Atomic, heavy, aircraft carrier. ATAKR project 1143.7 "Ulyanovsk"

215
Recent months have become relatively fruitful at news about the prospects and various projects promising Russian aircraft carriers. At the same time, what is interesting, we are talking about completely different ships: until recently, the whole world was proudly shown the model of the 23000 "Storm" aircraft carrier, with a displacement of thousands of tons under the 100, which could be equipped with both an atomic and conventional power plant, and - information about a relatively light and extremely non-nuclear ship of the order of 40 000 t, but then - with an unconventional orientation to the "semi-tamaramaral" hull structure, etc. As can be seen, the “spread” in the proposals is extremely wide, and a natural desire arises to systematize information on the development of aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation, to evaluate the existing concepts as far as possible, and to understand where military and design ideas are moving in terms of aircraft carriers.





However, in order to do this, it is necessary to see the basis, the starting point from which the design of aircraft carriers began in the post-Soviet Russia.

A bit of history


As is known, in the twilight of the USSR, the domestic industry began to build the nuclear aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, which was then classified in heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers. Alas, they did not have time to complete it, and the hull of the giant ship was disassembled in Ukraine, which had become “independent”.

But, of course, numerous developments on this ship were preserved: here are the calculations, and sets of drawings, and the results of numerous research work on various components, weapons, assemblies, etc., as well as tactical achievements of the military on the use of this ship, and much more. In addition to what has been preserved in paper and metal, practical experience has been added in operating the first and only domestic navy an aircraft carrier capable of supporting horizontal fighter jets and landing flights. We are, of course, talking about the TAKR of project 1143.5 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov."

About stories the author has already told about the development and operation of the latter in the corresponding series of articles, and it does not make sense to repeat. One has only to recall that the concept of Kuznetsov itself, that is, a non-nuclear TAKR, which has only one springboard without catapults with a limited-size air group, has never been what the fleet was striving for.

As you know, the cycle of creating a new type of weapon begins with an awareness of the tasks that need to be addressed as part of a common strategy, but which cannot be effectively solved by the means at the disposal of the armed forces. Having defined such tasks, the military is able to determine the means for solving them and formulate a tactical and technical mission (TTZ) for such a means. And then there is the work of designers and industry for the design and creation of new weapons. Although, of course, it also happens that the TTZ is unenforceable and, if it is not possible to reach a compromise between the desires of the military and current capabilities, the project can be terminated. Thus, with the right order of creation, the newest armament system must always be, if one can put it that way, the conscious need of the military embodied in metal.

Alas, nothing happened to Kuznetsov. The tactical and technical characteristics and features of this TAKR determined not the needs of the fleet, but the forced compromise between them and the position of the USSR Minister of Defense D.F. Ustinov. The fleet wanted ejection and atomic aircraft carrier ships with a displacement of at least 65-70 thousand tons., And better - more. But df Ustinov, believing in the bright future of the VTOL aircraft, agreed only on a non-nuclear ship on the 45 000 t: with great difficulty he managed to convince him to increase the displacement to at least 55 000 t, and he did not want to hear about the catapults.

As a result, in the form of the 1143.5 TAKR, the fleet received absolutely not what it wanted to receive, and what it felt it needed, but only what the industry could give it within the limits of the all-powerful minister of defense at that time. Thus, "Kuznetsov" could not become, and did not become an adequate response to the tasks faced by aircraft carrying ships of the USSR and the Russian Federation.



Dear readers will certainly remember that the author has repeatedly allowed himself to reproach DF. Ustinov in voluntarism in relation to the issues of aircraft carrying ships of the fleet. Therefore, I consider it my duty to remind also that the services of Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov to the country are immense in the literal sense of the word: they have not yet invented such a measure ... Becoming on the recommendation of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria (and it was not easy to deserve a recommendation) by the USSR People's Commissar of Weapons 9 June 1941, he was one of the organizers of the evacuation of the industrial potential of the USSR to the east. And we can safely say that in the chaos of the first year of the war he and his associates succeeded in literally the impossible. After the war, he served as the Minister of Armaments and put a lot of effort into creating and developing the missile industry of the USSR. His service in the military-industrial complex was marked by many achievements and victories, his merit in the formation of the post-war armed forces of the USSR is enormous. Without a doubt, Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov was a great man ... but still, just a man who, as is well known, is prone to make mistakes. At the time, S.O. Makarov quite rightly remarked that only he who does nothing is not mistaken, and D.F. Ustinov did extremely much for his country. And the commitment of the VTOL aircraft, in the opinion of the author of this article, was one of the not so numerous mistakes of this in any respect an outstanding statesman.

Atomic, heavy, aircraft carrier. ATAKR project 1143.7 "Ulyanovsk"


As it is known, Dmitry Fedorovich died 20 untimely on December 1984. And in the same month Nevsky PKB was entrusted with the design of an atomic TAKR with a large displacement and with an increased air wing. By this time, the future “Kuznetsov” was on the stocks 2 of the year and 4 of the month, and until its launching it was almost 3 of the year, and almost a year remained before the start of work on the 1143.6 TAKR of the same type, which later became the Chinese Liaoning. The TTZ for the atomic TAKR was approved by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy S.G. Gorshkovym. But the design process was not simple, and the preliminary design was considered only in April 1986. The project was approved by the admiral of the fleet V.N. Chernavin and the Minister of the shipbuilding industry I.S. Belousov, and in July of the same year, the Neva PKB received an order to prepare and approve the technical design for March 1987. At the same time, the Black Sea Shipyard (ČSZ), where our TAKRs were created, was allowed to start work even before the technical project was approved, and to ensure unconditional ship laying in 1988. That was done: the ship’s official launch took place on November 25, 1988.

As we can see, the design procedure for atomic TAKR in the USSR turned out to be very slow, and, despite all the accumulated knowledge, the experience of developing and building non-nuclear TAKR 1143.1-1143.5 projects and many early studies of atomic ejection aircraft carriers, the Ulyanovsk ATAKR tab took place later 4 of the year after the start of work on this ship. It is necessary to take into account, of course, that the CSY for the bookmark Ulyanovsk had to be seriously modernized: the building berths were reconstructed, a new outbuilding embankment and a number of additional productions were built, which cost about 180 million rubles. at the rate of 1991, the CSZ received modern laser and plasma technology, installed the newest Japanese machines for processing large-sized metal sheets, as well as the Swedish assembled welding line ESAB. The plant has mastered a number of new productions, including non-flammable plastics and on-board aircraft lifters, but most importantly, it was able to carry out large-block construction. “Ulyanovsk” was “broken” into 29 blocks, each of which had a mass up to 1 700 t (the trigger weight of the TAKR-a was about 32 000 t), and the installation of finished blocks was carried out using two Swedish 900-ton cranes, each which had its own weight without load 3 500 t and span width 140 m.


Those taps


In other words, CSY turned into a first-class factory for the construction of large-tonnage warships, and even the newest, "block" method.

What was Ulyanovsk built for?


The main objectives for ATAKR, according to the design task were:

1. Giving combat stability to formations of surface ships, strategic missile submarines, marine missile-carrying aviation in combat areas.
2. Reflection of enemy carrier strikes and the conquest of superiority in the air.
3. Destruction of enemy ships and submarines.

In addition, the auxiliary tasks of the ATAKR were listed:

1. Ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.
2. The overlap of enemy missile volleys with EW aircraft.
3. Providing long-range radar detection and targeting for heterogeneous fleet forces.

ATAKR and strike carrier - conceptual differences


As a matter of fact, already from the above-mentioned tasks, the difference in the approach to the construction of aircraft carriers in the USA and the USSR is obvious. America created shock (in the full sense of the word!) Aircraft carriers, whose main task was to strike at the shore, including nuclear weapons. Of course, the US attack aircraft carriers also had to deal with the destruction of the enemy navy, including its surface, submarine and air components, but this task, in essence, was considered only as a necessary stage in order to proceed to "work" on coastal targets. Thus, the Americans still saw the “fleet against the coast” as the main form of naval warfare.



At the same time, the Soviet ATAKR was initially created for completely different tasks. In essence, Ulyanovsk can be viewed as an air defense / anti-aircraft carrier, but first and foremost, an air defense. The Americans believed that deck aviation would rule the sea war, and saw in it the main means of destroying the enemy’s air, surface and submarine forces. In the USSR, the main basis of the fleet (not counting SSBNs) was surface and submarine ships equipped with long-range anti-ship missiles and naval land-based ground-based aviation, which at that time consisted of Tu-16 and Tu-22 missile carriers of various modifications, including the most advanced Tu-22X3. Thus, in the US concept, the aircraft carrier had a key role in the naval war, but in the USSR, ATAKR had to perform, in essence, providing the function of covering from the air the grouping of heterogeneous forces, which was to defeat the main forces of the enemy’s fleet, and thereby decide the outcome of the war on the sea. To this thesis, we will return, but for now let's consider the design of the Soviet ship.

What happened with our designers and shipbuilders?


"Ulyanovsk" became the largest warship built in the USSR. Its standard displacement was 65 800 t., Full - 74 900 t, the largest - 79 000 t. The data are given at the time of approval by the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers of the design TTE of the ship, 28 October October 1987, they could slightly change. The maximum length of the ship was 321,2 m, KVL - 274 m, maximum width - 83,9 m, KVL - 40 m. Draft reached 10,6 m.

The power plant was four-shaft, it provided for the installation of four reactors and was, in fact, a modernized power plant of heavy nuclear-powered Kirov-type missile cruisers. The full speed was 29,5 knots, economic - 18 knots, but there were also auxiliary, reserve boilers operating on non-nuclear fuel, the power of which was sufficient to ensure speed in 10 knots.

Constructive protection


The ship received very serious constructive protection, both surface and underwater. As far as you can tell from the sources, the basis of the surface protection was the spaced armor covering the hangar and cellars with weapons and jet fuel: that is, first went the screen designed to make the fuse work, and in 3,5 meters behind it the main layer of armor. For the first time such a reservation was applied to the TAKR "Baku", and there its weight was 1 700 t.

As for PTZ, its width reached 5 m in the “thickest” places. I must say that the design of this protection during the design of the ship became the object of many disputes, and it’s not a fact that the optimal solution was chosen according to the results of the “departmental squabbles”. In any case, one thing is known - the anti-torpedo protection was calculated on resisting the destruction of ammunition equivalent to 400 kg of TNT, and this is one and a half times less than on American nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, whose PTZ was supposed to protect against 600 kg of TNT.

Active protection


It is often stated that the Soviet TAKR, in contrast to foreign aircraft carriers, had a very powerful air defense system. However, this is a false statement: the fact is that, starting with “Baku”, our aircraft carriers did not install air defense systems not that long, but even medium-range, without which it is generally impossible to speak about the developed air defense of the ship. What the Soviet TAKR didn’t take away, however, was the strongest missile defense, oriented, of course, to destroy not anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles and other ammunition aimed directly at the ship. And in this issue, "Ulyanovsk" really left behind any aircraft carrier of the world.


Model "Ulyanovsk"


Its air defense system was based on the short-range Dagger air defense missile system, whose missiles could hit air targets reaching speeds up to 700 m / s (that is, 2 520 km / h) at a distance of no more than 12 km and 6 km. It seems to be not so much, but it is quite enough to destroy any anti-ship missile or guided bombs. At the same time, the complex worked fully automatically and had a relatively short reaction time - on the order of 8 seconds on a low-flying target. In practice, this was supposed to mean that by the time the PKR was approaching the maximum range of fire, the air defense system should have had a ready “solution” to defeat it and was in full readiness to use the missile defense system. At the same time, "Ulyanovsk" had 4 radar fire control systems, each of which was able to "direct" 8 firing at 4 missiles at targets in the 60X60 sector, deg. PU

In addition to the “Dagger”, it was planned to install the 8 CENTRIC “Dirk” on Ulyanovsk, whose missiles had reach for the 8 km and altitude range - 3,5 km, and the fast-fire 30-mm guns - 4 and 3 km, respectively. A feature of the project was that the "Daggers" and "Dirks" had to be under the control of a single CICS that controls the state of the targets and distributes the air defense targets between them.

Of course, modern air defense systems do not create an “impenetrable dome” above the ship - in reality, the destruction of airborne targets by means of ships, this is an extremely complex process, due to the short-lived air attack, low visibility and relatively high speed, even subsonic missiles. So, for example, the British C-Wolfe air defense system, created under the tasks similar to the Dagger, knocked 114-mm projectiles without problems at the exercises, but in practice, during the Falklands conflict, showed approximately 40% efficiency in significantly larger and well-observed For targets like skyhawk subsonic attack aircraft. But there is no doubt that the capabilities of the “Daggers” and “Dirks” of the “Ulyanovsk” are an order of magnitude superior to the 3 SAM Systems “Sea Sparrow” and 3 20-mm “Vulcan-Falans” installed on the Nimitz aircraft carrier.

In addition to anti-aircraft weapons, Ulyanovsk was also equipped with the Udav anti-torpedo complex, which was an 10-tube jet bomb equipped with special anti-torpedo ammunition of various types, and a separate high-frequency HAS was used to detect targets. According to the creators, the attacking torpedo must first encounter traps and deviate from them, and if this did not happen, enter the improvised curtain-minefield created by the BoA on the torpedo's movement path. It was assumed that the upgraded version of the Udav-1M is capable of disrupting the attack of a direct-looking uncontrolled torpedo with a probability of 0,9, and a controlled one with a probability of 0,76. It is possible, and even very likely, that in combat conditions, the real effectiveness of the complex would be much lower, but, in any case, the presence of active anti-torpedo protection, even if imperfect, is noticeably better than its absence.

Means of EW


On the "Ulyanovsk" was planned to put a system of interference and electronic warfare "Sozvezdie-BR". It was the newest system adopted by 1987, and special attention during its creation and adaptation to the Ulyanovsk was paid to integration into a single circuit along with other systems to protect the ship from an air attack. Unfortunately, the author doesn’t know the exact constellation of the Constellation-BR, but it had to automatically detect the ship’s irradiation, classify it and independently select the necessary equipment and modes to counter the threat. In addition, great attention was paid to the compatibility of various radio equipment of the ship: the fleet had already encountered a problem when there were many radars installed on one ship, communications equipment, and so on. simply interfered with each other’s work and could not function simultaneously. This lack of "Ulyanovsk" should not have been.

Means of control of the situation


As part of the radar, it was originally intended to equip Ulyanovsk with a Mars-Passat system with a phased radar, but given that it was dismantled at the Varyag TARK, most likely the same thing would happen in Ulyanovsk. In this case, the ATAKR with high probability would receive a new at that time radar complex Forum 2, which was based on the 2 radar Podberezovik. These radars worked quite effectively at a distance of up to 500 km, and, unlike the Mars-Passat, they did not require a specialized radar for detecting low-flying targets “Podkat”.

As for the underwater situation, it was planned to equip Ulyanovsk with the Zvezda SJC, but judging from the photographs of the hull in the building, it is possible that the “good old” Polynom would receive the ATAKR.

Here we will pause in the description of the Ulyanovsk design: the following material will be devoted to the capabilities of its wing, aircraft maintenance, catapults, hangar and strike weapons. For now - we will try to draw some conclusions from the above.

"Ulyanovsk" and "Nimitz" - the similarities and differences


Of all the Soviet warships, the Soviet ATAKR in terms of its displacement turned out to be closest to the American supercarrier Nimitz. However, the different concept of the use of ships obviously affected the equipment and the design features of these ships.

