a massive rocket launch) then we must decide on the response, report to the SSBN, but they cannot apply weapons immediately after receiving the order - there also need some time to prepare. Rename nuclear weapons simply because the ship was attacked by crews have no right, and they will not have time to do so.
                        finally - no one says that without a TAVKR all the SSBNs will be destroyed, and with the TAVKR they will all survive. Simply, roughly speaking, without TAVKR, you can lose up to 90% of deployed boats, and with TAVKR - only 50%. The numbers, of course, conditional. And just ONE additionally saved Boreas - this is under a hundred targets hit by 150 kt ammunition
                      4. Vasily Ponomarev
                        Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 15: 40
                        -2
                        But are boats almost always on duty in the ocean?
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 16: 08
                        +3
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        But are boats almost always on duty in the ocean?

                        If one SSBN on duty (per fleet) is already good
                      6. yaros
                        yaros 6 July 2019 17: 14
                        0
                        But what, where did you get that? Do all boats stand at the base? And are they waiting for YaU to go to sea? Damn yes, a modern nuclear war is minutes to react, boats are constantly on rotation where Orions and others will not get them .... for example, under the ice of the Arctic, first of all they hit a missile base on strategic forces, you won’t even be able to get away from boats berths .... when you strike first ...
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 19: 02
                        +2
                        Quote: yaros
                        What are you, where have you picked up this?

                        I will even tell you more - for a long time (and already in the Russian Federation) we didn’t have a single boat in the battlefield. All were in the bases. And now ... Here is a photo 2015 g

                        "Panther" in the company of five SSBNs (the fifth is almost invisible), Gadzhievo, 01.01-08.08.2015
                        The sixth SSBN of this type was under repair at that time, the seventh - possibly at sea. Maybe not. Boreas at that time were still "clubless", it was simply not accepted into service
                      8. yaros
                        yaros 6 July 2019 21: 40
                        +1
                        Well, how does this prove "the importance of an aircraft carrier" ?, the first missile strike will be on the base, these boats will not even have time to move away from the berths, I don’t know about the duty at the DB, because this is secret information, apparently your sources work at the General Staff, and besides there is more than one Gadzhiev, and a couple of boats will be enough to inflict an irreparable retaliation, plus planes of strategists and the Strategic Missile Forces, and even enough new vanguards, which cannot be intercepted until your aircraft carrier spanks to the duty station, the war will end ...
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 July 2019 15: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: yaros
                        Well, how does this prove the "importance of an aircraft carrier" ?, the first missile strike will be on the base, these boats will not even have time to leave the berths

                        Elementary.
                        There are no "completely sudden" strikes - they are preceded by a period of escalation and tension. And during this period, the United States will deploy its fleets, and so will we. Our SSBNs will begin to leave their bases in the areas of duty, and the Americans will seek to hunt them down and "sit on their tail." Alas, from time to time they succeed. And even more often than we would like.
                        Quote: yaros
                        I don’t know about the duty on the database, because it is secret information, apparently your sources are working in the General Staff

                        You do not believe your own eyes? :))) I provided the photo
                        Quote: yaros
                        and besides, there is not one Gadzhievo

                        Yes, there were 4 old man XNUMBDR on the Pacific Fleet. At that time, only one of them is only combat capable - Ryazan, and it is doubtful that she was on DB
                        Quote: yaros
                        Yes, and a couple of boats enough to deliver an irreparable counterstrike

                        I will tell you so - the strategic nuclear potential of the Russian Federation today will not be completely destroyed by the United States. Throw in the stone age - yes, kill people millions of 100 immediately and half a century later - easily.
                        Quote: yaros
                        plus strategic aircraft and the Strategic Missile Forces

                        Well, well, they, these rpksn, we have missiles and planes, right? wassat
                      10. yaros
                        yaros 7 July 2019 18: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well, well, they, these rpksn, we have missiles and planes, right?

                        Do you know, when I was young, even during the Soviet Union I served in the troops tracking the Amerov strategic forces ..... and to put it mildly, your arguments about parity seem to me very naive, I'll tell you more now I'm more calm for our world than under the USSR, because boat to boat, plane to plane is a road to nowhere .... an endless history of the arms race, and a very high probability of an accidental fatal error, however, the fact of the appearance of missiles that cannot be intercepted and which will hit the "decision-making center" very cool hot heads and here and there .... But this is my personal opinion.
                      11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 July 2019 19: 42
                        +1
                        Quote: yaros
                        Do I know in my youth, when I served with the Union, I was serving in the troops tracking amerovskiy strategic forces ..... and, to put it mildly, your arguments about parity seem to me very naive

                        Please tell me, but the ability to read, how is it, with the collapse of the Union, you discarded as unnecessary? Please poke your finger at the place where I "talked about parity". Then we will continue. If you find, of course laughing
                      12. yaros
                        yaros 7 July 2019 22: 06
                        -1
                        To set up aircraft carriers this is parity, it is so for your development, you generally write without even knowing the subject, if you can draw conclusions about the absence of a fleet from one photo, then forgive me for not talking about anything here ... I can find you a photo a strategic cemetery and say that there is no American aviation ... By the way, this makes sense, because they almost lost B-1 .. B-2 only for a bombing, and the Vietnamese successfully shot down old B-52s, and now this is a big target .. ..You are constantly trying to pull the Libyan or Syrian scenario into a war of superpowers, complete naivete, you still remember the Falklands when Argentina did not even detonate RCC .... and for your information, if a nuclear war does not begin gradually, then immediately, just one uncontrolled launch, even due to a technical malfunction for the exchange, and by the way aircraft carriers and bases will be the first target ....
                      13. yaros
                        yaros 7 July 2019 22: 22
                        -1
                        I’ll add about the nonsense you write here, we had aircraft carriers during my service, but that didn’t prevent the Orions from flying in neutral waters even near our ships, flying in packs, forgive me for one flight a day, compared to those times, and ours flew ... but in case of conflict they would be beaten, a very convenient target .....
                      14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2019 08: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: yaros
                        Customize aircraft carriers this is parity

                        Well, we are opening a reading school. Cite where I suggested to "configure aircraft carriers." And even before parity with the USA fool
                        Quote: yaros
                        you even write without even knowing the subject, if you can draw conclusions about the absence of the fleet from your one photo, then forgive you nothing to talk about here ..