Today, when discussing the utility of aircraft carriers in modern naval combat, two allegations are constantly emerging regarding aircraft carriers. The first is that the aircraft carrier is not self-sufficient and in a war with an enemy more or less corresponding in level, it requires a significant escort, the ships of which have to be detached from their direct tasks. The second is that domestic TAKR do not require an escort, since they can well protect themselves. It must be said that both of these statements are erroneous, but both contain the seeds of truth.

The statement about the need for numerous escorts is true only for attack aircraft carriers of the “American” type, representing, in fact, the best floating aerodrome that can only be obtained in the amount of 100 thousand tons, but only. However, this is fully justified in the framework of the American concept of dominance of carrier-based aviation, which is entrusted with the solution of the main tasks of the "fleet against the fleet" and "fleet against the coast." In other words, Americans are supposed to solve problems with deck aviation: in such concepts, separate groups made up of surface ships and not having an aircraft carrier, can be formed only to solve some secondary tasks. That is, separate compounds of missile cruisers and / or destroyers of the US Navy are not very necessary. Airborne assault groups, submarines, which are necessary first of all for parrying the underwater threat, frigates for convoy service — that is, in fact, all that the American fleet needs. Of course, there are amphibious amphibious compounds, but they operate under tight “guardianship” of the AUG. Thus, the US Navy does not “tear off” destroyers and cruisers to aircraft carrier escorts, they build cruisers and destroyers to ensure the operation of carrier-based aircraft, which also solves the tasks that cruisers and destroyers were assigned to in our fleet.

In this case, of course, numerous escort is an essential attribute of the strike aircraft carrier, if the latter is opposed by a more or less equivalent enemy.

At the same time, domestic TARKRs, including the Ulyanovsk, are representatives of a completely different concept, they are just ships supporting the operation of the main forces of the fleet. The Soviet Navy was not going to build an ocean fleet around deck aircraft, he was going to provide deck aircraft for the actions of his ocean (and not only) fleet. Therefore, if within the framework of the American concept of aircraft carrier ships, destroyers and cruisers supporting aircraft carrier operations fulfill their main task, for which they were actually built, then within the framework of the Soviet concept, ships providing security for TAKR are indeed thereby diverted from their main tasks.

In this case, the American aircraft carrier is designed to solve a larger range of tasks than the Soviet TAKR, or even ATAKR. The latter either had to provide zonal supremacy in the air, or an air defense system of the strike formation, as well as the PLO, while the deck aircraft of the American “super” should also solve impact tasks. In fact, by eliminating the “shock” function (it was purely auxiliary on the Soviet TAKR), our admirals and designers were able to create smaller ships, or better protected ones, or both. Strictly speaking, this is exactly what we see in Ulyanovsk.

Its full displacement by more than 22% was inferior to the “Nimitz”, but the active anti-aircraft weapons were much stronger. On the "Ulyanovsk" there was a system of countering torpedoes (how effective - this is another question, but it was the same!), And the "Nimitz" had nothing of the kind, moreover, the Soviet ship had a very powerful constructive defense. Alas, it is impossible to compare it with the one that Nimitz possessed due to the secrecy of the latter, but still it should be noted that the PTZ of the American ship, apparently, turned out to be better.

As for the installation of a powerful sonar complex, this is a very controversial issue. On the one hand, of course, the equipment of Polynom GAK weighed under 800 tons, which could be used to increase the number of aircraft wing or the quality of its use. But on the other hand, the presence of a powerful SAC at Atakr significantly increased its situational awareness and thereby reduced the number of ships required for its direct escort, and therefore released additional ships to solve combat missions.

In this case, it would be completely wrong to regard the domestic TAKR or ATAKR of the USSR era as a ship capable of conducting combat operations completely independently. Firstly, it is simply not intended for this, because its role is air defense and air defense, but not the independent destruction of the enemy’s surface ship groups, however, this issue will be discussed in more detail only in the next article. And secondly, he still needs an escort - another question is that thanks to a strong (although not having a “long arm”) air defense, a powerful EW, and so on. his escort may be significantly less numerous than that of the American aircraft carrier.

To be continued ...
215 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    16 July 2019 05: 36
    ChSZ has turned into a first-class plant for the construction of large-tonnage warships, and even in the latest, "block" way.

    And what has he (the factory) turned into now, coupled with the once close and fraternal (I will not be afraid of this word) Ukraine?

    In general, talking about what happened ... is, as it were, softer recourse ? It does not come out softer ... Significantly (and prudently) I will not say anything ...
    1. -21
      16 July 2019 06: 28
      Not tired of writing about something that will never happen in Russia?
    2. Maz
      -11
      16 July 2019 06: 29
      Interestingly, Kuzyu will be able to repair or cut again?
      1. -11
        16 July 2019 10: 20
        If pd50 is found at the bottom of the sea
        1. +6
          16 July 2019 12: 49
          I understand that you have not seen numerous articles on the postponement of the beginning of the reconstruction of dry docks at SRZ-2019 for repair 35 for 11435?
          1. -5
            18 July 2019 05: 46
            Are you also reading inscriptions on the fence? Where is the result?
      2. -9
        16 July 2019 10: 45
        the only sensible decision is to sell Kuzyu to India or China, it would be useful to them, by the way it is designed for warm countries
        1. +3
          16 July 2019 16: 42
          He definitely doesn’t need China - they are building their own, and perhaps India too.
          But for the SF as a distant frontier of air defense and to cover the combat deployment of nuclear submarines, it will still serve.
    3. +9
      16 July 2019 13: 08
      Quote: Separ DNR
      And what has he (the factory) turned into now, coupled with the once close and fraternal (I will not be afraid of this word) Ukraine?

      In short - it is destroyed
    4. +3
      16 July 2019 14: 32
      Plant successfully decommunized
      1. +4
        16 July 2019 14: 36
        Quote: ak747
        Plant successfully decommunized

        And back in the 90s. I am aware of the general state of the economy of Ukraine until 2014, and the state of the shipbuilding industry in particular.
        The question was purely rhetorical, in order to emphasize what we all lost ...
  2. +10
    16 July 2019 06: 24
    Thanks for the article, I look forward to continuing. Ulyanovsk should have become the peak on the long road of the fleet and industry to the ATACR. Andrei correctly noted that the ATAKR is not an American type strike aircraft carrier, it is a ship designed to solve a much wider range of tasks, but at the same time limited in terms of strike capabilities of an air wing. Nevertheless, Ulyanovsk was approaching the capabilities of full-fledged aircraft carriers.
    Back in 1973, the draft design of the 1160 nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 80000 tons and an air group of 70 aircraft was being worked out. A little later, it was supposed to transfer the construction of the ATAKR to Leningrad, against the background of political difficulties with the passage through the straits. Alas, the State Planning Commission was stingy in allocating the necessary funds. As a result, the evolutionary development of Project 1143, with its top in the form of "Kuzi", and two ships that did not get into our Navy (although one now serves China).
    1. +4
      16 July 2019 06: 31
      Quote: Potter
      our navy

      Navy,presumably ? Navy, this is another topic ...
    2. +5
      16 July 2019 12: 56
      Quote: Potter
      Back in 1973, a preliminary design of the atomic aircraft carrier pr.1160 with a displacement of 80000 tons and an air group of 70 aircraft was being worked out.

      By the way, Morin wrote that "Ulyanovsk" was not a development of the line of pr.11431-11436, but was an attempt to return to the "Eagle" pr.1160 - the "first approximation" of a normal catapult atomic AB.
      1. 0
        17 July 2019 22: 56
        so in fact and 11435 (6) he also considered the development of 1160/1153, and not at all 1143. The "third removal" ... he's talking about 11435.
        1. +3
          18 July 2019 13: 11
          Quote: bugagich
          so, after all, he also considered 11435 (6) the development of 1160/1153, and not 1143 at all.

          Well, if you remember what was originally proposed as "fifth ship of project 1143", then the continuity with 1160/1153 is clearly traced:

          The power plant is changed from the NPP to the KTU, and then the 1160 equipment is "trampled down" into a limited displacement (the catapult from the corner deck is placed next to the bow, the third aircraft lift is thrown out - in the "tight" 11435 there are aerofiners in its place)
          1. 0
            18 July 2019 18: 14
            it's like that. I mean, in principle, he did not consider 11435-11437 the development of 1143 ...
    3. -7
      18 July 2019 05: 53
      I’m shocked at you, read fairy tales, think up fairy tales, write comments on fairy tales, and the result is 1 half-dead nedoavik under repair and a drowned dock, and you dream on.
  3. +9
    16 July 2019 06: 34
    Historically interesting article, instructive.
    1. About the prospect of the construction of aircraft carriers (nuclear or non-nuclear) it is worth rereading the following paragraph: "... The ChSZ had to be seriously modernized for laying Ulyanovsk: the building berths were reconstructed, a new outfitting embankment and a number of additional industries were built, which cost about 180 million rubles at the rate of 1991. The ChSZ received modern laser and plasma equipment, installed the latest Japanese machines for processing large-sized metal sheets, as well as the Swedish assembly-welding line ESAB. aircraft lifts, but most importantly, it got the opportunity to carry out large-block construction. "Ulyanovsk" was "divided" into 29 blocks, each of which had a mass of up to 1 tons (the launch weight of the TAKR was about 700 tons), and the assembly of finished blocks was carried out at the aid of two Swedish-made 32-ton cranes, each of which had its own unladen weight of 000 tons and a width of summer 900 m. ". Nikolaev is now, alas, abroad. Thanks to Mr Putin's indecision in 3. But even if the ChSZ became Russian again today, it would not change much - everything that can be plundered, sawn, sold out, outdated ... has gone to dust. Look how much was purchased in the years of Soviet power, which were prosperous for industry. Will Russia now be able to produce all this on its own or buy it safely? Now, under sanctions, and with an unrecovered, not fully restored industry and economy, it will hardly be possible to pull the construction of a full-fledged aircraft carrier.
    2. The following quite reasonable conclusion is of interest: "... domestic TARKRs, including Ulyanovsk, are representatives of a completely different concept, they are just ships to support the operation of the main forces of the fleet. The USSR Navy did not intend to build an ocean-going fleet around carrier-based aircraft , he was going to provide carrier-based aviation for the operations of his ocean (and not only) fleet. ... within the framework of the Soviet concept, ships that ensure the safety of the aircraft carrier are indeed diverted from their main tasks. " But the USSR had a really powerful and modern Big Fleet and could afford such a "distraction" of some of the ships. Sosbstvenno speaking, there is not even a real "distraction" here, the aircraft-carrying cruiser (cruiser) ships are initially to a certain extent universal. Today the picture is completely different - either the escort of one or two aircraft-carrying cruisers, or the solution of other tasks ... But which ones? there are no ocean fleets in reality, just as there are no real tasks for the ocean large fleet.
    3. I think that for a very long time the aircraft carrier dream will be limited to the restored Kuznetsov and its successful use as a training ship on long voyages with military-political tasks of displaying the flag.
    1. +6
      16 July 2019 17: 43
      Well, we waited for Andrei to start the cycle about aircraft carriers and their prospects in the fate of the future fleet. And there is no way to do without an analysis of Soviet experience.
      The plans of the Soviet Union were to have six non-nuclear aircraft-carrying ships and four nuclear-type "Ulyanovsk". It was a completely different country in terms of its capabilities and the tasks it faced, but even the mighty USSR had to go through a long evolutionary path before laying the first full-fledged aircraft carrier with catapults. And this must be remembered when discussing the prospects for the construction of "Storm" or "Manatee".
      Alas, our industry is not yet ready for such a breakthrough.
      But the need for aircraft carriers, and first of all for the aircraft carriers of the air defense of the fleet, is and will only grow - our long sea borders cannot be fully covered by one basic aviation. One Far Eastern theater of what is worth. The same picture is on the SF.
      It is necessary to take into account the financial component. The construction of a large series of projects 22350 and 22350M has been announced, new BDKs have been laid, a draft UDC \ landing helicopter carrier is being prepared - all this requires considerable funds and shipbuilding capacities ... Therefore, there is time to discuss future plans for aircraft carriers, their appearance, and the tasks ahead. , the size and composition of the group ...
      But first - an analysis of the experience of the "ancestors".
      And awareness of the goals and objectives facing modern Russia.
  4. +15
    16 July 2019 07: 22
    "There is no story sadder in the world ...", like the history of the Russian aircraft carrier fleet! And there will be no full-fledged aircraft carriers in modern Russia, while the unsinkable Chubais, Kudrins, Serdyukovs "rule" !!!
  5. +5
    16 July 2019 07: 22
    I would like to add about D, F Ustinov-v! 941 was appointed People's Commissar of Armaments and became the youngest People’s Commissar in the government, only 33 years old.
    As for aircraft carriers, they need a high level of technology, engineering solvency. And military feasibility. And you need to start by understanding what we want, a list of tasks to be performed. Otherwise, there will be shyness with a cut.
  6. +11
    16 July 2019 07: 28
    As for the installation of a powerful sonar complex, this is a very controversial issue. On the one hand, of course, the equipment of Polynom GAK weighed under 800 tons, which could be used to increase the number of aircraft wing or the quality of its use. But on the other hand, the presence of a powerful SAC at Atakr significantly increased its situational awareness and thereby reduced the number of ships required for its direct escort, and therefore released additional ships to solve combat missions.

    This is not a controversial issue - it is techno-insanity. Build nuclear carrier, and in the singular and pozhlobivat escort to him. Whoever offered to send ATACR on a solo voyage should immediately smear his forehead with brilliant green. And if the escort of the BOD and the nuclear submarine, then why "Polynom"? It is more rational to use the "extra" 800 tons to increase the aviation component (reserves, aviation fuel, etc.).
    1. +2
      16 July 2019 07: 55
      Quote: Barb
      And if the escort of the BOD and the nuclear submarine, then why "Polynom"? It is more rational to use the "extra" 800 tons to increase the aviation component (reserves, aviation fuel, etc.)

      and if in the escort EM (Gorshkov - 2 pieces) + nuclear submarines (Kazan)? then are they superfluous or not?
      1. +4
        16 July 2019 11: 38
        Quote: Saturday
        and if in the escort EM (Gorshkov - 2 pieces) + nuclear submarines (Kazan)? then are they superfluous or not?

        Are you already designing Gorshkov in the 85th? Focus on 1155.
        1. +6
          16 July 2019 18: 00
          "Ulyanovsk" was planned to build 4 units. , exactly as much as the number of nuclear-powered cruisers of the Kirov (Orlan) type was built. And they were going to walk in "sweet couples", of course, with other escorts from BODs and destroyers, nuclear submarines ...
          And the "Polynom" was not only at the "Ulyanovsk" (and others. TARKR), but also at the "Eagles" and of course at the magnificent BOD 1155, and this was justified.
          1. +1
            16 July 2019 19: 30
            There should have been at least 5 Kirovs.
            1. +4
              16 July 2019 23: 22
              As for the "Eagles", it seems that they decided to limit themselves to 4 pieces. even when they decided to start the Atlant series, they were much cheaper, faster, and were not much inferior to their atomic counterparts in terms of combat effectiveness. They were planning to build 10 of them - 4 each for the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, and one each for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic.
    2. +1
      16 July 2019 09: 32
      I would put 100 pluses. If it were possible.
    3. +2
      16 July 2019 13: 00
      Quote: Barb
      This is not a controversial issue - it is techno-insanity.

      It is a Sparta THE USSR! smile
      The Navy, when they saw a ship with a displacement greater than BOD, constantly tried to fill it to the limit with all kinds of systems, in vain trying to make universal ships. Remember at least the towed GAS on RRC Project 1164.
    4. +2
      16 July 2019 13: 19
      Quote: Barb
      Build a nuclear carrier

      Well, the tasks are different
      Quote: Barb
      and in the singular

      Oh my god! Why - in the only thing? The series must be continued, at least up to 4 units
      Quote: Barb
      The person who proposed to send ATACR to solitary swimming should immediately smear his forehead with green. And if the escort is a BOD and a nuclear submarine, then why "Polynomial"?