                        I will not forgive :))) But it is obvious that in addition to reading lessons, you also need to teach the lessons of elementary logic - that we don’t know how to read, we have already figured out, but you cannot even understand the picture.
                        So, first, I have not written anywhere about any parity, I have written about the usefulness of the Kuznetsov TAVKR. Parity was invented by your fevered imagination, with which you, in fact, communicate. But for some reason you write to me.
                        The second is that you DO NOT have to draw a conclusion about the absence or presence of the fleet from the picture. Well this is how much you need to drink to think of this? No, I understand the weekend, but still. From the picture it is necessary to draw a conclusion about the frequency of release of SSBNs at the BS. Are you the difference between the presence of the fleet and its KOH realize in the state? It's Monday, all the same, it's time to return from alcohol, or any other dream in our universe.
                        Quote: yaros
                        You are constantly trying to pull the Libyan or Syrian scenario on the war of the superpowers

                        Complete nonsense, and it is even impossible to imagine what it was based on, because I wrote only about the period of tension that will precede the start of the war. And in this case, I "pull" a completely realistic scenario that almost led to a nuclear conflict - the Cuban missile crisis, but certainly not Syria or Libya.
                        Quote: yaros
                        and for your information, if a nuclear war starts then not gradually but immediately, one unregulated launch is enough, even because of a technical failure for the exchange

                        Have you reviewed the space operas for beer? :))) What kind of "uncontrolled launch" of special warheads is there, what planet are you writing comments from? How do you imagine, for example, an uncontrolled launch of a silo ICBM?
                        Quote: yaros
                        Add about what kind of nonsense you write here

                        I?:)))))))
                        Quote: yaros
                        during my service we had aircraft carriers

                        W ... what? :)))) Aircraft carriers? :))))) In the USSR? !!! Seriously?!!!!!
                        So, this is no longer for me, this is for specialists. But so, for reference - in the USSR there was NOT A SINGLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER. There were TAVKRs with VTOL aircraft with a ridiculous range, which is why the latter were called "mainmast defense aircraft." And the proverb was "A formidable Yak flies in the sky, a Yak on the deck .... of that." Shmyak, only rougher. There was no point in sending Yaki to oust the Orions
                        Quote: yaros
                        but this did not prevent the Orions from flying freely in neutral waters even near our ships

                        Why would they not fly there in peacetime? That's just even on the teachings of such pilots tried to push as far as possible.
                      15. yaros
                        yaros 8 July 2019 08: 56
                        0
                        Ok, you have accused me of readlessness and so on here ... while claiming that you need an aircraft carrier to get the boats out of Gadzhievo ... let's play staff games (I haven’t done this for a long time, but I will make an exception for you). I hope you understand your complete incompetence ..... Let’s take your scenario on how to bring boats to the combat launch of missiles in the event of a brewing conflict .... To begin with, according to open data in Gadzhievo 2 submarine divisions and offhand I counted from the existing more than 15pcs (that is, five boats in the parking lot, this is normal for rotation, but you are right in the event of a conflict they will try to get them away from the base) since the first nuclear weapons will be at the mines, airfields and bases of the strategists, and at the places where the air defense is based. To begin with, you read that Poseidon easily detects nuclear submarines (which is wrong, but this is not about that) in the underwater position and will control this exit .... But now you have trouble with geography, look where Gadzhievo is located, what depths are in Deer Bay and the Kola Bay ... and answer the simple question what for, in an emergency, the boats go north to the NATO reconnaissance area (and Orions north of Murmansk even during the Soviet Union were impudent and flew there in batches, and I myself listened to them and took direction during the service, since I served near Murmash and that operational area I know quite well) when you can go in underwater position, secretly .... through Olenaya Bay, Kola Bay and Kildinsky Strait to the east ... depths allow, and all this through through our terrvods, where the Orions and Poseidons do not even smell, are one of the most protected air defense areas, plus these are our internal waters ... There are enough military airfields for cover, and the aircraft carrier is certainly useless .... This is so offhand .. deer in I’m writing for a long time but on the other questions the same crap from you ... And I can tell you bundles of stories with Orions myself, we didn’t even consider this pot-bellied little thing for scouts, but SR-71 was a serious opponent in reconnaissance flight, and Orions, mainly air defense sailors, were engaged ...
                      16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2019 07: 35
                        0
                        Quote: yaros
                        To begin with, according to open data in the Gadzhiyevo 2 divisions of the Premier League and offhand, I calculated from the current more than 15 units (i.e., five boats in the parking lot, this is normal for rotation

                        wassat
                        The "staff game" ended before it began. Let's teach materiel by the composition of the fleet.
                        Let's start with 667BDRM - at the beginning of 2016 g, they were already in the fleet as much as 6, all in the SF. I made a big assumption (not in favor of my glasses) that the seventh in 2015 was not yet sucked. That is, in fact, at the moment in the photo, most likely, there was not a single SSBN not the BS, but I ventured to suggest that there was one. In general, we believe that 7.
                        Project 955 - 3 units, without Bulava yet, not considering
                        667BDR is formally 4, one is combat-ready, but on the Pacific Fleet, and not in Gadzhiyevo.
                        The 941U project - 1 units, Dmitry Donskoy, is incapacitated, since there is only one mine for Bulava, and there are no missiles for the remaining mines (the expiration date is out). Still 2 boats of the same type were in reserve, from where they could not get out, because there are no missiles for them.
                        In total, out of the "offhand" counted 15 nuclear submarines in the current reality, there are exactly 7, or rather even 6, all of the project 667BDRM
                        Quote: yaros
                        when it is possible to leave submerged, covertly .... through Deer Bay, Kola Bay and Kildinsky Strait

                        You can also try.
                        Quote: yaros
                        and all this through our territories, where the Orions and Poseidons do not even smell, there is one of the most protected air defense areas

                        There are 3 problems here. Problem 1 - naval aviation of the North (fighters) is 279-okiap. All. That is, apart from the carrier-based aviation regiment, there is nothing naval there. Problem 2 - the location of Gadzhievo. Too close to the border and Norway, where the "sworn friends" will drive the masses of aviation along all the plans. That is, in the event of a conflict, NATO's air superiority will be simply colossal and there will be no "guarded air defense area".
                        And finally, the problem 3 - the enemy submarine hunters. Software according to Zhandarov (and he is still admiral)
                        Meanwhile, NATO submarines stand free in the Arctic. From 11 February to 13 August 2014, the New Hampshire submarines unchecked all the strategic containment of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea.

                        What is ABSOLUTELY not surprising, given the real state of the multipurpose underfloat. So there are obvious ways - not always the right ones, because there we will be guarded.
                      17. yaros
                        yaros 10 July 2019 09: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Let's learn the materiel on the composition of the fleet.

                        Let’s look at open sources ... but not about that. In general, for the future ... the state and combat effectiveness of the boats are state secrets, and I’m not going to discuss it with you here, you are inaccurate, and it’s still put it mildly .... Let’s focus on staff exercises on how to get five boats out of Deer Bay ... First we decide what time we are affecting, preparation for the conflict or the beginning of hostilities ... if we are already talking about nuclear weapons as a fact, then this is just a discussion .... If we are talking about preparation and the borders are respected, this is the second
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        There are 3 problems here. Problem 1 - naval aviation of the North (fighters) is 279-okiap. All. That is, apart from the carrier-based aviation regiment, there is nothing naval there. Problem 2 - the location of Gadzhievo. Too close to the border and Norway, where the "sworn friends" will drive the masses of aviation along all the plans.

                        Your mistake is you consider airplanes from Norway, (and you greatly exaggerated the capabilities of the Norwegian airbases ... shl this is about catching up with a bunch of aircraft) but who doesn’t let you raise the same amount of aviation from our nearest airfields ... Petrozavodsk, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, etc., that's all they, in the event of a conflict, serve as a jumping airfield like the Norwegian ones ... and the distance is no more ... we look at the map and make sure ..... that is, you pre-determine the role for us only of naval aviation, and NATO will do everything possible attack ... shl and in your opinion our rest of the aviation and air defense will only watch ... If we take only the Norwegian bases, and their main number is in the west of the country, and all of ours are at the same distance, then the advantage is with our great advantage. ..Do not forget the air defense, there are S-400 (300), there are a lot of beech tori and other things, they will also not be inactive ....
                        Suppose we remove the air defense factor and the nearest airfields, if it’s not a warm season, then there are already ice to the east of the Kildin Strait, your reconnaissance is useless, you won’t scan any buoys from above ... Not a satellite can be detected if the boat is above the surface ....
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And finally, the problem 3 - the enemy submarine hunters. Software according to Zhandarov (and he is still admiral)
                        Meanwhile, NATO submarines stand unhindered in the Arctic. From February 11 to August 13, 2014, the New Hampshire submarine unhindered all the strategic containment activities of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea. (note canine bullshit, this is from the same boat? complete ignorance of how to reveal the activities of the enemy, probably from the Pentagon reported .... wassat )

                        What is ABSOLUTELY not surprising, given the real state of the multipurpose underfloat. So there are obvious ways - not always the right ones, because there we will be guarded.

                        Such containment in the Barents Sea is one thing, and the Kola Bay and coastal zone is already a little different, with all due respect to the admiral, consider the old exit routes (and under the USSR, we went to the Barents Sea almost in the surface, there were few reconnaissance satellites then) Now the Kola Bay is one of the most protected places, including anti-submarine weapons, and given that we consider the conflict not to have begun, then there is no enemy reconnaissance .....
                      18. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2019 09: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: yaros
                        Let's look at open sources, ... but that's not what this is about. In general, for the future ... the state and combat effectiveness of the composition of the boats are state secrets and I'm not going to discuss it here, you are inaccurate, and this is putting it mildly ....

                        Here I am absolutely precise, it is not a state secret, and there is no need to fantasize, inventing "innumerable secret legions". As for SSBNs, it is quite easy to trace the fate of each ship.
                        Quote: yaros
                        Your mistake is you think of airplanes from Norway, (and you greatly exaggerated the possibilities of the Norwegian air bases .... Threat, this is about catching up with a bunch of aviation)

                        I did not exaggerate them, but rather understated it. Because it will work this way - during a threatened period, US AUS approaches to Norway, during an overload that is packed with airplanes, some of which fly to Norwegian airfields. And if you do not even know, I am afraid you should not talk about such things.
                        And so - we on this flank will have under 200 only staff holders, not counting the actual Norwegian aviation.
                        Quote: yaros
                        but who prevents you from raising as much aviation from our nearest airfields ... Petrozavodsk Arkhangelsk Murmansk, etc.

                        M-dya ... Alexander, I am afraid to disappoint you, only we have nothing to raise. I understand you, you all live by the standards of the USSR. But the USSR was killed, we have here the Russian Federation. And we have very little aviation in the Russian Federation even in comparison with the European countries of NATO. And the United States has more aviation than the Russian Federation and the rest of NATO combined. And yet - they have a very dense airfield network. And here, for a second, deployment should have happened ... where? That's right, in Europe (GSVG, etc.) and in the two strongest military districts. Kiev and Minsk. Who now - sovereign powers, and they do not care about the old military airfields. And we have what we have. Something like that.
                        Quote: yaros
                        Suppose we remove the air defense factor and the nearest airfields, if we are not talking about a warm period

                        Let's clarify. The Russian Federation will under no circumstances start Armageddon, unless it itself is attacked. Just because we will not survive Armageddon guaranteed, we will not be saved either as a country or as a nation. Therefore, we use the SNF only in one case - if we ourselves were subjected to a massive nuclear missile attack.
                        And the enemy, if he decides to do so, will choose a time convenient for him. And not for us.
                        Quote: yaros
                        east of the Kildinsky Strait, the ice is already standing, your reconnaissance is useless, you will not be able to dump buoys or scan it from above ...

                        Yes. But on the other hand, our ASW aviation is useless, and we have even less multipurpose nuclear submarines than SSBNs, and they still lose to the newest "Virginias". Only Yaseni-M are more or less competitive with them, but we do not have them and will not be in noticeable numbers soon. But even then there will be 3-4 Virginia trees for one Ash.
                      19. yaros
                        yaros 10 July 2019 09: 48
                        0
                        Well, the amateur of the Internet, who has read the Internet, can tell you a lot about Norwegian airdromes, you can’t even get into it with all the US aviation, no matter how hard you try ... The rest is crap from you again. Google what Global Shield is, I was just following these exercises, it was armageddon, but what you write here, I'm sorry, this is the scenario of a local war ... Okay, let everyone remain unconvinced ....
                      20. yaros
                        yaros 10 July 2019 09: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Meanwhile, NATO submarines stand free in the Arctic. From 11 February to 13 August 2014, the New Hampshire submarines unchecked all the strategic containment of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea.

                        Threat thank you ... they reminded me of an old bike of divers in the 80s, when the Amer submarine surfaced to the periscope depth in the port of Murmansk and took photographs of the berths, through the dipcanals we transmitted the photos to our ... in response, our submarine entered the St. Lawrence River and surfaced for some time in the surface standing stood scaring local farmers, and then with a rush she left. Some of the familiar seaman submariners drunk claimed they were on this boat drinks This is from the category of jokes ....
                      21. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 6 July 2019 20: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
                        it's just unbelievable

                        remember pearl harbor and tsushima, and "the unforgettable happens"
                    2. Oleg Zorin
                      Oleg Zorin 6 July 2019 19: 58
                      0
                      In theory, everything is so. I am afraid only in case of a serious conflict the parties will not have so much time to "dance". ICBMs will fly much earlier and there will simply be no winners. I hope that both sides of the ocean are aware of this.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 6 July 2019 20: 24
        +1
        where did you see 26? they have been much smaller for a long time, and only 10 of them have been seen in flight over the past 4 years, and the condition of those remaining is hidden in the hangar
  9. Honest Citizen
    Honest Citizen 6 July 2019 12: 27
    +6
    From my amateur point of view, everything looks much simpler. If the US AUG is an offensive force, then our Kuzya is most likely a cover. And forces for defense (I still graduated from the military department of MISiS) are required less than for an offensive. That's all.
    It is necessary to repair the Kuzya, since the US reconnaissance aircraft at the Kuzi's location, when it is on the move, somehow suddenly lose their former activity.
    1. Vasyan1971
      Vasyan1971 6 July 2019 13: 00
      +1
      Quote: Honest Citizen
      I graduated from the military department of MISiS

      Quote: Honest Citizen
      From my amateurish point of view

      The country has spent money in vain! lol
      But I heard that there is no way to win from the defense of war. In addition, the best defense is an attack.
      But with the point of view:
      Quote: Honest Citizen
      It is necessary to repair "Kuzya"
      I agree.
      1. Honest Citizen
        Honest Citizen 6 July 2019 13: 07
        +3
        The country has spent money in vain! lol

        Well, if a tanker (repair) can be thrust into the fleet, it’s true only as a clown for fun to real sailors wink
        1. Vasyan1971
          Vasyan1971 6 July 2019 13: 13
          0
          Oh, don’t be offended! I’m not from evil, but to maintain a conversation! hi
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 13: 21
        +5
        Quote: Vasyan1971
        But I heard that it is impossible to win a war from the defense.