      The question can be rephrased as follows: if there is a polynomial, then why is BOD needed in direct cover? Suppose ATACR solves the problem of ensuring combat stability of the SSBNs in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. If installing the Polynomial on it makes it possible to reduce its escort to the 1 BOD, then this BOD can be used to solve the same problem (combat stability of the SSBN) but more efficiently.
      1. 0
        16 July 2019 13: 55
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Oh my god! Why - in the only thing? The series must be continued, at least up to 4 units

        Given the timing of construction when the last will be combat, the first will already go under the write-off. Yes, and will be divided into 2 fleet.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The question can be rephrased as follows: if there is a polynomial, then why is BOD needed in direct cover? Suppose ATACR solves the problem of ensuring combat stability of the SSBNs in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. If installing the Polynomial on it makes it possible to reduce its escort to the 1 BOD, then this BOD can be used to solve the same problem (combat stability of the SSBN) but more efficiently.

        So the question arises, can we afford to expose the ATACR under the attack of a submarine, diverting the BOD from its escort to another place, isn't it too expensive? Build a pair of 1143 or 3-4 1123 for the price of 1 "Ulyanovsk" and there will be happiness.
        1. +2
          16 July 2019 14: 02
          Quote: Barb
          Given the timing of construction when the last will be combat, the first will already go under the write-off. Yes, and will be divided into 2 fleet.

          Yes, why would? Such ships serve 50 years, and the second ship of the series could be laid through 2,5-3 of the year (after launching Ulyanovsk), the total construction cycle should have been 7 years, that is, we would get four ATAKR in 2004 g
          Quote: Barb
          So the question arises, can we afford to substitute the ATAKR under the attack of a submarine?

          The PLO is lined up in echelon, and the last echelon can be either POLIN ATAKR or BOD. In both cases, the ATACR is "substituted" under attack equally (the enemy submarine approached at a distance of 45 km or less)
          1. +6
            16 July 2019 18: 46
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Such ships serve 50 years each, and the second ship of the series could be laid in 2,5-3 years (after launching Ulyanovsk), the total construction cycle was to be 7 years, that is, we would have got four ATAKR in 2004

            Yes, if the Union had lived another 10 years, it would have had 10 aircraft carriers:
            - 4 drums according to the concept "fleet to fleet", such as "Kiev", "Minsk", "Novorossiysk".
            - 2 air defense aircraft carriers with "fleet-to-fleet" strike functions of the "Kuznetsov" type
            - 4 nuclear multi-functional, which could lead expeditionary groups in the oceanic zone. Having catapults, AWACS and "Orlans" aircraft as part of their escort.

            At the same time, the TAKR of the previous buildings with the appearance of the supersonic Yak-141 as part of the air group would have their own air cover - a cover for the entire warrant.

            And if we recall the large series of "Sariches" and 1155 under construction, plans for placement on them (in the course of planned modernization) and on their modernized versions of UVP KR "Granat" (future "Caliber"), built by a large series of MAPLs of the animal series ...
            ... admire such a lost perspective ...
      2. +3
        16 July 2019 13: 59
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The question can be rephrased as follows: if there is a polynomial, then why is BOD needed in direct cover?

        The question is - how long will this "Polynomial" work normally on the TAVKR, given that the ship must be in full swing for takeoff and landing operations? wink Either we provide take-off and landing of the airborne air group - or we provide the PLO, walking at a speed optimal for the aircraft.
        Wouldn't it be better to trade the Polynomial for a couple of anti-submarine helicopters? wink
        1. +1
          16 July 2019 14: 29
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The question is - how long will this "Polynomial" work normally on the TAVKR, given that the ship must be in full swing for takeoff and landing operations?

          ATAKR no longer has to :)))) CAN, but not necessarily.
          1. +2
            16 July 2019 15: 33
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            ATAKR no longer has to :)))) CAN, but not necessarily.

            This 1160 should not. And 11437 - should. smile
            For there are only two catapults on it, and the remaining three starting positions are a springboard. Moreover, since the distant starting position is not only located on the corner deck immediately behind the aerofinisher, but also covers the catapult, you will have to lift Sushi from your neighbors. And there, every node is important.
            Yes, and when landing it is better to disperse the runway - to reduce the relative speed of the aircraft by at least 15-20 kilometers per hour.
            1. +2
              16 July 2019 16: 17
              Quote: Alexey RA
              For there are only two catapults on it, and the remaining three starting positions are the springboard.

              Exactly. But the patrol on duty will launch catapults, and the mass rise of the air group will occur infrequently, even in combat conditions.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Yes, and landing better to accelerate the runway

              Of course. But Kuzmich does not overclock, and in fact sit down the same.
              Do not get it wrong - I do not advocate the obligatoryness of a polynomial on ATAKR, but there is some logic in my IMHO
          2. +2
            16 July 2019 19: 05
            However, the Americans still drive their "Nimitz" - to communicate a higher takeoff speed and offset the landing speed of landing aircraft.
            But I would not have exchanged a powerful GAK for a few extra hundred tons, just as the naval leadership of the Soviet Union was gone. PLO in the USSR Fleet paid a lot of attention, they kept 12 anti-submarine helicopters on the aircraft carrier. And on "Eagles" "Polynomials" are not for nothing - you cannot save on PLO.
      3. -2
        16 July 2019 16: 32
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Let's say ATACR solves the problem of ensuring combat stability of the SSBNs in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk

        Probably not quite a good example, it's easier to keep a couple of airfields in the Kuril Islands.
        1. +1
          16 July 2019 17: 30
          Quote: mark1
          Probably not quite a good example, it's easier to keep a couple of airfields in the Kuril Islands.

          In terms of cost, yes, easier. From the point of view of combat effectiveness, this is money to the wind — they will be knocked out in the first half hour of the war. It will be possible to base the regiment of the IA on the airfield. And what will he do in the range of the aviation of Japan and the United States AUG?
          1. -3
            16 July 2019 17: 41
            An unsinkable aircraft carrier is always preferable to a sunken one (all the more so as to make an atomic aircraft carrier in a practically closed sea). And the size and composition of the air group depends only on the size of the airfield, and the number of airfields on the number of islands, respectively.
            1. -1
              17 July 2019 15: 31
              Quote: mark1
              Unsinkable aircraft carrier is always preferable to the flooded

              Apparently, therefore, land aircraft never won the deck in direct confrontation :))))
              1. +1
                17 July 2019 15: 56
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Apparently, therefore, land aircraft never won the deck in direct confrontation :))))

                Probably it all depends on the strength and capabilities of the enemy. If one of the forces is small and the other has the opportunity to adjust the coast to the AUG, then the outcome is logical. But if the air grouping is comparable (and what is stopping you?), + Dispersal over island airfields, + coastal anti-ship systems + air defense systems - I think the AUG will simply not appear there, and the aircraft of the PLO from Japan too.
                1. +2
                  17 July 2019 17: 19
                  Quote: mark1
                  But if the air group is comparable (and what's stopping?)

                  But - does not work. Pearl Harbor - a loss, Midway, despite the fact that they waited, prepared, concentrated - a loss and then the same
                  By the way, even the USSR could not deploy an air group comparable in strength to the Japanese non-Kuriles
                  1. +1
                    17 July 2019 18: 31
                    The simple question is, then, to hell with us, then an aircraft carrier (one! And not soon!) Well, if there was a problem with the air group (not because of the lack of air supply but because of the availability of more important theater and missile carrier), then we have no problem with the carrier group The trouble. the problem can ultimately be solved in the foreseeable future, but TROUBLE !!!
                  2. +1
                    17 July 2019 20: 42
                    Midway losing?
                    In general, the need for a second strike on the Midway base led to a double rearmament of Japanese aircraft bombers and, ultimately, to a loss in the war. To call 25 aircraft based on Midway base a worthy result of "concentration" is, to put it mildly, incorrect. Midway was a trap - the Japanese fell into it.
  7. +2
    16 July 2019 07: 46
    Thank you, as always, interesting! But, I have one question: and if the "Ulyanovsk" could still be completed, how would it have left the Black Sea? Indeed, according to the "Montreux Convention" the passage of ships and submarines with nuclear power plants through the straits (Bosphorus and Dardanelles) is prohibited.
    1. 0
      16 July 2019 08: 11
      with us he qualified as an attacker
      1. +1
        16 July 2019 08: 14
        It does not matter, "Kuzya" passed the Straits precisely because it was classified not as an aircraft carrier, but as a TAVKR. Here it is in the YSU.
        1. -2
          16 July 2019 12: 07
          like Ulyanovsk, too, as Kuzya qualified
          1. -1
            16 July 2019 12: 23
            "Kuzi" has no YSU. Ban on YSU,
            1. +4
              16 July 2019 12: 59
              Quote: Nycomed
              Ban on YaSU,

              There are no problems with nuclear weapons. For example, the Soviet lighter carrier Sevmorput, a transport icebreaker equipped with a nuclear power system of the KLT-40 type, passed the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. The ship is one of the four largest analogues, designed for non-military operations with a nuclear unit. The transporter was designed and developed in Leningrad (1978 year, Baltsudproekt Central Design Bureau). By order of the government of the USSR, the ship was built in Kerch at the Gulf plant.
              1. -1
                16 July 2019 13: 05
                So the straits passed without nuclear warheads, it has already been mounted elsewhere. Or they loaded nuclear fuel elsewhere.
        2. +6
          16 July 2019 14: 49
          The Montreux Convention was adopted in 1936 and has not been revised since. What YaSU in 1936?
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. +1
          18 July 2019 09: 16
          It does not matter, "Kuzya" passed the Straits precisely because it was classified not as an aircraft carrier, but as a TAVKR. Here it is in the YSU.

          11435, when passing through the straits, like any other ship, it will be classified in accordance with the definitions described in the convention, and not as you call it. And therefore, during the passage, he was classified exactly as AB ...
          Read the convention and its annexes carefully.
          About NPP you have already been answered, there was no such restriction and no.
    2. +8
      16 July 2019 10: 29
      It was planned that the ATAKR will pass straits in two boilers of the KGV-2 type with an uncharged reactor core.
      In general, the construction of aircraft carriers on the Black Sea is nonsense, akin to all the activities of the adored DF Ustinov and his many relatives. Back in 1939, the construction of the most powerful shipyards in the Pacific Ocean in the Soviet harbor with the help of the USA was justified. That the BSF, that the BF from the point of view of the construction and basing of the fleet, is the past.
      1. +1
        16 July 2019 10: 47
        I agree, as a way out, yes, indeed. But, in any case, there should not have been any nuclear fuel on board.
      2. 0
        16 July 2019 11: 30
        In SovGavani, the construction of a shipbuilding plant (namely, a plant, not a shipyard), in the main decisions repeating the Molotov plant, began after the Second World War and was stopped after Stalin's death in 1953. The readiness was already quite high, but even when the question of building a new large plant in the Far East was discussed at the beginning of the 1960s, they did not return to Sovgavan, they planned to build in Bolshoy Kamen, but this project was not implemented then.
        1. 0
          16 July 2019 13: 11
          This is after the war.
          And before the war, the factory, or rather the plant, was planned for the fourth five-year plan. And the shipyards (slipway and construction wall) - at the end of the third - were to be built by the Americans, simultaneously with the supply of materials and equipment for the construction of the second Pacific battleship. The first was to be built in the USA.
        2. 0
          20 July 2019 04: 28
          excuse me, dear ... but how do you separate the shipyards from the factory (well, I suspect a bit ... but still)? this is 1
          Like Molotovsk, how is it? Do you at least understand that in '37 a place was chosen for the "PLANT" device? In spite of the existing St. Nicholas Church, the people were delivered by the wheeled (now operating, and much older than the Black Sea commune) steamer "Gogol", which was for a long time, much more than a war hostel. and only later, during the war (and Leningrad contrived so ...) unfinished boats came to the north. but ONLY afloat! and there they were just being completed! and went into operation! there were no slipways, nothing, just a bare dock and enthusiasm. and only then 68 bis ... but they began to cut them ... there weren't even battleships there.
          and then a factory, not a shipyard! because it is the PLANT, which itself fully provided itself, except for hire - in shipbuilding, thin hire is needed (relatively) ... everything, everything was completely manufactured in the territory of the PLANT!

          PS I'm talking about PO Box 402, the most famous now ...
      3. +3
        16 July 2019 13: 31
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        Back in 1939, the construction of the most powerful shipyards in the Pacific in the Soviet harbor with the help of the United States was justified.

        Do you suggest building aircraft carriers there? :) Multiply the cost of the finished product by the 1,5 coefficient
        1. +3
          16 July 2019 14: 07
          To invest today is to live tomorrow.
          At the plant (full production cycle), with a planned load, the cost price decreased.
          Yes, I am aware of the cost in the industry of the Far East. He himself worked there 1982-1988. to ensure the operation of products. The main components of cost increases are underdeveloped infrastructure and terrible logistics. By the way, your "idol" tried this: more hulls afloat (and in the ranks - God forbid, a third), bases and crews - then. Everyone tried to threaten the adversaries with a scarecrow. Only after the defector Shevchenko A.N. The West was no longer afraid of anything.
          And now, if we don’t swell everything there, we’ll get a new gate (and not a window) into the world, an industrially developed region. No - we will lose the entire Far East, and with it Siberia.
          1. 0
            16 July 2019 14: 28
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Yes, I am aware of the cost price in the industry of the Far East. He himself worked there 1982-1988. to ensure the operation of products. The main components of cost increase are underdeveloped infrastructure and terrible logistics. By the way, this is your "idol" who tried

            What is Ustinov guilty of? That you have not created a powerful and self-sufficient industrial cluster in the Far East? :)))) Are you sure that you can blame him for this? Or the phrase should be read as
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            By the way, your "idol" tried this: more hulls afloat (and in the ranks - God forbid, a third), bases and crews - then.

            Distortion was, who is arguing. By the way, can you share Ustinov’s position on this issue? How exactly did he influence him?
            1. +3
              16 July 2019 14: 56
              Yes, I do not blame the late DF Ustinov. He is neither the best nor the worst that died in that war (cold). But he entered the Politburo. The question was posed not from the position of a statesman, but from the point of view of the department, squeezing everything that is possible and impossible for an arms race. Well and squeezed!
              Although everyone knew everything about the Far East, from factory workers to admirals. On three boilers out of eight at "Novorossiysk" went to Japan. The gerontocrats just didn't care!
              Now, regarding his position on the location of industrial facilities: we have a full number of factories - technical re-equipment is necessary. And they smeared new equipment and funds all equally. And at the same time I’ll send you a man for the position, albeit inferior and mine. Even SevMash did not receive a comprehensive rearmament. In YuzhMash money swelled - return? If you dig up aviators and missiles - we get the same thing.
              This is all I need: investments should be comprehensive, bringing a significant effect, expressed in the outstripping growth of labor productivity and the fighting qualities of products. And the products should serve the prescribed period, and not stand in the backwaters as a source of spare parts and personnel for the "active core" of the fleet.
      4. +4
        16 July 2019 13: 40
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        In general, the construction of aircraft carriers on the Black Sea is nonsense, akin to all the activities of the adored D.F.Ustinov and his many relatives

        But just this decision Dmitry Fedorovich has nothing to do.
        The construction of aircraft-carrying ships in Nikolaev was pushed through by Butoma, arguing that the cost of rebuilding the plant in Nikolaev under the TAVKR would be lower than in Leningrad. True, later it turned out that the minister was cunning - for Leningrad, the full cost of restructuring the plant was given, taking into account the deepening of the water area and the reconstruction of the Sea Canal, and for Nikolaev - only the cost of work on the plant itself. And after making a decision on the "southern option," the Ministry of Justice Industry "suddenly" requested additional funds for deepening and straightening the fairway along which the ships are taken to the Black Sea.
        1. +4
          16 July 2019 14: 27
          Yes, B.Butoma is a fine fellow, a strong industry specialist. But not a strategist - not his level of placement of strategic industrial facilities and labor resources. This, if you like, is the level of the Security Council (Politburo), where D.F. Ustinov entered. And then the choice - "both are worse", that Leningrad, that Nikolaev. History punishes the illiterate twice: the first time with battleships, and the second with aircraft carriers. Apparently "Robinson Crusoe" has not been read.
          Both Severodvinsk and Sovetskaya Gavan are growth points. Here to take out the enterprises there - and the fleet would turn out. Well, with Severodvinsk (Molotovsky) they somehow managed to, and then it was a bit dumb, while SovGavan could not.
          1. 0
            16 July 2019 19: 41
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            but SovGavan - they couldn’t.