        Kuznetsov in the north can accomplish one very important task - to extremely complicate the flights of NATO anti-submarine aircraft. This greatly increases the chances of survival of SSBN. And they will play not from defense :)
        1. Vasyan1971
          Vasyan1971 6 July 2019 13: 40
          +3
          That is why the Americans are so concerned about our spending on Kuznetsov.
  10. The comment was deleted.
    1. pafegosoff
      pafegosoff 6 July 2019 12: 38
      +3
      Cutting to needles costs as much as a major overhaul.
      "Based on the real possibilities of the economy and the industrial complex. And this will be a rational and correct approach to this issue." ...
    2. Just me
      Just me 6 July 2019 12: 43
      +1
      Your recommendations on how to develop the Navy? Of course, based on the recommendations, etc.?
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 6 July 2019 20: 10
      0
      you're right, but you’ll have to cut it soon just by age, ...... everything that cannot go to sea right now will be cut within three five years, that is, all destroyers 956, Lazarev,, Kharlamov, Levchenko, Chabanenko, Moscow, Ladny, Undaunted and Savvy ..... We look further Varyag and Ustinov most likely will not survive 2025, and Peter the Great may not be back in operation, because Nakhimov’s repair turned out to be astronomically expensive and long. Total Aug Kuzi is reduced to ... one ship, that is, Nakhimov, because the remaining 6 BODs (three by the ocean), if they survive to 2025, will be needed to defend their bases and their technical condition will not allow them to go far from the bases (in an average of 40 years of age by 2025), as well as those two or three frigates that will be built by 2025 will be more needed off their shores.
  11. iouris
    iouris 6 July 2019 12: 33
    0
    As the first (and last) "president of the USSR" used to say, "here they throw at us" and "I understand your reactionary". Most likely, they will do everything exactly the opposite, and not expediently.
  12. exo
    exo 6 July 2019 12: 34
    +5
    "- Have you bought new boots, Vera?
    - Yes, I haven’t decided yet, Lyudmila Prokofievna. You like?
    - Very challenging. I wouldn’t take those. And in your place I would be interested in boots not during work, but after it.
    - So, good boots should be taken. "(C)
    If, the Yankees say that it is necessary to write off the ship, it is definitely necessary to repair and put into operation.
    At least, as an opportunity to develop the skills of pilots. Not one ground simulator will not replace the ship. And I want to believe in the carrier fleet of Russia.
  13. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 6 July 2019 12: 36
    +3
    If the enemy doubts, then we must go against.
  14. Just me
    Just me 6 July 2019 12: 37
    -1
    Well, yes ... It’s not enough for scrap metal ...
  15. Andrea
    Andrea 6 July 2019 12: 48
    +6
    What is your dog business! We will learn and build a full-fledged aircraft carrier, taking into account previous experience. A sea power without an aircraft carrier is now not a power.
    How did Peter the Great say? He had one hand with the army, and two hands with the Navy!
    It is necessary that the second hand be full!
    1. max702
      max702 6 July 2019 13: 21
      -2
      Quote: Andrea
      It is necessary that the second hand be full!

      At the time of Peter there was no ICBMs and Strategic Missile Forces .. with the advent of these instruments, the fleet ceased its dominant and irreplaceable role .. Missiles fly faster and more accurately than the fleet .. In principle, the same applies to VKS strategists there is little sense in them .. And how carrier fleet platform today is too expensive a tool ..
      1. Andrea
        Andrea 6 July 2019 13: 27
        +3
        Missiles alone cannot solve all problems. You see, sir, the army is, a priori, expensive.
      2. A5V
        A5V 6 July 2019 15: 36
        +1
        Quote: max702
        Quote: Andrea
        It is necessary that the second hand be full!

        At the time of Peter there was no ICBM and Strategic Missile Forces ..


        With the advent of SLBMs, the role of the fleet, on the contrary, increased significantly, because SSBNs need to be covered with something.

        Missiles fly faster and more accurately than the fleet ..


        Umm what? A rocket and a ship are somewhat ... different concepts. You are going to launch ships in the enemy, like the KR or what?

        And as a carrier fleet platform today is too expensive a tool ..


        Yes, no money, but you ...
    2. Oleg Zorin
      Oleg Zorin 6 July 2019 20: 02
      0
      The USSR was no stupider than America, but did not create aircraft carriers. And it was Kuzyu who sold it. Think about why.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 July 2019 20: 37
        +1
        Quote: Oleg Zorin
        The USSR was not more stupid than America, but did not create aircraft carriers. And realized precisely Kuzyu.

        Oleg, in fact, Kuznetsov is the fruit of the voluntarism of the leadership of the country in general and of the Minister of Defense Ustinov in particular, and the fleet has been asking for normal nuclear AB since the 60s. And in the end he begged - they laid the nuclear "Ulyanovsk" for 75 thousand tons of displacement with catapults (but they also kept the springboard)
        1. Oleg Zorin
          Oleg Zorin 6 July 2019 20: 50
          +1
          Andrey, I have no doubt that the fleet asked. And not one aircraft carrier, but more. But the political leadership of the USSR understood that the USSR would not be able to pull a few and made a decision based on the principle of reasonable sufficiency. As for the "Ulyanovsk", most likely it was supposed to be used for purposes other than the United States. However, I agree with you that the political leadership of the USSR also had enough voluntarism.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 July 2019 11: 25
            +2
            Quote: Oleg Zorin
            Andrew, I have no doubt that the fleet requested. And not one aircraft carrier, but more.

            Certainly :)
            Quote: Oleg Zorin
            But the political leadership of the USSR understood that several of the USSR would not pull and made a decision based on the principle of reasonable sufficiency.

            So, yes, but after the construction of two Kuznetsovs, it was supposed to build the 4 of Ulyanovsk.
            Quote: Oleg Zorin
            As for the "Ulyanovsk", most likely it was supposed to be used for purposes other than the United States.