            Well, maybe now it will work out with the Big Stone - they’ll swing on civilian orders, and there they might grow up for the military, at the same time logistics will develop for such a serious project (tankers, gas carriers, nuclear super icebreakers).
            1. 0
              17 July 2019 10: 13
              Big Stone - poorly protected (short flying time). No, in the sense of the base of the Navy, Pacific is not bad, but the plant ...
              1. 0
                17 July 2019 10: 29
                The country will definitely not pull another super-shipyard, God forbid, bring it to mind.
                And about the flight time ... If it comes to the matter seriously, it will be too late to build. If the fleet base is blown up by a sudden blow, what's the point of the surviving plant?
                There is also a climate factor - the bays freeze ... We could not hold Port Arthur, and now we could bake cakes in the Far Ship ... Geography ...
    3. +5
      16 July 2019 13: 30
      Quote: Nycomed
      Indeed, according to the "Montreux Convention" the passage of ships and submarines with nuclear power plants through the straits (Bosphorus and Dardanelles) is prohibited.

      In general, Montreux was adopted in 1936 :)))) Where does the ban on nuclear weapons come from? :)
  8. -1
    16 July 2019 09: 06
    Considering that the same Nimitz has an air wing for 80 aircraft, it can launch 12 aircraft in the air as quickly as possible, up to 20 aircraft can be in the air at the same time, even if it takes off half from Ulyanovsk or Kuzi, but it will be fighters designed to destroy aircraft and anti-ship missiles , the alignment is not so bad, there were no fools in the union, they chose the 100% correct concept, this is amer’s everything for the war with the Papuans.
    1. +3
      16 July 2019 09: 36
      In any conflict, the Americans always exhibited a connection of 3-4 aircraft carriers. For some reason, I think that they would put a minimum of one on ours. To destroy with a guarantee and in the future do not bathe.
      Yes, and their experience with the use of aircraft carriers suggests that it is the connection of several large aircraft carriers that has the necessary flexibility and stability.
    2. +1
      16 July 2019 13: 34
      Quote: Maksim364364
      Considering that the same Nimitz has an air wing for 80 machines, as quickly as possible it can launch 12 airplanes into the air, the maximum can simultaneously be in the air up to 20 machines

      Cabernika have read? I gave a detailed answer to his thoughts here https://topwar.ru/31458-nekotorye-osobennosti-ispolzovaniya-palubnoy-aviacii-superavianoscev-tipa-nimitz-ch1.html
  9. +8
    16 July 2019 09: 11
    and to understand where the military and design idea regarding aircraft-carrying ships is moving today.
    "It's no wonder to understand him, reliable king." It moves in a circle with a radius of about 10 years in order to indicate the presence of this very military and design idea.
    1. +1
      16 July 2019 13: 34
      Quote: Undecim
      It moves in a circle with a radius of approximately 10 years in order to indicate the presence of this very military and design thought.

      laughing good drinks
      1. +3
        16 July 2019 13: 41
        Andrei, I, due to the presence of certain knowledge, have a negative attitude to the abundance of smiles.
        I would prefer a normally formulated answer in words. You can even in English.
        1. +5
          16 July 2019 14: 04
          Quote: Undecim
          I would prefer normally, in words, a formulated answer.

          I am amused for the witty accuracy of your wording.
          1. +3
            16 July 2019 14: 05
            Thanks for the positive reply.
  10. 0
    16 July 2019 09: 13
    the equipment of SJSC Polynom weighed under 800 tons, which could be used to increase the number of aircraft wing
    It is unlikely. Volume and mass. The entire Sukikh regiment of 800 aircraft weighs 40 tons, but try to ram it in the volumes occupied by this very "Polynom". Of course, you can fill in kerosene for 1000 m3, but this will also require larger volumes than the SJSC occupied.
    1. 0
      16 July 2019 14: 27
      You can certainly pour kerosene on 1000 m3, but this will require large volumes rather than occupied by HAC

      No, it will not. 800 tons of cargo and 800 tons of required displacement. Those. if the hull is small, but weighs 800t, there should be empty compartments, so that everything (in general) has a volumetric weight = 1 (even less, because the hull has a surface part)))
  11. -5
    16 July 2019 10: 14
    Again "soap" for sofa experts. Probably the fools on the top are sitting and playing the next dominoes
    military doctrine. wink
  12. -2
    16 July 2019 10: 42
    Andrei ignites, but objectively writes about tasks .... which is already respectful, because supporters of unnecessary large surface ships usually are silent about this for obvious reasons, because such ships do not have real problems ..... however, all the tasks listed by the respected Andrey Of course, they are not relevant, there is no need to land the landing so far, there isn’t even a fleet that could cover an aircraft carrier, only support for the nuclear submarines .... it’s just not entirely clear how the AB will support the nuclear submarines and even alone? Maybe it would be better not to unmask them with your presence? This is a question for the respected Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
    1. +3
      16 July 2019 11: 38
      We recall the words of Peter the Great about the patentee, who, if he only has an army, has one hand, and the fleet has two hands. Fighting with two hands is more convenient than for a disabled person with one hand.
    2. +2
      16 July 2019 20: 26
      Quote: vladimir1155
      it’s just not entirely clear how AB will support nuclear submarines and even alone? Maybe it would be better not to unmask them with your presence?

      First of all, the dispersal of the entire anti-submarine aircraft of a potential enemy and the isolation of the combat deployment area. And as well as the carrier of a large number of anti-submarine helicopters to round up enemy nuclear submarines-hunters - usually in a quantity of 12 pieces. And also the organization of air defense of the fleet in the deployment zone from enemy strike aircraft ... well, for aerial reconnaissance of enemy surface ships.
      For such purposes, of course, you do not need an atomic carrier with a displacement of 100 tons, a ship with a displacement of 000-40 thousand tons with an aircraft wing of 50 fighters, 24-2 AWACS aircraft (required to launch a catapult on an oblique deck is required) and 4 traditional helicopters are enough PLO ... And also 12 search and rescue helicopters and a couple of sparks to the fighter fleet.
      Such an aircraft carrier, of course, should be on gas turbines and in an amount of 4 to 6 pieces. to both fleets. In principle, our industry is ready for their construction; in any case, there are no critically insurmountable problems with competencies.
      The cost of one copy is expected in the range of 1,5-2 billion dollars. , and this is 3 - 4 times less than the cost of the same "Leader", and the construction time will be less than two times. As a result, if the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the State makes the right choice, within 12 - 15 years you can get the entire required grouping, especially if you lay on two stocks. Thus, for an amount equal to the cost of 2 "Leaders", you can build the entire required grouping of gas turbine aircraft carriers - 6 pcs. and all the infrastructure in the bases for their operation.

      The construction of gas turbine aircraft carriers, however, does not exclude the possibility of building nuclear heavy aircraft carriers in the future (if it is deemed appropriate), when the industry accumulates the necessary competencies. In this case, a combination of 4 gas turbine and 2 atomic ones seems preferable, for reasons of 2 + 1 for each fleet (Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet) - hardly a larger amount for the Russian Navy will be justified.
      1. 0
        18 July 2019 18: 39
        .
        Quote: bayard
        First of all, the dispersal of the entire anti-submarine aircraft of a potential enemy and the isolation of the combat deployment area. And as well as the carrier of a large number of anti-submarine helicopters to round up enemy nuclear submarines-hunters - usually in a quantity of 12 pieces. And also the organization of air defense of the fleet in the deployment zone from enemy strike aircraft ... well, for aerial reconnaissance of enemy surface ships.
        The airfield on the island in the light of the "historical" lessons of Pearl Harbor and Midway is certainly not our method .. request
        1. +1
          19 July 2019 01: 45
          Quote: mark1
          The airfield on the island in the light of the "historical" lessons of Pearl Harbor and Midway is certainly not our method ..

          If you are talking about Sakhalin and some of the Kuril ridge, then as jump airports they are already there, another thing is the size and composition of their air group. And where do we get the islands in the Barents Sea? After all, the SF bases will probably be more important for us.
          Airfields on the islands are good and necessary, but keeping full-fledged regiments there ... is expensive, difficult and must be well covered both from the sea and from the air, because in case of war they will be taken out first. So count the equipment and maintenance of such an airfield with an IA regiment, with all the infrastructure, warehouses, arsenals, barracks, housing for officers and their families, at least a division of medium or long-range air defense systems (S-400 \ 300 \ 350), at least 4 air defense systems short-range "Pantsir" or "Thor", at least a division of the coastal complex of the PKR ("Ball" or "Bastion") and at least a battalion of marines for outposts with all equipment attached to them, including heavy (tanks - at least platoon, artillery, auto and armored vehicles). And all this must be placed on a permanent basis, to ensure a decent life and conditions of service ...
          You calculate how much it costs.
          And such bases need a whole garland.
          Such luxury will fly to the state at the cost of more than one aircraft carrier. And not even two.
          And their supply?
          And how many personnel will this require?
          So it turns out that it is wiser to have jump airports on the islands and keep them from the pair to the link during the threatened period. Or as an alternate aerodrome for deck and base aviation.
          On other islands, deploy air defense units, strengthening them if necessary with anti-aircraft missile systems. And to strengthen any threatened direction by maneuvering aircraft carriers. An aircraft carrier is much more difficult to destroy with a sudden strike, as it moves and maneuvers, and is very well covered from the air and sea by ships of its warrant and its own aircraft, has its own AWACS aircraft and is therefore well aware of the air and surface conditions for hundreds of miles around.
          Such an aircraft carrier (or their group) can in a short time be where it is most needed, for example, dramatically increase the air cover of our bases in Kamchatka (since we are talking about the Far East), or set up an air defense barrier at distant frontiers in the Barents Sea. It will be protected from underwater threats by war ships, its own and their helicopter PLO and submarine \ submarine cover.
          This is a very stable and self-sufficient combat group, capable of organizing an elastic defense in the near sea zone and at far borders, depending on the assigned combat mission and the geography of the region.
          This is an active defense tool.
          And the bases on the islands are easily knocked out.
          1. -2
            19 July 2019 03: 05
            Quote: bayard
            Aircraft carrier is much more difficult to destroy with a sudden strike.

            I never thought that what is not drowning is easier to destroy than what is drowning.
            Quote: bayard
            The airfields on the islands are good and necessary, but to keep full-fledged shelves there ... expensive, difficult and must be well covered both from the sea and from the air, because in the event of war they will be carried out in the first place

            And it’s easy, simple and cheap to keep an aircraft carrier, and you don’t need to cover it with the half of the cash fleet from the sea. When it starts to be repaired, it’s simply not operational, it’s actually gone and money is flowing
            What is actually in "one bottle" on an aircraft carrier is easily spread over several islands, 1-2 main airfields, 2-4 jump airfields, RTR, AWACS, and electronic warfare equipment. Air defense, coastal SCRC. And during the threatened period, you do not transfer aircraft carriers ch.z. floor. countries, but simply reinforce the air group by transferring the main forces from near Khabarovsk or Petropavlovsk (indeed, people with families do not need to live on the islands)

            Quote: bayard
            And the bases on the islands are easily knocked out.

            You should not transfer the Japanese-American experience of the last century mechanically in our time.
            Quote: bayard
            or set up an air barrier at distant frontiers in the Barents Sea.

            Is this a task for the ATOMIC aircraft carrier?
            1. +2
              19 July 2019 03: 58
              Quote: mark1
              Is this a task for the ATOMIC aircraft carrier?

              Feel free to re-read my first post. Here I stand for the NON-NUCLEAR aircraft carrier of the MID displacement - the carrier of the air defense of the fleet. Displacement of 40 - 50 thousand tons and the price of 1,5 - 2 billion dollars.
              Atomic may be needed only for expeditionary forces in the ocean zone, and our fleet will not be threatened with such tasks for a long time.
              Quote: mark1
              Quote: bayard
              And the bases on the islands are easily knocked out.

              You should not transfer the Japanese-American experience of the last century mechanically in our time.

              In our time, it is even easier to do this because it will not be difficult for the enemy to create an overwhelming superiority of forces and means for destroying any of our island base, because air defense systems will be extremely limited ... including ammunition.
              Even worse, having landed an assault after fire suppression, he (the enemy) will be able to use it already as his base ... of course against us.
              Quote: mark1
              And it’s easy, simple and cheap to keep an aircraft carrier, and you don’t need to cover it with the half of the cash fleet from the sea. When it starts to be repaired, it’s simply not operational, it’s actually gone and money is flowing

              Maintaining an aircraft carrier is both difficult and not cheap, for this you will still need to create a high-quality coastal infrastructure. But the fact of the matter is that we are not talking about one aircraft carrier per fleet, but at least two (ideally, three) for each of the two fleets. Only the construction of THREE gas turbine aircraft carriers in 40-50 thousand tons will cost the cost of ONE nuclear "Leader", but they will just be able to organize a PERMANENT combat service - one at sea, the other in the base for maintenance and readiness to enter reinforcement, and the third is being renovated.
              Quote: mark1
              What is actually in "one bottle" on an aircraft carrier is easily spread over several islands, 1-2 main airfields, 2-4 jump airfields, RTR, AWACS, and electronic warfare equipment. Air defense, coastal SCRC. And during the threatened period, you do not transfer aircraft carriers ch.z. floor. countries, but simply strengthen the air grouping by transferring the main forces from near Khabarovsk or Petropavlovsk

              Well, you organized jump airports on the islands, even created some reserves there ... And during the threatened period, a regiment was transferred there from the mainland.
              How will you cover it?
              Air defense also throw through the air?
              And how many tankers and other aerodrome equipment alone will be required for the combat work of the regiment? Is it also through the air?
              And BC, repair kits, spare parts?
              This is an entire expedition. Dear, time-consuming, with all its costs (where it subtly breaks there).
              So it turns out that to organize full-fledged combat work of the regiment, on the island / islands you need to have a fully equipped air base. And not a jump airfield.
              It is another matter when a floating airfield with an escort on the principle of "I carry everything with me" and a network of airfields with a special jump / spare. Going out on a mission in a threatened period, you can take with you up to one extra squadron on the deck, which, upon arrival in the duty zone, will fly by separate links to airfields on the islands, and the aircraft itself will continue to patrol. Duty units from the islands carry out reconnaissance and patrolling according to the schedule, as well as AWACS planes and fighters of the aircraft carrier itself. And in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, the aircraft carrier operates based on island airfields and appears where it is most needed.
              This is a flexible, flexible, active defense with the ability to concentrate forces on any part of the theater of operations.
              Only in this way can we effectively cover our gigantic maritime borders without creating excessive infrastructure and scattering forces and resources.
              1. 0
                19 July 2019 07: 24
                Quote: bayard
                Feel free to re-read my first post.

                I read your post. I even agree with him on something (although I would have done something like the American UDC (Wosp, America) with the possibility of basing an air wing and helicopter anti-aircraft defense would be more useful. But the general controversy comes from the title of the article.
                Quote: bayard
                In our time, it is even easier to do this because it will not be difficult for the enemy to create an overwhelming superiority of forces and means for destroying any of our island base, because air defense systems will be extremely limited ... including ammunition.
                Even worse, having landed an assault after fire suppression, he (the enemy) will be able to use it already as his base ... of course against us.

                I answer
                Quote: bayard
                You should not transfer the Japanese-American experience of the last century mechanically in our time.

                Well, firstly - the protection of the islands makes sense until the moment the mission is completed. those. ensuring the deployment of SSBNs (this is not Singapore's defense), and secondly, the experience of the last century does not imply space reconnaissance and the use of nuclear weapons, and probably many more.
                Quote: bayard
                But the fact of the matter is that this is not about one aircraft carrier per fleet, but at least two (ideally three) for each of the two fleets

                Let's get closer to reality. You know how corvettes and frigates are being built with us (and most importantly, they don’t want to accelerate!) And you want as many as 6 (six) aircraft carriers, albeit small for the foreseeable period of time, and they will also need a retinue the size of 3 current fleets. What is more real - to organize an island defense or start the construction of an aircraft carrier fleet?
                Quote: bayard
                Well, you organized jump airports on the islands, even created some reserves there ... And during the threatened period, a regiment was transferred there from the mainland.
                How will you cover it?
                Air defense also throw through the air?

                I don’t quite understand what the problem is? Let us then turn to your so beloved historical Japanese-American experience. The Japanese perfectly created fortified areas with infrastructure on the occupied islands, and in the Kuril Islands, too, still not all bunkers have been found. To create an infrastructure with stocks of shelters, airfields, radar stations - believe me, this is not a problem of the highest order, we also have a lot of such settings.
                Quote: bayard
                Duty units from the islands carry out reconnaissance and patrolling according to the schedule, just like the AWACS planes and fighter aircraft carrier itself. And in the event of hostilities, the aircraft carrier relies on island airfields and finds itself where it is most needed.

                I agree with you - a small aircraft carrier (if available) fits perfectly into the defense system. I repeat once again - for the time being it is necessary to defend the islands; this is not Stalingrad.
                1. +1
                  19 July 2019 12: 20
                  Quote: mark1
                  I even agree with him on something (although I would have done something like the American UDC (Wosp, America) with the possibility of basing an air wing and helicopter anti-aircraft defense would be more useful. But the general controversy comes from the title of the article.

                  I am also for the construction of the UDC and their use, including as carriers of the anti-submarine helicopter air group in the near zone, but they have obvious limitations - they cannot carry air defense fighters. And even if over time the Yakovlev vertical line appears with acceptable characteristics, its capabilities will still be limited due to the absence of AWACS aircraft, and AWACS helicopters have limited characteristics. That is - you need a catapult.
                  And enough air wing.
                  And as for the title of the article ... I was invited by Andrei from Chelyabinsk to discuss it (and future articles on the topic of promising aircraft carriers), because it is only a digression into history for a better base for discussion. Conceptual questions are currently being discussed - what the future fleet should be like, whether aircraft carriers are needed in it, and if so, which ones. Several projects have been proposed, but they will be laid anyway in a few years. Our business is advisory and advisory.
                  I look at this question as a former officer in the air defense combat command. Of course, island reference aerodromes are what needs to be done (and is being done) right now, aircraft carriers will not be available soon. The whole question is WHAT TO BE.
                  American experts have been talking about the redundancy of heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for the past decade. And by the way, they advocate just the same as I describe - namely, medium-displacement air-carrier aircraft carriers on a non-nuclear course. The fleet’s striking force has long been the destroyers and cruisers - carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, and the functions of carrier-based aviation are increasingly reduced to providing air defense and reconnaissance / radar lighting, as well as naval communications of the Navy. Therefore, we, with our pace of construction and financial capabilities, rushing headlong into the concept of the past (the construction of nuclear aircraft carriers) is fraught. It is necessary to draw the right conclusions from the experience of the present and make the right decision. A mistake in this can cost a lot.
                  It was not for nothing that I gave a calculation of the cost of a gas turbine "average" - it is three times cheaper and it can be built TWO times faster. Moreover, there are no more critical difficulties for its construction. If a series is started right away, things will go even faster and more rhythmically from the second one - along the knurled line. The price is 1,5-2 billion dollars. , this is the cost of a modern "Arlie-Burke" (roughly) and for the cost of one "Storm" you can build a full-fledged group of THREE aircraft carriers and at about the same time.
                  And by the way, as part of the expeditionary forces, such an aircraft carrier will also be quite harmonious. So it will be a truly multi-purpose ship for all types of combat missions.
                  Quote: mark1
                  I agree with you - a small aircraft carrier (if available) fits perfectly into the defense system. I repeat once again - for the time being it is necessary to defend the islands; this is not Stalingrad.

                  And further . Reliance on the islands can only be done in the Pacific Ocean, this will not work in the Barents Sea - it will be the aircraft carrier / aircraft carriers that will have to create a curtain of air defense at distant frontiers, and basic aviation will not be able to barrage there for a long time.
                  And if suddenly the samurai go crazy and try to "return the northern territories", then they will have to be held just like Stalingrad. They will be able to "hang" their basic aviation over the islands, but we cannot from the mainland. This is where the aircraft carrier will help us. Yes, with him / them such nonsense would never occur to anyone.
                  1. +1
                    19 July 2019 15: 31
                    Quote: bayard
                    And if suddenly the samurai go crazy and try to "return the northern territories", then they will have to be held just like Stalingrad.

                    When it’s not necessary to follow the enemy’s lead. In a normal confrontation, at the moment, we will be rolled out very quickly (or slowly exhausted with the help of NATO and the Merikos from different directions), wall to wall is the path to defeat. We have an advantage and they need (simply must) use it. The densely populated Japanese islands and nuclear weapons are poorly combined. One demonstration of determination (such as an air or submarine nuclear explosion) should be enough. Well, if it’s not enough, then the third (fourth) world has been planned on their part and we would still not get out.
                    At least Kuzya is in the North for the first time. I like the idea of ​​stationary combat platforms at least at the entrance and exit of the NSR, well, in the Barents Sea, because I have never been a sailor - I can ...
                    Former marine defense officer, land?
                    1. +1
                      19 July 2019 21: 33
                      Quote: mark1
                      I like the idea of ​​stationary combat platforms at least at the entrance and exit of the NSR,

                      In the north, there cannot be others. All mrias (dreams) about an atomic carrier carrier navigating along the NSR in an unstable ice situation ... these are dreams of the impossible. From a technical point of view.
                      Therefore, only stationary airbases with heavy fighters with a large radius of action.
                      Quote: mark1
                      The densely populated Japanese islands and nuclear weapons are poorly combined.

                      hi wink Exactly . that's why I said, "If they go crazy."
                      But we are still talking about the fleet of the future, one that will appear 10 to 15 years later. Therefore, you can slowly speculate what it should be like.
                      Quote: mark1
                      We have an advantage

                      And it will only increase with the advent of new models of the Kyrgyz Republic, combat ships, combat aircraft of new types and air defense / missile defense systems.
                      Quote: mark1
                      At least Kuzya is in the North for the first time.

                      I hope that in 2 - 3 years it will be possible to say again that he is. This ship has a very difficult fate.
                      Quote: mark1
                      Former marine defense officer, land?

                      The country's air defense - that is, land, but having some experience in interacting with the fleet, and my comrade took part in the military council of the Pacific Fleet at one time. Not a member, but by combat interaction. We discuss such topics from time to time with him. Well, the very concept of the RIC somewhat obliges us to look at things more widely.
                      1. +1
                        19 July 2019 21: 48
                        Quote: bayard
                        Air defense of the country - i.e., land

                        Moscow Air Defense District - long-distance communications hi
                      2. 0
                        20 July 2019 02: 06
                        excuse me, colleagues, groundmen ... but you are very mistaken. I, frankly, do not understand at all how your discussion got into such an awkward channel ... apparently I am far from the "landowners", although I have never been a military man, but a shipbuilder with a dynasty (in the 3rd generation) started, though from naval officers ...
                        but everything you say is very strange. I do not pretend to be true. but one thing is certain. you are just trying to strangely minimize economic costs, otherwise I cannot interpret your ... reasoning. but they cannot be true in any way not according to history, and even more so according to many documents and surveys that are completely ignored by you and many speakers ...
                        briefly - there is no doubt at all about the necessity of solving certain tasks by the fleet this time. For this, effective (a long time ago) effective counteractions (sorry for the tautology) of fleet -2 have been developed. and these counteractions are the use of specially designed ships to perform these tasks, and if possible, then additional ones.
                        the bottom line is that this is the construction of a classic fleet. but as history shows, no other alternatives will give anything but a loss ... to you in a pack, at least read a day ... what his wolves were good for ... well, it's funny.
                      3. 0
                        20 July 2019 06: 17
                        Yes, we are not looking for an alternative. We are just for harmonious development. But each national fleet has its own harmony in view of the differences in geographical position and economic development, as well as in the vision of tasks. And the nomenclature of the ship’s staff once and for all is not always approved.
                      4. 0
                        20 July 2019 06: 48
                        a fleet cannot have nationalities if it does not belong to a purely territorial power (or colony), by no means. it is an axiom. can you challenge? - you are welcome.
                        and so the harmonious (precisely) development of the Russian imperial fleet meant the bright development of the naval (!) aviation, and for good reason. remember how the Turks were fried, and it's significant! no, not globally, but sooo iconic !! all this has been underestimated over the years, but the Angles, as connoisseurs of maritime confrontations, were the first to "torture" everything after that, and for good reason. Of course, we can deny ...
                        but no, we just had a collapse of the country and a failure ... (to put it mildly) in the Navy. Do you remember a commune in the 20s? even then, the country without resources - but without anything, even then we tried to fly from the deck ... could not, so what? - it was objectively impossible.
                      5. 0
                        20 July 2019 06: 59
                        yes, sorry, my answer was on emotions ...

                        but you read the documents ... well, many scribes here recalled the doctrine ... referred, but! None of them have read it! because if you read it, you won’t say such things, or rather ask.
                        and while the document is still in force, which was then fiercely discussed ... forgot the year, but it was the end of July, roofing felts 17, or 16, I really do not remember what year. krch, the basics of policy in the field of naval activities of Russia ... well, a similar name. read. in common people - "basics" ... there are also previous ones (I remember 3 of them). you will learn a lot, true and obvious felting ... but! in everyone! in EVERYONE! tasks for AB are clearly visible !!! and it can be seen that they are not feasible without AB !, and in the one that before, I don’t remember, if it’s 15 or some other year, it is stated directly - the priority task is to create infrastructure for aircraft carrier ships and their bases ...

                        PS Yes, now the doctrine is in the public domain for a long time ... read the same too ...
                      6. 0
                        20 July 2019 07: 12
                        forgive me, apparently I threw all my emotions at you in vain ... I'm afraid to explain why))) do not blame me, okay?) it is clear that you have nothing to do with it ...
                      7. 0
                        20 July 2019 18: 33
                        Mikhail, this is how we are discussing the look of the future carrier fleet, namely the choice of type (displacement, power plant) and methods of combat use in our realities.
                        For example, I advocate for the concept of an aircraft carrier of medium displacement with conventional gas turbines (gas turbines). This type of ship is more suitable for both our needs and the capabilities of industry. And also from an economic point of view, for such a ship will be 3-4 times cheaper than the atomic leader and, in terms of construction time, about two times faster. It is this type of ships that our industry is currently able to build in a reasonable time and at a reasonable price, without experiencing critical technological difficulties.
                        If you are a hereditary shipbuilder and have experience in military shipbuilding, what can you say about the readiness of our military shipbuilding?
                        And the fact that many forum users do not believe in the very ability of the country to build such ships, or even less in their expediency ... is a matter of faith ... and competence.
  13. ttt
    -5
    16 July 2019 10: 49
    Not a single link to a specific document. “The fleet wanted catapults and nuclear ones.” What evidence is there for this statement?

    -America created attack (in the full sense of the word!) Aircraft carriers, the main task of which was to strike along the coast, including nuclear weapons


    By the time the Ulyanovsk was designed, not a single strike aircraft carrier had been in the US Navy for a long time. They were as versatile as the projected Ulyanovsk.

    And to exaggerate their impact role is not worth it. In general, for the entire almost century-long history of American aircraft carriers, they have not inflicted a single strike along the coast with powerful aircraft. The war was booming on the Apennine Peninsula, the war was booming in Normandy. Not a single American aircraft carrier came close. They were not eager to fight the Luftwaffe.

    Returning to us - the difference in multi-purpose accents stems from the balance of power. The Americans had an advantage, therefore the strike part is more important to them, the air defense tasks are more important to us.
    1. -2
      16 July 2019 12: 09
      and Vietnam? you forgot about him
      1. ttt
        +1
        16 July 2019 16: 09
        You probably did not read it carefully. "along the coast with powerful aircraft." Where does the DRV have powerful aviation? I don't even remember a single case of a DRV aviation flight near an aircraft carrier. The aircraft carriers operated in virtually complete safety.
        1. -1
          16 July 2019 16: 23
          so this does not mean that they were useless
          1. -2
            16 July 2019 19: 28
            this means that aircraft carriers play on coastal aviation in all respects and are useless against it, but are intended for aggression only against unprotected coasts and Russia does not need them therefore
            1. -1
              16 July 2019 19: 42
              their main purpose is to control the ocean and they are doing very well with it
          2. ttt
            +1
            17 July 2019 00: 11
            I did not say that they were useless. They played a role. But the enemy really hardly threatened them ..
    2. +6
      16 July 2019 13: 43
      Quote: ttt
      Not a single link to a specific document. “The fleet wanted catapults and nuclear ones.” What evidence is there for this statement?

      After consideration by the Presidium of the NTS of the Ministry of Industry and the joint NTS of the Ministry of Industry, Minaviaprom, the Navy and the Air Force (with the participation of the leadership of all defense industries, whose enterprises were involved in the creation of the AB, the development of avant-projects for the ship, aircraft, aviation and other weapons for it) was recommended for further design version of the atomic multipurpose aircraft with a displacement of about 80 tons, which had optimal combat and economic performance, with catapult take-off aircraft (fighter Su-000 type, anti-submarine type P-27) and Ka-42 type helicopters with a total number of shipborne aircraft (LAC) of up to 27 aircraft, the Granit anti-ship missile system (SCRC), anti-aircraft fire weapons and electronic weapons.
      © A.B.Morin - chief designer of AV project 1160.
      1. 0
        16 July 2019 19: 00
        In general, not everything is so simple. There were in the Navy and industry who drowned for classical aircraft carriers, there were those who drowned for takras and light aircraft carriers, and there were those who drowned against aircraft carriers in general.
    3. +5
      16 July 2019 13: 47
      Quote: ttt
      Not a single link to a specific document. “The fleet wanted catapults and nuclear ones.” What evidence is there for this statement?