            You are absolutely right. The United States believed that the main role at sea was played by aviation, respectively, their AB had to solve the whole range of tasks, including the destruction of enemy ship groupings, anti-aircraft missiles, and strikes along the coast. Our TAVKRs were considered primarily as a means of air defense of dissimilar forces striking at the AUG / AUS. That is, the key task of the TAVKR is to clear the sky in order to pave the Tu-22M3 road or there to cover the Anteyev positions from PLO aviation. Accordingly, the backbone of the Ulyanovsk air group was supposed to consist of either 24 Su-33s and 24 MiG-29Ks, or (and they were inclined to do this) of 36 Su-33s, which then did not know how to work either for sea or ground targets. But by air ... COULD laughing
            1. Oleg Zorin
              Oleg Zorin 7 July 2019 13: 17
              0
              Andrey, thanks! I did not know about plans for 4 "Ulyanovsk". Tell me, how exactly this number of Kuz / Ul 2/4 was supposed to be distributed among the fleets? I understand, of course, that I could have found it myself. But you know, I should look for it. smile
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 July 2019 14: 04
                0
                Quote: Oleg Zorin
                Andrew, thank you!

                You're welcome!
                Quote: Oleg Zorin
                Tell me, how exactly this number of Kuz / Ul 2/4 was supposed to be distributed among the fleets?

                Alas, you think too highly of my knowledge. repeat I do not know! Most certainly they would be distributed between the North and the Pacific, but here's how ... I suppose that a couple of Ulyanovsk per fleet. But these are only assumptions.
  16. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 6 July 2019 12: 50
    +3
    In the United States doubted the feasibility of repairing "Admiral Kuznetsov"


    And now America Kuzyu is repairing? laughing
    And we may doubt the feasibility of repairing aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class)))
    1. Vasily Ponomarev
      Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 13: 55
      +2
      the author specifically made such a defiant title of the post so that more people became interested, in fact, it’s not all of America, but some people who were interested in the topic spoke up, and you immediately about the whole country, for me it’s not serious
  17. Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 6 July 2019 12: 50
    +1
    Russia will render NATO and the US Navy an enormous service if it decides to spend the money, time and human capital necessary for the overhaul of an aircraft carrier that is clearly a burden to the cold war era

    We listen to the woman and do the opposite, hope the adversaries. Why do they need an aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy? Destroy now (with our own hands), so that in the future even the thought of creating one no longer arises, not to mention technology and personnel.
  18. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 6 July 2019 12: 53
    0
    Quote: den3080
    Yes, Americans simply do not have to “poke their nose into someone else's question” and all matters.

    Yes, they even put their nose in the ass, let it stink, if only it were beneficial, excuse me for naturalism))
    1. Vasily Ponomarev
      Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 14: 00
      +1
      above was a picture of how the state channel shows infographics on the cost of fighter raids, and after that you write about all Americans)))
  19. K-50
    K-50 6 July 2019 12: 56
    0
    Russia will render NATO and the US Navy a tremendous service if, instead of building new nuclear submarines such as Yasen or small rocket ships, they will continue to invest heavily in repairing their only aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. This opinion was expressed by the expert of the United States Naval Institute Richard Moss and the commander of the US Navy Ryan West.

    You will not tell us what to do, and we will not tell you where to go with our "opinions" for this. yes fellow
    Without snotty we’ll figure out what to do. yes
  20. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 6 July 2019 13: 10
    +1
    What caring! To know that there is something negative for them, since they "care" about us.
    1. Vasily Ponomarev
      Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 14: 03
      +2
      God, how can you not understand that two people are discussing just a ship, as if Russia is not discussing aircraft carriers and does not call them trash,
  21. Aliken
    Aliken 6 July 2019 13: 12
    +1
    Whoever writes this article has sound grain. But this is unlikely to happen. Now they’ll certainly save the aircraft carrier.
  22. aries2200
    aries2200 6 July 2019 13: 28
    -1
    icebreaker carrier must be built and this repaired
  23. Demagogue
    Demagogue 6 July 2019 13: 32
    0
    What a heated discussion. Meanwhile, in the article under discussion, not a word about Ash or MrK. This is the fantasy of the compilers of the material. The Americans only recommend tidying up the infrastructure of the Northern Fleet, and cutting down Kuzyu. Pick up the dock first.
  24. zenion
    zenion 6 July 2019 13: 35
    0
    That's it, kaput! The Americans refused to repair Russian ships and will now repair only Ukrainian vessels, regardless of displacement, even bedside vessels are allowed for repair. (Pan-cooking by urgent order, tinning and welding of anti-shatter ears).
  25. gabonskijfront
    gabonskijfront 6 July 2019 13: 42
    0
    In the future, it will still be necessary to be able to project power to anywhere in the world, and for this it is necessary to have at least one full-fledged carrier strike group, no longer need. We will not have to deal with China or the USA with their help, and will this tool be useful? in a global conflict, in great doubt, but to fit the ACG to the shores of the same Libya and to identify their interests, it would be quite.
  26. lopvlad
    lopvlad 6 July 2019 13: 43
    +2
    Russia will render NATO and the US Navy an enormous service if it decides to spend the money, time and human capital necessary for the overhaul of an aircraft carrier that is clearly a burden to the cold war era


    Such a rich country as the United States is ashamed to exploit such trash as Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, some of which are almost ten years older than our Kuzi. They should adopt the tactics of "wolf packs" from the Sumerians and bite any enemy with a swarm of RTOs.
  27. sabakina
    sabakina 6 July 2019 13: 45
    +2
    In the United States doubted the feasibility of repairing "Admiral Kuznetsov"
    You can kick me. Admiral Kuznetsov, aka Kuzya, aka brownie Kuzya. Not guys, anyway we need a brownie!
  28. VVAU
    VVAU 6 July 2019 13: 48
    0
    Don't they care?
  29. armata_armata
    armata_armata 6 July 2019 13: 54
    +1
    Russia will be doing NATO and the US Navy a huge favor if, instead of building new Yasen-class nuclear submarines or small missile ships, it continues to invest heavily in repairs to its only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov.