      We open ANY source on Soviet aircraft carrying ships, and read. As an example - "Soviet aircraft carriers" Balakin and Zablotsky. Not bad, albeit briefly, is described by Kuzin and Nikolsky.
      Quote: ttt
      By the time the Ulyanovsk was designed, not a single strike aircraft carrier had been in the US Navy for a long time. They were as versatile as the projected Ulyanovsk.

      You would still have a little material to study something on the topic.
      Quote: ttt
      And to exaggerate their impact role is not worth it. In general, for the entire almost century-long history of American aircraft carriers, they did not inflict almost a single blow to the coast with powerful aircraft. War was raging on the Apennine Peninsula, war in Normandy was rattling. Not a single American aircraft carrier came close.

      Go crazy :))))) But so, for reference - aircraft carriers were actively used in landing in Italy and in Normandy. And nothing about how the American OS58 was broken by hundreds of planes is not known only to those who do not know anything at all about the war in the Pacific. For example, immediately before the naval battle of the Mariana Islands (with Ozawa's ships), the Americans tore the Kakut airborne planes into pieces at 1000.
      1. +4
        16 July 2019 16: 06
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        For example, right before the naval battle of the Mariana Islands (with the ships of Ozawa), the Americans tore into pieces pieces of 1000 land-based Kakuta aircraft.

        You can still remember how Halsey before landing in the Philippines fire and sword twice walked along the coastal airfields, knocking out the base aircraft of the Japanese almost to zero.
        1. +1
          16 July 2019 16: 21
          Quote: Alexey RA
          You can still recall how Halsey before the landing on the Philippines, with fire and sword, twice walked along the coastal airfields

          Of course!
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. 0
            16 July 2019 17: 37
            Quote: ttt
            Correlation of forces

            US about 1500 aircraft
            Japan around 200 aircraft

            You are not able to distinguish the battle in the Leyte Gulf from the battle of the Mariana Islands? Not to mention that the numbers are incorrect.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. +3
          16 July 2019 18: 05
          Quote: ttt
          You know better of course. But before you go, at least start by searching for the word carrier in the description of the landing in Normandy

          That is, you did not find it, and now you believe that there were no aircraft carriers? :))) To begin with, I will mention two British aircraft carriers that were directly involved in the landing operation in Sicily - Formidebl and Indomiteble. As for the landing in Normandy, aircraft carriers were not needed directly to cover it - the main landing points were of the order of 100 miles from the British coastline, but, nevertheless, 9 escort aircraft carriers were allocated for Envill / Dragoon.
          Quote: ttt
          Further. For your information, Sicily does not belong to the Apennine Peninsula.

          Thank you, Captain Obvious. The question is - what was said? I wrote
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But so, for reference - aircraft carriers were actively used in the landing in Italy and in Normandy.

          Do you think that Italy = the Apennine Peninsula? I hasten to disappoint, it was a little more, about 100 meters.
          Quote: ttt
          I thought a serious opponent, and here only inflating the cheeks and assaults.

          Well, I didn’t think about that from the beginning, and therefore I’m not disappointed. I recommend to stop using Google for a while and read at least Polmar.
          1. ttt
            -1
            17 July 2019 00: 47
            To begin with, I will mention two British aircraft carriers that were directly involved in the landing operation in Sicily - Formidedle and Indomiteable


            You are responding to my post, but I did not say anything about the landing in Sicily. It was I who spoke about the war on the Apennine Peninsula on the narrow isthmus surrounded by the seas for a long time there were fierce battles, but aircraft carriers were not used at all since November 1943.

            Regarding Normandy. You started the conversation with a statement about the leading role of avinose shock on the shore. In the battles in Normandy, not a single "strike" aircraft carrier took part. There is a composition of forces involved in the invasion - aircraft carriers are not there.

            The fact that you cleverly got away with talking about strikes on the shore and switched to "escort aircraft carriers" keeping in the distance shows that in fact you have nothing to argue. ...
            1. +3
              17 July 2019 15: 22
              Quote: ttt
              You respond to my post, but I did not say anything about landing in Sicily.

              To this I answered you about Italy - what's the problem?
              Quote: ttt
              It was he who spoke about the war on the Apennine Peninsula on the narrow isthmus surrounded by the seas for a long time there were fierce battles, but aircraft carriers were not used at all since November 1943.

              And why, let me ask?
              Quote: ttt
              Regarding Normandy. You started the conversation with a statement about the leading role of avinose shock on the shore.

              Yes it is.
              Quote: ttt
              Not a single "strike" aircraft carrier took part in the battles in Normandy.

              Yes, this is so - I did not take directly for strikes on the coast in the landing areas.
              Quote: ttt
              The fact that you cleverly got away with talking about strikes on the shore and switched to "escort aircraft carriers" keeping in the distance shows that in fact you have nothing to argue. ...

              Not. In fact, there is nothing to object to you, as in response to your
              Quote: ttt
              In general, for the entire almost century-long history of American aircraft carriers, they did not inflict almost a single blow to the coast with powerful aircraft.

              I replied
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And nothing about how the American OS58 was broken by hundreds of planes is not known only to those who do not know anything at all about the war in the Pacific. For example, immediately before the naval battle of the Mariana Islands (with Ozawa's ships), the Americans tore the Kakut airborne planes into pieces at 1000.

              And this answer you just chose not to notice, as it breaks your statement at the root.
              You write that the American AB did not strike the coast under the cover of powerful aircraft. But at the same time, build your evidence base on 2 operations of one war. To this I replied to you that even in these operations aircraft carriers were still used (although for other purposes, which I did not indicate, but so what?) But besides these 2 operations there were many others in which AV was used specifically for strikes along the coast and precisely under the cover of a fairly serious enemy aircraft. One of them, just, Mariana Islands.
      3. -1
        16 July 2019 19: 31
        here you Andrey did not answer the question to what extent the presence of the aircraft carrier unmasks the nuclear submarines "protected" by it, YOU are avoiding because it will deal an irreparable blow to you and Timokhin as supporters of super-large unnecessary surface ships?
        1. +1
          17 July 2019 15: 27
          Quote: vladimir1155
          here you Andrey did not answer the question to what extent the presence of an aircraft carrier unmasks the nuclear submarines "protected" by it

          This is because 100 has already responded once, but personally you didn’t understand anything yet. Although we could figure out, having estimated the area of ​​the deck aviation, what water area it can cover: yes, we unmask the position of the nuclear submarine ... reducing it to 1,5-2 million square kilometers
          1. +1
            17 July 2019 22: 08
            thanks Andrey, I understood your position
      4. -1
        16 July 2019 20: 38
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Go crazy :))))) But so, for reference - aircraft carriers were actively used in landing in Italy and in Normandy. And nothing about how the American OS58 was broken by hundreds of planes is not known only to those who do not know anything at all about the war in the Pacific. For example, immediately before the naval battle of the Mariana Islands (with Ozawa's ships), the Americans tore the Kakut airborne planes into pieces at 1000.

        And of course, Korea and Vietnam, during which the Americans came to the conclusion about the low productivity of steam for catapults from non-nuclear aircraft carriers and decided to continue to build only nuclear.
        1. ttt
          0
          17 July 2019 00: 29
          You did not understand the essence of the conversation. Korea and Vietnam are wars with the adversary who did not pose any threat to the aircraft carriers.
      5. The comment was deleted.
        1. +2
          17 July 2019 15: 29
          Quote: ttt
          It's a lie

          This is not a lie, they were used there, although not for percussion operations.
          Quote: ttt
          Further, in Italy, a year and a half since November 1943 aircraft carriers were not.

          And why are they needed there? US aircraft carriers were used for the purpose of a little on another Pacific theater. And I gave a detailed answer above
    4. 0
      20 July 2019 03: 56
      Quote: ttt
      "The fleet wanted catapults and atomic"

      exactly what I WANTED !!! and it is a fact!
      nonsense. links gave a bunch, in a bunch of branches. the fact was not even in atomic and not in size, but in the "Wishlist" of the fleet. and these Wishlist converged at a minimum of 1160, before the impact of Gorshkov, then at a minimum, again, before the impact of Gorshkov .. pr.1153 ... and so on the knurled ... further - worse, Ustinov - everything down ...
      learn the documents that you yourself asked ... stop - yourself! learn to search, do not be lazy! and then you are only spokes? so read about the order, but it will not be in the "open" order, but you can find enough. and after all, if desired, people in the NPKB museum were ... mind you, not related;))) I am hinting so gently. and when you are (in the museum of the npkb), they will tell you something completely different from the "star", believe me ...
  14. 0
    16 July 2019 10: 54
    and whether a DRLO plane was developed for him, without them an aircraft carrier (whatever you call it) is a little blind
    1. +3
      16 July 2019 11: 10
      Developed by Yakovlev Design Bureau, Yak-44.
  15. -2
    16 July 2019 10: 56
    Andrew, a great article (!)

    It’s just the currents that apply to the current Manatee project, which will essentially be the Carrier Cruiser, with medium-range air defense in 120 km. this is the air defense missile system Redut 6x4x4 = 96 missiles, only with 4 radar from C-350 (32 channel on 1 radar)
    + 8 units ZRPK Pantsir-M (8x4 = 32 channel), with a range of 40 km, 128 SAM.
    As regards the strike weapons, it will be possible to load anti-ship missiles / anti-ship missiles / SLCMs for the part of the anti-aircraft missile system Redoubt: 32 anti-ship missiles to 64 anti-aircraft missiles.
    1. +4
      16 July 2019 15: 14
      There is no project 11430E "Manatee".

      There is an ATAKR model of project 1143.7.1 taken from the NPKB museum and a "modern" island superstructure with an IBMK glued to this model. Even the declared number of the project is "borrowed" from the project 11430 "Vikramaditya".

      Why this "circus" with "Manatee" was organized by the NPKB functionaries at IMDS-2019 is not clear. Is that to remind the general public of its existence, which does not understand anything about the topic and to amuse those who immediately recognized the museum model ATAKR pr. 1143.7.1 with cosmetic changes in the form of another island superstructure and glued inscriptions "Manatee".
      1. -1
        16 July 2019 15: 39
        Why this "circus" with "Manatee"

        about the circus - we'll find out soon
        in Murmansk by 2021, the dry dock will be expanded by 35 shipyards + across the "river" NOVATEK shipyard (2 dry docks)
        in Bolshoi Kamen by 2021, they will hand over dry dock to Shipyard Zvezda
        1. -1
          16 July 2019 17: 45
          This "circus" will end only with the beginning of the modernization of the "Baltiyskiy Zavod" - the construction on the territory of the "Baltiyskiy Zavod" of a 400 m long dry dock covered by a boathouse, for which 16 billion rubles have not been found for several years:

          https://tass.ru/ekonomika/5535827

          It takes 16 billion, found only 4 billion:

          https://rg.ru/2019/06/29/reg-szfo/v-modernizaciiu-baltijskogo-zavoda-vlozhat-4-milliarda-rublej.html

          After all, neither 35 SRZ nor SSK "Zvezda" can be the place of construction of aircraft carriers.

          You can simply not write about a shipyard - it is a shipyard, not a shipyard. Back in 2018, SSK "Zvezda" was identified as the only contractor for the construction of nuclear icebreakers of Project 10510 "Leader", also because such large icebreakers cannot be built on the long-obsolete inclined slipway of the Baltiyskiy Zavod. It is required to invest 50-100 billion rubles in NOVATEK.
          1. -1
            16 July 2019 17: 50
            The Baltic factory will be occupied at least until 2023 by the construction of another 2's icebreakers
            and the aircraft carriers of the cruisers will be built just on the SSK Zvezda in big stone, and the new dock 35 SRZ will be engaged in maintenance
            1. +1
              16 July 2019 18: 31
              Of course, Baltiyskiy Zavod will be busy building two more project 22220 icebreakers. Anything larger than these 33 ton icebreakers cannot be built on the Baltiyskiy Zavod's inclined slipway. And Zvezda will be busy building gas carriers. After all, NOVATEK, which is still far from the Kola Shipyard capable of doing this, at the end of 2018 signed an agreement with Zvezda on the construction of 14-15 Arc7 ice-class LNG carriers for the Arctic LNG-2 gas liquefaction project. And yet, in the best case, the construction of 71 ton icebreakers of Project 10510 will begin at Zvezda. And NOVATEK's Kolkaya Verf is again being created for the construction of floating plants for liquefying natural gas. And if you think that this not yet built shipyard will free itself from the construction of these plants, and Zvezda from the construction of gas carriers and icebreakers of project 10510 faster than the Baltic Shipyard will complete a series of icebreakers of project 22220, then you will surprise me very much.
              1. -1
                16 July 2019 18: 35
                rather, SSK Zvezda will be busy building Afromaks on the main slipway, but the dry dock can be divided into two along the entire length, just under the Manatee and Afromax enough for 2
                1. -1
                  16 July 2019 18: 43
                  Icebreakers of the project 10510 where to build?
                  1. -1
                    16 July 2019 19: 46
                    the width of the dry dock at SSK Star 114 meters, the width of the Leader 47,7. half the width of the dock, and build calmly 2 leader with a length of 209 meters = 418, and the length of the dock 485 meters
                    1. 0
                      16 July 2019 23: 07
                      The hull-processing shop of the "Baltic Plant" allows processing up to 60 thousand tons of metal per year. The number of the team at the end of 2017 was almost 6 thousand people (5866 people).

                      At the end of 2017, the number of Zvezda's team reached 1 people. By the end of 2018, it was planned to increase the number of the team to 2,5 thousand people. In the future, it is planned to increase the number of the staff of the SSK "Zvezda" to 6,5 thousand people.

                      Are you sure that Zvezda will eventually cope with the simultaneous construction of a series of Afromax-class tankers, a series of 14-15 ice-class gas carriers, a series of three nuclear-powered icebreakers of Project 10510, and also with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers?
                      1. 0
                        16 July 2019 23: 29
                        Alexander, as you originally thought, then there remains only 55 Sevmash workshop
                        955 Ave. almost everyone is ready, and for another 2 nuclear submarine Ave. 955-B there will be enough 50 workshops.
                      2. 0
                        17 July 2019 00: 04
                        Yes, Alexander Shishkin (navy_korabel) assumes that the 55th workshop of Sevmash.

                        But where, apart from missile boats, can we build the Project 885M and Husky SSNS?

                        Shop 55 requires serious modernization in order to organize the construction of surface ships of large displacement by the large-block method (blocks weighing up to 1,7 thousand tons). In particular, it will be necessary to replace two gantry cranes with a lifting capacity of 320 tons and a lifting height of about 40 m with more powerful ones, 900 tons. The filling pool also requires modernization, into which even Kuznetsov cannot be brought in today.

                        Unlike Alexander Shishkin, I have a different vision. There is no alternative to the long-planned modernization of the Baltiyskiy Zavod (without stopping production) with the construction of a 400-meter-long dry dock on its territory, covered by a boathouse.

                        In this case, after the completion of a series of five nuclear-powered icebreakers of Project 22220, the 6-strong team of the Baltic Shipyard will be able to build aircraft carriers of any of the projects already presented, up to 100 tonnes of Project 23000 Storm.
                      3. 0
                        20 July 2019 05: 33
                        how? I come from there ... but such "pictures" ... excuse me ... + for superfluity;)
                      4. 0
                        20 July 2019 05: 35
                        but otherwise I disagree ...
                        I will not put it. but the same 50, think ... there the conclusion was supposed to happen.
          2. 0
            16 July 2019 17: 50
            Quote: AlexanderA
            After all, neither 35 SRZ nor SSK "Zvezda" can be the place of construction of aircraft carriers.

            Well, I won't argue about the ship repair shop, this is not his profile. But here is the "Star". Large-scale construction is currently underway on it and, moreover, its workers know how to handle the nuclear power plants of our submarines, why they cannot be involved in the construction of a nuclear aircraft carrier, especially since the Pacific Ocean is just for it.
            1. +1
              16 July 2019 18: 39
              If you find where to build the already ordered Zvezda crowd of 14-15 Arc7 ice-class gas carriers and 71 thousand ton nuclear-powered icebreakers of Project 10510, then of course in this case the Zvezda shipbuilding complex will be free for the construction of aircraft carriers.
      2. 0
        16 July 2019 20: 44
        Quote: AlexanderA
        Why this "circus" with "Manatee" was arranged by the NPKB functionaries at IMDS-2019 is not clear

        Maybe this is for the Indians? They have already been offered the construction of a nuclear carrier.
        1. +1
          16 July 2019 23: 27
          Wrong size for Indians. The displacement of the IAC-2 Vishal, which the Indians plan to commission by 2030, is 65 thousand tons. The size of the air group is 55 aircraft.

          And we have nowhere to build nuclear aircraft carriers of such a displacement today, even for ourselves. At the Baltiyskiy Zavod, whose 6-strong team has experience in building a series of 33-ton nuclear-powered icebreakers of Project 22220, there is no planned but never begun construction of a 400-meter dry dock covered by a boathouse. Zvezda also does not yet have a suitable dry dock; by the end of 2018, it was planned to increase the number of the team to 2,5 thousand people (in the future, up to 6,5 thousand people).

          But for "Zvezda" there are already production plans for the construction of three dozen large-capacity vessels. Nuclear icebreakers of project 10510 with a total displacement of over 71 thousand tons, the labor intensity of construction of which is slightly inferior to the labor intensity of construction of nuclear aircraft carriers, it is also planned to build on "Zvezda".
          1. 0
            16 July 2019 23: 43
            If you build, then only in the Baltic Sea - in that very unfinished / unfinished boathouse. The Hindus were offered to design and build under their order and for their money (even with us, even with them) and thereby reduce the cost of building for themselves.
            But the Americans will be against it and will soon sell them their withdrawn and unfettered aircraft carrier.
            And here it is better for us to do industry warming up on civilian orders of large vessels, gaining experience and tightening the material base. In the coming years, the construction of aircraft carriers does not threaten us.
            Rather, lay a couple of UDC.
  16. +3
    16 July 2019 11: 01
    To shove "Polynomial" and numerous weapons to the detriment of the main function is a palliative.
    Any reduction of aircraft-bearing properties is replicated to the entire air group of more than 60 aircraft, affecting range, combat load, speed of lifting of the air group, etc. properties.
    1. -1
      16 July 2019 11: 23
      and any universalization leads to this. everything can, but worse than specially sharpened for this
  17. +2
    16 July 2019 11: 02
    interesting article, as usual with Andrey
    there are comments winked
    1. American aircraft carriers are multipurpose, not shock.
    2. The fact that Ulyanovsk was assigned the task of air defense does not affect the consruction — in fact, it was multi-purpose.
    3. The network has a test report of Nimitz - 1000 flights in 4 days.
    It also noted the problem of limiting the wing rate of climb — the number of staff and the preparation time for aircraft to take off.
    The presence of a springboard does not solve this problem.
    On the network, of course, you can see a comparison of the time of real take-offs from American aircraft carriers with theoretical ones from a springboard aircraft carrier, but in reality a springboard is set only if there is no catapult or you are not sure about it - look at the evolution of Chinese aircraft carrier projects, from purely springboard to purely catapult.
    4. The Soviet Navy had very limited opportunities for striking along the coast, anti-ship missiles could do this, but with very large restrictions on targets and range. In fact, Ulyanovsk just incomparably strengthened the capabilities of the fleet precisely for strikes along the coast.
    5. Instead of Polynomial, it would be more useful to place extra planes and helicopter PLOs, and leave Polynomus to escort ships.
    1. 0
      16 July 2019 11: 34
      A hit on the coast of the barmalei (Somalia) - yes, it can. By adversary - no (even in Japan).
      The main purpose is to cover the deployment of the fleet in a given area. At the same time, the reaction time and the possibility of massing forces in a region remote from the bases are significantly reduced.
    2. +3
      16 July 2019 13: 54
      Quote: Avior
      1. American aircraft carriers are multipurpose, not shock.

      After reclassification - yes, but in fact they remain shock. Again, if we consider them multipurpose, then ours are not
      Quote: Avior
      In the network, of course, you can see a comparison of the time of real take-offs from American aircraft carriers with theoretical ones from a springboard aircraft carrier

      Why - theoretical? There is an excellent video of Su takeoff from three jump positions. The first time it took 33 seconds, the second time 37 seconds, that is, VERY quickly.
      Quote: Avior
      Instead of a polynomial it would be more useful to place extra PLO aircraft and helicopters.

      Perhaps, but not a fact. The extra helicopter does not give extra space on the deck for its operation.
      1. 0
        17 July 2019 00: 56
        After reclassification - yes, but in fact they remain shock. Again, if we consider them multipurpose, then ours are not

        they were multipurpose before the reclassification.
        in 1952, Americans decided to rename all multi-purpose CVs and large multi-purpose CVBs into CVA (although the attack, strictly speaking, these are not percussion, they are simply translation difficulties), and later in 1975, if I am not mistaken, they were returned to multi-purpose CVs (CVN).
        So Midway managed to visit all the forms. USS Midway (CVB / CVA / CV-41).
        Probably, you first need to determine the criteria for multi-purpose.
        Why - theoretical? There is an excellent video of Su takeoff from three jump positions. The first time it took 33 seconds, the second time 37 seconds, that is, VERY quickly.

        and to draw conclusions from this about the time of wing lifting is the same as counting the monthly coal mining of a mine according to Stakhanov’s record per shift.
        In the footage of take-off, the Americans' leisureliness catches the eye. Calm leisurely check and only then take off. Actually, with the springboard, all the same procedures for checking the aircraft and taxiing to the starting position should be the same as with the catapult, the cocking of the catapult itself is parallel to the taxiing and does not take much time.
        Unless, of course, the flight rules and procedures for checking aircraft are the same. As I understand it, the Americans have clearly more experience in matters of ensuring flight safety from the deck, especially in real combat conditions. I’m not saying that the springboard carrier is suitable only as a training carrier, like other evil languages, but I note that in real combat conditions it has not yet shown itself clearly. And the Chinese plan to leave him.
        It will be possible to speak seriously about the advantages of a springboard launch if at least the test results for the airspeed of the springboard and ejection variants appear, and ideally, statistics on the use of these takeoff techniques in real combat conditions are also available.
        Tests on the pace of flights for 4 days I saw, with a description of the conditions and other things, but I did not see tests on the speed of wing lift.
        Perhaps, but not a fact. The extra helicopter does not give extra space on the deck for its operation.

        an extra helicopter is a great opportunity for the PLO, specifically for an aircraft carrier.
        And Polynom must be on the escort’s direct escort ship, he’ll be there anyway, since the aircraft carrier needs full-fledged air defense, his own will always play a supporting role.
        1. 0
          17 July 2019 17: 30
          Quote: Avior
          they were multipurpose before the reclassification.
          In 1952 Americans, by their will, all multi-purpose CVs and large multi-purpose CVBs were renamed CVA.

          What and speech.
          Quote: Avior
          although attek, to put it bluntly, these are not drums, it’s just translation difficulties

          In literary translation - exactly shock
          Quote: Avior
          In the take-off shots, the Americans are rushing straight into their eyes. Calm leisurely check and only then take off.

          There is nothing of the kind, there is a video of intensive takeoffs - usually more than a minute, but less than one and a half to the plane takes place during a continuous launch
          Quote: Avior
          Actually, with the springboard all the same procedures for checking the aircraft and taxiing to the starting position should be the same as with the catapult

          Of course. But the point is that the Americans have a very short cycle, and I don’t see why our starting position should be longer. That is, roughly, a minute with a little to occupy all three take-off positions, then - start, during 35-40 seconds.
          -
          Quote: Avior
          As far as I understand, the Americans clearly have more experience in ensuring flight safety from the deck, especially in real combat conditions.

          Yes, but they did not use springboard
          Quote: Avior
          I'm not saying that the springboard aircraft carrier is only suitable as a training one, like other evil languages, but I note that in real combat conditions, it has clearly not shown itself.

          But why? The British flew something under the Falklands. Of course, not superintensively, but Americans also were not usually in a hurry too
          Quote: Avior
          an extra helicopter is a great opportunity for the PLO, specifically for an aircraft carrier.

          Not. There is a flight deck on which an air group ready for take-off is located, and if we are preparing to work in air defense, there is very little space for helicopters. And additional helicopters will just stand in the hangar without
          1. +1
            17 July 2019 22: 16
            In literary translation - exactly shock

            semantic subtleties.
            the name Attack carrier in the literal translation into Russian will sound strange, so a suitable approximate term has been chosen. In the name of the aircraft carriers, by the way, this is a cruiser, not a carrier- in accordance with the original classification of 1920.
            I mean, you cannot make a conclusion about the purpose and design based on the official name of the class, and even more so from a free-literary translation into Russian.
            There is nothing of the kind, there is a video of intensive takeoffs - usually more than a minute, but less than one and a half to the plane takes place during a continuous launch

            nevertheless, it cannot be said that this is the maximum possible speed, if the team has not been set the direct task of maximum wing lift speed.
            Actually, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that there is no objective real evidence that the speed of wing lifting from a springboard is higher than from a catapult. Separate videos of individual planes taking off cannot be considered such evidence.
            The British flew at the Falklands.

            I did not specify that it was not about VTOL, as I thought it was a matter of course.
            With VTOL, it’s understandable, but the discussion is about take-off and landing aircraft. VTOL and without a springboard take off from the deck.
            There is a flight deck, which houses an air group ready for take-off, and if we are preparing to work in air defense, there is very little room for helicopters. And additional helicopters will just stand idle in the hangar

            And if we are preparing to work in a PLO, then a helicopter, or even an aircraft based on an aircraft carrier, will be an excellent means of PLO, much better than the same helicopter on escort ships due to the best conditions for take-off, landing and maintenance. Yes, and more fuel will be more. And the fighters will stand idle.
            The Americans in the Gulf, one of the aircraft carriers at one time generally scored with helicopters, Vinson, if I am not mistaken.
            That's why it is multi-purpose.
            hi
  18. -2
    16 July 2019 11: 25
    In the current situation, it would be better to concentrate on TARK like Peter the Great. Here they are just not enough. And an aircraft carrier .... but what is it for?
    1. +1
      16 July 2019 11: 38
      So here you have to strain and issue a new complex in the old building. Specifically in the metal to develop investment.
      Whether business is an aircraft carrier! Build - not build - cut is provided.
    2. 0
      16 July 2019 15: 05
      most likely, TARKR and TAVKR should act precisely together, as well as those assigned to them 956 and 1155. only in such a composition will they be able to destroy or force to abandon plans for hostile actions of the USG. this is of course only my personal opinion ..
      1. 0
        16 July 2019 15: 22
        So the whole question is what is more important right now. Close off from aircraft carrier formations with new "Orlans" or create something that is not there from scratch? We have one Orlan for 2 Oken fleets, but there should be at least 4, 2 for each
        1. +2
          16 July 2019 16: 19
          Quote: balunn
          Close off from aircraft carrier formations with new "Orlans"

          impossible in principle
          Quote: balunn
          We have one Orlan on the Oka fleet 2, and there should be at least 4 on 2 for each

          What for?:))))
          1. 0
            17 July 2019 21: 39
            To ensure the combat stability of an aircraft carrier from a missile attack, for example :)
  19. +3
    16 July 2019 11: 50
    Thanks for the article, Andrew!
    An aircraft carrier for our Navy is a sore subject.
    Do not exaggerate their role in modern warfare, but in certain situations they could be very useful.
    But their main purpose is to justify the development of the fleet-based system and train personnel. And for industry - the development of the lost.
  20. +5
    16 July 2019 12: 44
    Installation of the finished blocks was carried out using two 900-ton Swedish-made cranes, each of which had its own weight without a load of 3 tons and a span of 500 m.

    But were the cranes not Finnish? Kone Oy seems to have made them for us.
    1. +2
      16 July 2019 13: 56
      Of course, Finnish! Swedish had other equipment. hi
  21. +4
    16 July 2019 13: 16
    The developers of the modern aircraft carrier of the "Manatee" project simply took the "Ulyanovsk" as a basis and made a new superstructure for it:

    1. +1
      16 July 2019 15: 21
      From this model, pr. 1143.7.1, they built the "Manatee" by changing the superstructure and gluing the inscription "Manatee":

  22. 0
    16 July 2019 13: 37
    Kommersant reported that a decision was made to build the country's largest dry dock at the 35th shipyard (Murmansk). For this purpose, two operating dock cameras located next to each other will be combined into one, while modernizing the equipment. Thus, there will be room for large ships and vessels. The Zvezdochka ship repair center has signed a contract with the St. Petersburg Investment. Engineering. Construction "(I.I.S.) for the modernization of the dock, the cost of the contract is about 20 billion rubles. The work is scheduled to be completed during 2020, but experts doubt the feasibility of these dates.
    1. 0
      16 July 2019 15: 00
      Estimate the flight time from Alta to Murmansk
  23. +2
    16 July 2019 14: 13
    I am a little cling to the term
    ... non-combustible plastics ...

    I have never dealt with ship finishing, but I have been working with building materials for many years. The term "fireproof plastics" is more likely to be used here. In my experience, any organic matter remains combustible, no matter what you do with it. The maximum that can be honestly achieved is the flammability group G1 (slightly flammable) according to 123-FZ. Among such materials, there are really self-extinguishing ones: brought up a flame - the material disappears with a minimum of smoke and without melt drops, removed the lighter - the process stopped. And there is almost no smell. But formally, the material burns - the volume and mass have changed. But this is not a common case. Usually, even with G1, it turns out that "gazenvagen"
    1. +3
      16 July 2019 14: 32
      Quote: toha124
      I have never dealt with ship finishing, but I have been working with building materials for many years. The term "fireproof plastics" is more likely to be used here.

      It is quite possible that he was not a specialist himself; he took the "non-combustible plastics" from Pavlov from "The Seventh Aircraft Carrier", but I think he, like me, was not a specialist in materials either. I think he would have completely agreed with you (like me, by the way), unless it is about something else, not what you described. But you say that this is impossible, and I believe you as a knowledgeable person hi
  24. exo
    0
    16 July 2019 14: 16
    A good start to the article series! Thanks to the author!
    So it is necessary to build a ship of such a project, changing the electronics, according to the present day. Without any electromagnetic catapults and the "miracle" - aerofinishers. The budget, taking into account the cuts, is unlikely to pull. It is better to design an AWACS aircraft and bring it to mind, which will also find application in the land version.
    And then, life will show what is needed. According to the results of the service.
    And stop building models for marine salons.
    1. 0
      16 July 2019 15: 06
      Where to build? The NSR has been completely reoriented towards the construction of nuclear submarines, where boats are taken out of the sheds on ship-carrying trains, and equipment has long been in the sheds. There are no such stocks in St. Petersburg. The Zaliv plant in Kerch built supertankers and similar large commercial vessels. If only the new facilities of "Zvezda", but there are going to build tankers and gas carriers.
      1. +2
        16 July 2019 16: 19
        Quote: Potter
        In St. Petersburg there are no such slipways.