    Well, yes, the US missile boats will get scared ...
  30. malyvalv
    malyvalv 6 July 2019 14: 37
    +1
    In the current conditions of development of rocket technologies, the distance of combat contact of ships is increasing. In the days of the sailing fleet, it was hundreds of meters, in the 20th century tens of kilometers, now it is hundreds of kilometers. Need reconnaissance and target designation. There is little hope for satellites in a serious conflict. We need high-speed high-altitude scouts anywhere in the ocean. And this is only an aircraft carrier. Americans are cunning and looking to the future.
  31. Berg berg
    Berg berg 6 July 2019 15: 01
    +2
    In Russia, they doubted the feasibility of American aircraft carriers! Sit in your America and do not go anywhere else!
  32. rocket757
    rocket757 6 July 2019 15: 09
    0
    Nothing happens in vain .... it is costly, inefficient. Well, a training ground is still needed, for the time when / if we build real combat units of this type! Or we won’t build it, ?????
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 6 July 2019 15: 50
      0
      Hi victor hi Here, damn it, from disputes - a dispute: does Russia need an aircraft carrier? Russia needs everything, only where to get the money for all this, the question is that. No matter what they say, there is little use from a single aircraft carrier. How long do you think it will take to send it to the bottom? In the country, billions are squeezed into private pockets, but there is not enough money for the fleet. "Kuzya", here, will stand in repair for a dozen years, and then from the wall in a direct way to the Museum of the Navy, due to the final obsolescence against the background of new Chinese aircraft carriers, and it is not a fact that in our country. The mess is gaining more and more momentum every year, and here we are secretly discussing the prospects for the development of the Fleet in Russia. Yes, if things go on like this, then soon there will be nothing to talk about. Long live Rosgvardia and her best friend Ramzan Kadyrov. drinks
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 6 July 2019 16: 44
        +1
        Hi Konstantin soldier
        The question of where to get the money, where is the golden capsule of the state, did not arise today, however.
        The answer may turn out multidirectional, I do not want to smear.
        About "Kuzyu" and repairs, I do not harbor illusions, but I do not lose my optimism completely !!!! Otherwise, why then everything!
        Shaw about the mess? So it has its own logic! It’s not always clear to everyone .... I don’t want Schaub to go on, but you need to go into something clearly understandable, the best.!
        We can’t see from above the movement in this direction, we need to build it all ourselves! Therefore, I urge the working people to self-organize, no one will do this for us!
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 6 July 2019 16: 52
          +1
          Builds by itself - yes, that's right. There are two people next to me who understand everything and are ready for a lot, but the rest don't care, most go with the flow. I don't blame people, the vast majority of adults have families, children, everything is clear here. But if not us, then who? On the other hand, many do not have enough "textbook" leader, but he is not, and the current one turned out to be zilch. I'm not a pessimist (the glass is half full!), But I don't see a gap. soldier
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 6 July 2019 17: 33
            +1
            It happens that I’m a cynical optimist! and life doesn’t simplify it for me! I achieved everything myself, but precisely because my current position, prosperity, does not cause fears, I always think for THEN and FOR OTHERS!
            Most have FAMILIES, CHILDREN, we need to think about them and about the country in general, because if it’s worse, then ALL OF US .... completely angry "masters of life" have long been no longer considered our own!
            Only all TOGETHER! Together we helped the People's Republics .... he just threw a cry, EVERYONE remembers the "Song for Grenada" and not because I organized this business! Just so RIGHT!
            PS Danko, Garibaldi, Bolivar and other harezmatic comrades do not always and everywhere appear on time !!!! But when the movement goes, the people unite, the armored car will come again and a comrade in a cap will come at him, THIS EXACTLY!
            COMRADE, believe, IT WILL RISE !!!
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 6 July 2019 17: 37
              +2
              There are enough Bronevichkov everywhere, but I would not want a new bloodthirst. And nobody will just give up the feeding trough. There they already began to twitch, look at what is happening in the security forces.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 6 July 2019 18: 00
                +1
                Nothing just happens! BUT, if you don’t start jumping and smashing everything, you can evolutionarily go and achieve a LOT of legal goals ... not just everything, within reasonable limits, but it can become the forerunner of everything !!!! To engender, restore collective self-awareness and responsibility !!!
                Am I calling everyone to the barricades ????
                I call to unite, first of all, on a professional basis! Create working commissions, committees, let OUR trade unions be !!! Establish clear ties with other teams, industries, etc. like that !!! Defend your rights LAW! And when we grow up, unite, then we can influence the authorities, to some extent, of course!
                WE ARE THE WEALTH AND POWER OF OUR COUNTRY, they just don’t want to talk about it .... they want us to forget it !!!! Because the SYSTEM is the main danger, and not some kind of apple trees, heaped up and stuff that just breaks into power!
                We do not need power at this stage. We need Schaub, the authorities valued us precisely for what we are, and not for what they want!
                PS About the armored car .... this is not my topic, they just asked, I answered how it could be!
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 6 July 2019 18: 03
                  +1
                  Vit, when in this country they sought something "on legal" grounds? Over the past 300 years, only revolutions, yes "palace coups". request
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 6 July 2019 18: 13
                    0
                    The palace coups did not change ANYTHING, in principle.
                    The revolution turned everything around and showed how it could be better, in my opinion. The stage turned out to be tough but very interesting, we can say fabulous.
                    Now the next stage, just do not start with jumpers !!!! There is still no such extreme despair .... to organize pogroms is a crime from all points of view!
                    The Bolsheviks began with the teaching and education of everyone and everything. They had clear, bright slogans !!!! It's not without a creak, but it went.
                    I don’t see the reasons, the grounds, the possibility of a repetition of the past, for objective reasons!
                    I am sure that the working people may be encouraged to realize their role in the country and to unite around the goal to make their lives better! Simple and understandable topics, slogans. You can start with this. Then there will be the next stage.
                    I’m not seven spans in the forehead, but I carefully studied this topic, look at all the events, examples that we have .... it’s clear that it’s time, it’s clear that it’s possible.
                    And if you don’t do at least something, then why exist at all!
                    1. Catfish
                      Catfish 6 July 2019 18: 19
                      +1
                      It's nice to know that there are people like you nearby. I no longer believe in anything, and even more so in people, well, except for those whom I know and who trust me as I do them. But, as one close friend of mine said: "In my gut I sense that another large kipish is approaching." He said this immediately after the publication of the "pension reform", but it only came to me a couple of days ago.
                      1. rocket757
                        rocket757 6 July 2019 18: 54
                        +1
                        Not a piece of advice, I just myself "learned a lot" from the professors of the Leningrad Party School and organization.
                        People really ate a dog in this matter !!! Everything is explained simply and clearly. They explain, LEARN, HELP, those who WANTS, READY to understand everything!
                        You enter, not in their ranks, that's not the point. The main thing you yourself begin to understand what and why is happening in our country !!!! But to breed such a person will not work! The next stage is the search for like-minded people, ASSOCIATION is not against someone, but for ALL OF US!
                        Leningrad, the cradle of two Revolutions ....
                        It’s not just that, it hatched itself, there were reasons! And now from there goes a lot of interesting, important, necessary!
                      2. Catfish
                        Catfish 6 July 2019 18: 56
                        +1
                        GDP is also from there, but how much it is needed ... request
                      3. rocket757
                        rocket757 6 July 2019 19: 02
                        +1
                        Nothing happens just like that, and GDP played its role!
                        This cannot be denied ...
                        . we put estimates and we will still put! It is as usual, everyone from its bell tower.
                        Scales of history, scales of statehood, folk scales and scales for each his own !!!
                        On my scales, the advantage is almost in minus, but compared to the previous ones, this seems to be a plus !!!
                      4. vladcub
                        vladcub 6 July 2019 19: 22
                        +1
                        After B.N., EVERYONE was happy that there was a GDP.
                        That he is still at the helm is a question for G. A and for us
                2. vladcub
                  vladcub 6 July 2019 19: 32
                  +1
                  Draws, I agree with you, but the question is: who will do it? Q. Is he that sick? Suraykin: "the only communist"? G.A or "dumb" Grudinin?
                  REQUIRED ADEQUATE LEADER OPPOSITION!
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 6 July 2019 19: 43
                    +1
                    But there is no such thing as a comrade in a cap and an armored car!
                    For all the rest, desks and other functionaries, but not with jist !!!!
                    All the same, the unified workers' movement ALWAYS nominated the necessary leaders from its ranks !!! This is a natural reaction of the collective, the pack, I NEED A VAZHAK !!! And at first, it can be a collective "chairman" in turn or something else. Expansion will follow in a natural way, those who know how to lead people and meet most of the criteria that are formed in the team will appear in sight! The leader must be visible, WE must know him for business!
  33. awg75
    awg75 6 July 2019 15: 20
    -1
    I’ll say one thing for sure, if sworn friends scold and blaspheme, then we do everything right
  34. Vasily Ponomarev
    Vasily Ponomarev 6 July 2019 15: 43
    +1
    [/ Quote]
    . And just ONE additionally saved borea - this is for a hundred targets hit with 150 kt of ammunition [/ quote]
    well, not under a hundred, as I know in at least one rocket and a lot of supplies but they do not work remotely
  35. nov_tech.vrn
    nov_tech.vrn 6 July 2019 15: 56
    0
    It means that it is definitely necessary to repair, I remember these experts, they laughed at "Peter the Great", and the scrotum was almost torn apart with a scrotum when this "worthless steamer" visited South America
  36. A.K.
    A.K. 6 July 2019 16: 12
    0
    They have such remnants of the Cold War as many as 10 pieces. We must also save them all. fool
  37. Lapunevsky
    Lapunevsky 6 July 2019 16: 18
    -1
    If you take Kuzyu as a combat unit, then he is not needed. Too weak and outdated. If you take Kuzyu as a school and simulator for training deck pilots, you need it.
    1. Adimius38
      Adimius38 7 July 2019 09: 07
      0
      who is the grandmother on the bench who told you that even in the usual factory equipment Kuzya has anti-aircraft weapons from four six-barreled launchers of the Dagger air defense system of 192 missiles, in which pelvis do you put so many missiles into? on a rook boat))) of eight Kortik launchers of 256 missiles, six six-barrel 30-mm AK-630M quick-fire installations of 48 shells. Admiral Kuznetsov ”also has echeloned defense against torpedoes from two RBU-000 12000 missile launchers. Survivability is ensured by a multitude of bulkheads that can withstand hit 60 kg of TNT below the ammunition waterline. Admiral Kuznetsov "carries 400 launchers 12K-4 for heavy missiles" Granite "while capable of carrying 80 aircraft. And you all call it too weak and outdated))))) I can assure you, even today, no aircraft carrier in the world has such powerful weapons. It should be borne in mind that during the modernization of the ship, the aircraft carrier will receive more modern weapons systems, the effectiveness of the ship will increase significantly. But I agree with some who wrote here that Kuzi needs ships so that there is a full-fledged aircraft carrier group, ships that could support Kuzya and provide him with cover in the entire radius of his action
      1. Lapunevsky
        Lapunevsky 7 July 2019 11: 24
        -1
        Yes Yes Yes. After a trip to Syria, where he drowned the 2 fighter deck and smoked the whole sky of Europe with black smoke, the effectiveness of all these weapons on Kuza just rolls over. What is the use of it if this ship cannot even go on an expedition against barmalei without problems and accidents? In general, we have almost any ship going on a march, carrying a repair and maintenance ship in case of a breakdown. And you about the most powerful weapons .... He would not break and do not ruin just to.
        1. Adimius38
          Adimius38 7 July 2019 14: 03
          0
          An emergency situation can happen anywhere and with anyone, including the latest American warships, the latest aircraft carriers, so you don’t need to transfer all the arrows to the ship. Moreover, 90% is not to blame for the ship but sloppiness and negligence of people. The sky of Europe was smoked with black smoke)) Well then, who is to blame for the fact that the power plants of the ship were not properly serviced, but billions of dollars went from the country to offshore. With the current economy, we can’t master anything a little more than a fishing boat, so writing off Kuzyu is a crime for which only the tribunal. The fact that the ship is dragging a support vessel behind itself, well, excuse me, we don’t have those five hundred bases that NATO has, which can be helped in any emergency situation anywhere in the world. Under the USSR, we had at least something, but the great Power was ruined just by people like you screaming, why do we need the USSR, why feed the Union republics, why a group of troops in Germany. As a result, they themselves practically merged their geopolitical positions, inflicting oromic damage on the country's national security.
          1. Lapunevsky
            Lapunevsky 7 July 2019 15: 59
            0
            so where is the logic of your answer? According to you, "we do not have bases around the world like the United States, we cannot do normal repairs, slovenliness and billions in offshores, with the current economy we generally cannot master anything a little more than a fishing boat ..." - and why then do we need AIRPLANER, if there is nothing to maintain and maintain, no money, no ships for a warrant, no full-fledged air wing, no bases, and so on? Just to saw money on it? Complete nonsense.
  38. Warrior MorePhoto
    Warrior MorePhoto 6 July 2019 17: 05
    +2
    The question is a multifaceted and clear answer whether or not it is necessary to do it when there is perspective and understanding in the means and possibilities.

    Kuza needs ships ... which ones are worthy now? Tiny 22350? That would be a Leader with C 500 then yes, powerfully, But Admiral Nakhimov will most likely be ready for the Kuze descent and this is a buzz.

    What about the aircraft for Kuzi DRLO - nothing! They are not here!
    What about the planes themselves? Obsolete and losing, given the fact that the F 35 is already in a powerful series. Would Su 57, then yes, a minimum of Mig 35.

    But on the other hand, in order to build a new aircraft carrier in the future, perhaps it is necessary to work out and roll new and latest technologies on the Kuz.
    There are probably many more points, but it rushes right away.

    My personal opinion is that if you put the C 400 and the new Su 57, Mig 35, Ka 52 aircraft for the modernized Kuze, then it makes sense given the fact that the new aircraft carrier will only be in 10-15 years.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 6 July 2019 19: 16
      +1
      I do not understand where you are going to put the S-400, really on the "Kuzya"?
    2. Adimius38
      Adimius38 7 July 2019 09: 13
      0
      I completely agree that Kuzya can still serve us for quite some time, updating the wing, weapons systems, adding at least four full-fledged destroyers with powerful anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles, a submarine and this group of ships will terrify wherever it appears.
  39. Fedorovich
    Fedorovich 6 July 2019 17: 11
    +1
    And I doubt the feasibility of repairing "Gerald Ford", and now what?
  40. ZIS
    ZIS 6 July 2019 17: 32
    +1
    Yeah, listen to the enemy praising you ... Listen, let's go ... and do it your way. Kuznetsov esho useful.
  41. lopuhan2006
    lopuhan2006 6 July 2019 17: 44
    0
    Well, actually it is. We have what we have. It would be better, then enjoyed it. Everyone knows the minuses, but the pros: the experience of owning and possessing an aircraft carrier and aviation, R&D and industry are supported, in real time and by example, you can work out the issues of countering the enemy and of course prestige! And what's wrong with prestige? The problems are not the money to support the army, the content of the bureaucracy!)
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 6 July 2019 19: 49
      -1
      that is, that link of airplanes in calm weather that it can issue costs you many millions of R&D, 2500 personnel, hundreds of tons of fuel oil burned regularly .....?
      1. lopuhan2006
        lopuhan2006 7 July 2019 09: 13
        -1
        The problem is not in Kuz, but in the targeted spending of funds. It’s like Okay and Sharp, like BMP-1 and Be-12, those for lack of the best and in anticipation of the new we keep the old. You are 100% right! But when they look at geopolitics, they do not require a decision from it at the level of the district administration. Once again, the trouble is bureaucracy and kickbacks, the struggle of the elites and the extrusion and destruction of the population. Everything is sad there, and Kuzya is like a litmus test ....
  42. APASUS
    APASUS 6 July 2019 18: 03
    +2
    Regarding the repair of an obsolete ship, I agree with the Americans. We must build boats, boats and new aircraft carriers. Our visionaries in the government will squeeze, we will not hold a couple of extra Olympiads and summits, but we will build a normal fleet
  43. EGERb
    EGERb 6 July 2019 18: 12
    0
    Who is the thread of the specialists who were here was on "Admiral Kuznetsov" ???)))) I was three times. Twice on a business trip to reinforce the commandant company of the Marine Corps. Comrades, it's cheaper to build a new one! How many times did he go out to sea so many times a black oil slick floated around him? The tanker did not leave him. It needs to be completely modernized !!!! The most important thing is the power plant ... They couldn't put anything better on it. More than one dock repair could not eliminate all the disadvantages. I don't see the point of keeping this ship just to show the world that we have an aircraft carrier, this bravado will not bring to good. We need a full-scale modernization with the replacement of the power plant with a nuclear one or get rid of it. We need new ships. And if there is money (and there is money, then build new ones) Like this. Anyone who did not hear how Kuzya shifts the steering wheel to the right or left side, he missed a lot, probably the acoustics of American submarines are starting to bleed from their ears
    1. Adimius38
      Adimius38 7 July 2019 15: 11
      0
      unlike Russia, the dear <Americans can build new aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and a bunch of the latest destroyers with a displacement of 10000 tons to boot. At the same time, they do not try to ditch the decommissioned ships and cut them into ferrous metal, but send them to the reserve. Now the question of whether Russia can build a surface warship with a displacement of more than 10000 tons, the answer cannot. Talk a lot of money, so who has it? the millers, sechins, and generals who have billions in their huts, I believe, but there is no money for the fleet, constant savings on everything, even on the modernization of old ships, then what are we talking about any new ships of at least a super pot class, in the best case, one of which will be adopted in 15 years like this. Or do you want to ditch all that we have left and leave the country without a fleet? I think it's a bad idea. I am glad <that all the same they think differently at the top and are modernizing Nakhimov, Kuznetsov, and Soviet-built nuclear submarines.
      1. EGERb
        EGERb 10 July 2019 16: 22
        +1
        At the top, the thought room will be turned on later. I won’t be able to kill something, because as a specialist of not this profile, such grave-diggers are in ministries. And yes there is money! The money of the people run by oligarchs, and the supreme one is able to fuck to find money for at least two new ones, without significant losses in the treasury for the people. Study the materiel and communicate personally with those who have served and are serving on this ship. Yes, it is dear to them, but Russia is dearer to them and they are of the same opinion as me !!! Patch holes with modernization of an aircraft carrier (today we are modernizing it, in three years we are modernizing another, in parallel we will repair what we modernized three years ago) this is betrayal! They have to make a decision !!! Prepare a project for the complete modernization of Kuznetsov, or put it to the pier once and for all !!!!!
  44. vladcub
    vladcub 6 July 2019 19: 12
    +1
    In general, the Americans are right in a sense: repair and maintenance of "Kuzi" is expensive. This is on the one hand, and now let's look from the other side: the same Americans are in no hurry to write off their aircraft carriers. The Chinese are also wise guys, but for some reason they churn out their aircraft carriers all the time, and there is no extra money either in America, or in China, or in Russia. So they are needed?
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 6 July 2019 19: 44
      -1
      America and China have plans in different parts of the world, they need aircraft carriers, but the Russian Federation in the present state is completely pointless to have an AB, by the way it can be sold to the same China or India, it would be useful to them
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 7 July 2019 09: 45
      0
      Here is a shtatovskiy zvezdanuty woodpecker blurted out, and we begin to think "probably there is ...".
      Modernization of Kuzi costs a maximum of 65 billion rubles. The minimum price was called 22. And one submarine of the Ash project - 200 billion. One corvette is about 20. Well, now compare the potential of the repaired TAVKR and half a submarine and even 3 corvettes.
  45. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 6 July 2019 19: 41
    -1
    Americans state evidence
  46. Alien From
    Alien From 6 July 2019 19: 50
    0
    Favorite subject of cheers patriots ...... this is our Navy. Kuznetsov, it's time to write off, we do not need this miracle. Minus !!!!!!
    1. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 6 July 2019 21: 17
      -2
      Quote: Alien From
      we don’t need this miracle. Minus !!!!!!

      you .... it’s for you and not for us ..... with pleasure
      1. Alien From
        Alien From 6 July 2019 21: 40
        0
        And why do you need it, explain ...... only without the rabid thoughtless "everything was the best in the Union", no offense .......
  47. Adimius38
    Adimius38 7 July 2019 07: 34
    0
    they offer us small missile ships instead of aircraft carriers)))) while having the largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world and continuing to build new aircraft carriers))) they consider us a fool for a campaign
  48. mik193
    mik193 7 July 2019 09: 32
    +1
    I'll try to express myself. An aircraft carrier does not sail alone. We need escort ships. At the moment, in order to create a full-fledged multipurpose aircraft carrier group, you need to collect almost the entire Northern Fleet. With carrier-based aircraft and pilots for her - problems. I don’t remember that the entire air wing was present at the Kuznetsov. The heaviest aircraft carrier itself can perform the task of training carrier-based aircraft pilots. In my opinion, the task of demonstrating force is irrelevant now. In real combat conditions, I think that there is little that can be done. Repair - I can't even imagine how much time it will take, cuts and kickbacks. And also the state of our ship-repair base, fortunately not completely finished off by democracy. In general, it is like a suitcase without a handle - it is both inconvenient to carry and it is a pity to leave. Well, in short, so. And they will decide the fate of the ship without us. I am ready to listen to criticism.
    1. Adimius38
      Adimius38 7 July 2019 15: 17
      0
      the problem is not in the ship, but in our factory they cannot rivet a full-fledged wing for Kuznetsov, if you put together the sum of the costs of fireworks on May 9, then you can just order the same wing from the same instant-29k. Pilot training should also not cause difficulties, we have at least two training complexes for pilots for Kuznetsov. The problem is not in the ship, the problem is in people and decisions. And the main task should be one is to save the ship for better times. When the fleet is revived, then we can make a museum out of Kuznetsov, for example.
  49. Lieutenant colonel
    Lieutenant colonel 8 July 2019 04: 33
    0
    The amazing thing is that the American military tells how to more effectively confront his country!
    I think - that something is wrong here ....