        In St. Petersburg there is also a narrow Morskoy Canal - the "eye of a needle" between the shipyard on the Neva and the Gulf of Finland. And the WHSD bridge over it.
        Here it is - still under construction:

        1. 0
          17 July 2019 10: 17
          North Shipyard downstream. According to the plans of 1912, all major shipbuilding was going to be taken to it and to Revel. Theoretically, after dredging it is possible to build a head there. But for the series it is advisable to build in the Pacific.
      2. exo
        0
        16 July 2019 18: 10
        There is a hope that in the Far East, Zvezda will be modernized. And so, in the near future, there really is nowhere.
        1. 0
          17 July 2019 11: 00
          The star in the coming years will fulfill commercial orders for the construction of gas carriers.
  25. +1
    16 July 2019 14: 59
    interesting topic, interesting author. We will wait for an interesting continuation.
  26. 0
    16 July 2019 16: 43
    Many thanks to the author from me! The article is interesting!
    Here is just one question for me - how accidentally or not our country "falls apart" precisely during the construction of the most powerful ocean-going fleet? We begin to build a fleet of battleships - a skiff for the country, we begin to build a fleet of aircraft carriers - a skiff for the country. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but something a bit too much coincidence ...
    1. +4
      16 July 2019 18: 07
      Quote: Trapper7
      I'm not a big fan of conspiracy, but something a bit too much coincidence ....

      He himself thought about it for a long time. I am not a fan of conspiracy either, but coincidences do occur.
      1. -3
        17 July 2019 00: 06
        Well, here again.
        "There is" = "exists, although the role is not well defined."
        "Has been" is a tracing paper with "has been", i.e. "should be".
        It turns out, "there is a place to be" = "should be, but it is not clear what for"!
        1. +3
          17 July 2019 15: 11
          Quote: OldMichael
          Well, here again.

          What's again?:)))
          Quote: OldMichael
          It turns out, "there is a place to be" = "should be, but it is not clear what for"!

          You know, I do not like grammarnatsizma. Well, absolutely. Especially, when the grammartacist is still at odds with either a sense of humor, or with a history of the Russian language ...
          "There is a place to be" - this is an incorrect speech construction, of course, but this is the most famous joke in its time. The fact is that in French the expression "takes place" or "has to be" is written as avoir lieu. But the literal translation avoir lieu means "there is a place to be". So someone, most likely, at a time when the French language was very common in our country, and joked in this way "has a place to be". The joke was very common, but then, when there were relatively few people who knew French, its meaning was lost. But this does not mean at all that such a turn is unacceptable in a comic conversation.
          1. 0
            17 July 2019 16: 32
            Moreover, OldMichael's remark is inaccurate because "has been" is a Perfect Continius tense auxiliary with no modal meaning. "Should" sounds like "have (s) to be".
          2. -1
            18 July 2019 07: 26
            So after all, "what for" does not really fit into the lexicon of severe grammarnatsi (I can't put a disappointed smile from this browser) ...
    2. -2
      17 July 2019 11: 02
      What kind of kayuk from battleships has happened?
      Half of Europe under the USSR and Germany in Kroshevo, and in the Far East of the Kuril Islands, half Sakhalin and half Korea!
      No, the industrial and design groundwork did not disappear, and then it helped to create an underwater and surface fleet.
    3. +1
      22 July 2019 16: 46
      They just knock us all the time on an economic take-off, which allows riveting the most expensive military toys.
  27. +1
    16 July 2019 19: 38
    Andrew, thank you!
    Very interesting article.
  28. -2
    16 July 2019 21: 48
    Oh, this cargo cult. Well, we don’t need an aircraft carrier fleet. Aircraft carriers, in principle, are already yesterday. And with the pace that we can build even in the wettest fantasies, by the time the second AUG is formed, they will no longer be needed at all.
    1. +2
      16 July 2019 23: 05
      Controversial statement. On the returned apparatus, by default, you can install the best guidance, overcoming and jamming equipment. Hypersonic atmospheric devices by default will have a short range, but they have undeniable advantages over atmospheric atmospheres. We can only fend off the approach of the missile launch lines of a potential enemy to our main industrial areas with the help of the fleet. It is expensive, but such is the price for the collapse of the USSR and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
      1. -2
        16 July 2019 23: 22
        Take a wider look .. There are no potential military opponents on the planet who will not lose in the war with the Russian Federation. And without any aircraft carriers.

        China and NATO are unconditional mutual destruction. All other scenarios do not require any aircraft carriers.
        1. +2
          16 July 2019 23: 25
          And before the first and before the Second World Wars, there was a firm belief that everyone and especially Germany would lose in them. This somehow did not help, although it was true.
          Want peace, get ready for war.
          1. -1
            17 July 2019 12: 23
            But get ready wisely. Not copying other people's concepts for which there will never be enough money, but prepare to do the maximum damage with a minimum budget.
            1. +1
              17 July 2019 12: 56
              "Wallet - or life" - never heard of?
              And more: the winner gets EVERYTHING!
              1. -2
                17 July 2019 14: 37
                The wallet is taken away from the weak. And by no means do I propose to be weak. You have to be strong. But strong against those who can attack.

                Spending billions on an aircraft carrier, from which a couple of planes will fall overboard in another colonial war war without some beneficial effect, is a dubious expense.
            2. +1
              17 July 2019 13: 08
              Well, the fact that aug for us in our modern geopolitical and technological realities is a less optimal solution than any other, must be proved.
    2. +1
      17 July 2019 08: 56
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Well, we don’t need an aircraft carrier fleet. Aircraft carriers, in principle, are already yesterday.

      I agree. I am absolutely sure that the future belongs to space battleships.
      And if in fact, then according to my personal conviction, it was Ulyanovsk and sisterships that we needed exactly at the time when they were supposed to go into operation. A squadron with a powerful cover aircraft carrier and a heavy cruiser, accompanied by a group of lighter ships and strategic nuclear submarines always could provide a retaliatory nuclear strike against any, even the most powerful enemy. And one would not even have to hide too much. The meaning of this whole northern curtain of NATO in the Barents Sea was lost.
      1. +3
        17 July 2019 11: 09
        Is the space battleship an object to attack space drones?
        With the veil, too, everything is not easy, we tinkered in 1988-1990. with the task of withdrawing from the preemptive strike of our SSBNs. Well, there is peace, friendship, Bush’s legs .... So this task, I think, has not been solved to this day.
        The only theater on which this is feasible is the Pacific Ocean, provided that the exit from the bases of the Kuril Islands is covered.
        1. -1
          17 July 2019 12: 34
          Otherwise, let us formulate: does the USA or China have the opportunity to destroy at least 80% of nuclear weapons carriers with a first strike?

          Will a break of even a dozen combat units be considered permissible in schizophrenic consciousness itself? What can be taken in Russia that would cost ten major cities?


          Therefore, the conclusion is this: resources must be spent competently, for specific tasks. Nuclear deterrence is an understandable task.
      2. -3
        17 July 2019 12: 30
        Boats today can shoot from the pier in the home port. Walking in the Atlantic on alert rather than a whim.
        1. +2
          17 July 2019 12: 40
          It was there that they were covered first of all. I didn’t mention about flying time from Alta for nothing.
        2. +3
          17 July 2019 13: 32
          Boats today can shoot from the pier in the home port

          They can shoot back. And I can be destroyed by the first blow.
          Missile boats can have time to take off to the points of separation of warheads, but may not have time.
          War blocks can reach the enemy, and can be intercepted.
          All these probabilities must be taken into account not only at the moment, but also in the medium term.
          What can be taken in Russia that would cost ten major cities?
          What was this in Russia that the German bourgeoisie could not buy before the start of World War I?
        3. +3
          17 July 2019 13: 33
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          Boats today can shoot from the pier in the home port.

          If they succeed - if the time for making a decision, bringing it to the performers and the start-up cycle will collectively be less than the flight time.
          Otherwise, 35-40% of the nuclear potential of the Russian Federation, located on the extremely vulnerable in the SSBN bases, will be disabled at the cost of 6-8 SSC. A good exchange is for the enemy.
  29. -2
    17 July 2019 12: 26
    Quote: Alexey RA
    I understand that you have not seen numerous articles on the postponement of the beginning of the reconstruction of dry docks at SRZ-2019 for repair 35 for 11435?

    Have seen. Maybe that's why they drowned the PD, so as usual to cut some money on this "reconstruction"? wassat This has become the traditional standard scheme of modern Russian business - and simply managers! sad
    1. +4
      17 July 2019 13: 37
      Quote: Radikal
      Have seen. Maybe that's why they drowned the PD, so as usual to cut some money on this "reconstruction"?

      It's funny: first, commentators on the VO demand that the authorities solve the problem with the dock in the North and reproach the authorities for inaction. And when they begin to reconstruct the dock, they immediately begin to accuse of sawing. smile

      You will involuntarily remember two rules of accusing the authorities for a liberal:
      If something is being done: thieves began another cut of money.
      If nothing is done: thieves do nothing to improve [enter as needed].
      1. +3
        17 July 2019 14: 38
        The authorities should have a development strategy, and not a smoke cover in the form of May decrees. It is necessary to build comprehensively, naturally economically, but most importantly - on time and in the right amount. All strategic facilities should have synchronization in terms of commissioning, a clear prospect of loading, secured logistics and cover.
        If to summarize everything - the perspective of the Pacific Ocean, with the deployment of the cover of the Kuril Islands. Head samples for creating a backlog can be built on existing facilities, training personnel and infrastructure for transfer to the Far East.
        The question of the place of aircraft carriers in this program should be resolved in the light of promising weapons systems of potential opponents.
  30. -4
    17 July 2019 15: 16
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Radikal
    Have seen. Maybe that's why they drowned the PD, so as usual to cut some money on this "reconstruction"?

    It's funny: first, commentators on the VO demand that the authorities solve the problem with the dock in the North and reproach the authorities for inaction. And when they begin to reconstruct the dock, they immediately begin to accuse of sawing. smile

    You will involuntarily remember two rules of accusing the authorities for a liberal:
    If something is being done: thieves began another cut of money.
    If nothing is done: thieves do nothing to improve [enter as needed].

    For the money that was officially announced, you can lift two docks from the bottom of the sea, and repair, or order their construction in China, or Korea .... sad As for the question of who is a liberal and who is unknown by whom, then logic suggests. that you confused me with you. Defending the liberal power, and accordingly the liberal economy of the Russian Federation, as well as the main Guarantor of all this, in that case, who are you ?! lol wassat tongue
    1. +2
      17 July 2019 16: 39
      Sorry to interfere, but the liberal economy is primarily characterized by a weak fiscal burden on the part of the state. And we have unmeasured tax burden at enterprises and they are constantly twisting it in the direction of weighting (for example, by increasing the VAT rate).
      So there is nothing liberal either in politics or in the Russian economy.
      1. 0
        17 July 2019 17: 10
        Quote: Ivanchester
        Sorry to interfere, but the liberal economy is primarily characterized by a weak fiscal burden on the part of the state.

        Oh, I would not say ... In Europe, the load on enterprises is quite high
        1. +2
          17 July 2019 19: 58
          So, actually, I would not call their economy liberal. A more typical example is the USA: VAT 10% (against our 20%), income tax 21% (almost like us), UST less than 8% (in Russia more than 20%), property tax in most states less than 1% . With such a burden, you can afford a paid higher education once in your life to allow ...
          1. +2
            18 July 2019 14: 23
            Quote: Ivanchester
            A more typical example is the USA.

            Take the USA!
            Quote: Ivanchester
            VAT 10% (against our 20%)

            I agree!
            Quote: Ivanchester
            income tax 21% (almost like ours),

            In fact, they go from 10 to 35% income tax, depending on the size of the profits, and the average is more likely to 34%
            Quote: Ivanchester
            ESN is less than 8% (in Russia it is more than 20%)

            That's right!
            Quote: Ivanchester
            property tax in most states is less than 1%

            But on all property, including in personal use
            And you did not mention personal income tax, which is 13% in our country, and up to 35% in the USA, the average is 28, that is, twice as much as ours. Again, the unified social tax deductions come from an increased base.
            And there are also inheritance taxes and donations from 18 to 50% (we have canceled) .... In general, the tax burden is not less, but distributed differently
            1. 0
              18 July 2019 20: 11
              In fact, they go from 10 to 35% income tax, depending on the size of the profits, and the average is more likely to 34%


              Since 2018, the United States has a single federal income tax (federal corporate income tax) and it is 21%. There is an additional tax from the same base, charged by the states (about which I did not mention so unfairly) and it ranges from 0 to 10 by about percent. On average, offhand, 6-7%. That is, in general, 7-8% higher than in the Russian Federation.
              Of course, this is quite a lot, but the twice higher VAT is clearly not balancing.
              As for personal income tax, inheritance taxes, etc., they, in my opinion, do not have a retarding effect on the development of the economy and serve to a greater extent for a more even distribution of benefits among citizens so that there is not such a strong gap in income between different their categories like ours.

              PS I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss with you not only on the “Navy”, but also on economic topics drinks
              1. 0
                19 July 2019 11: 27
                Quote: Ivanchester
                Of course, this is quite a lot, but the twice higher VAT is clearly not balancing.

                Yes, in general ... yes, it does not counterbalance, but still .... After all, enterprises do not pay VAT, but the difference between VAT on goods sold and goods purchased. That is, in fact, the VAT rate is paid on wages, contributions from it, depreciation and costs for which there is no input VAT, and they are minimized.
                Quote: Ivanchester
                Since 2018, the United States has a single federal income tax (federal corporate income tax) and it is 21%. There is an additional tax from the same base, charged by the states (about which I did not mention so unfairly) and it ranges from 0 to 10 by about percent.

                Thank! I do not track their tax, did not know
                Quote: Ivanchester
                As for personal income tax, inheritance taxes, etc., they, in my opinion, do not have a retarding effect on economic development

                Yes, how to say ... Please note that the size of the VAT and the size of salary are interrelated, and the NDFL increases the size of salary and the size of deductions from the salary, so that it is also a catalyst for VAT, but :)))
                Quote: Ivanchester
                PS I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss with you not only on the “Navy”, but also on economic topics

                Mutually! drinks
  31. -1
    17 July 2019 21: 43
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Otherwise, let us formulate: does the USA or China have the opportunity to destroy at least 80% of nuclear weapons carriers with a first strike?

    Will a break of even a dozen combat units be considered permissible in schizophrenic consciousness itself? What can be taken in Russia that would cost ten major cities?


    Therefore, the conclusion is this: resources must be spent competently, for specific tasks. Nuclear deterrence is an understandable task.


    That's right. The war with Russia is absolutely not real. For Russia does not threaten the United States economically. And this is the main thing for them. Even with the DPRK is not real, although Kim waving one bucket of uranium. Only very serious breakthroughs in technology in the USA can change the situation.
    1. 0
      17 July 2019 22: 04
      But Ursula van der Leinen disagrees with you and wants to talk with Russia "from a position of strength." And she is the chairman of the European Commission, now the EU government.
  32. 0
    23 July 2019 21: 30
    It is interesting to read about my products ... for the first time I meet a balanced approach to our concept of TAKR. I am refraining from commenting for now, I want to finish reading.
  33. 0
    24 July 2019 12: 21
    A useless ship, expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and without real combat missions.
  34. -2
    24 July 2019 20: 48
    A nuclear-powered heavy carrier carrying 100 thousand tons of a cruiser - to be! Moreover, they allowed to collect dead wood and hunt with bow and arrow.
  35. 0
    25 July 2019 12: 09
    Look at RF patent No. 2602639, maybe there is a solution to the problem.
  36. 0
    1 January 2020 14: 59
    Perhaps Ustinov was not so wrong about the faith in VTOL — if it weren’t for the collapse of the union, we would have had the Yak-141 in the series in the 90s, which is quite a good airplane. As for the AWACS aircraft, helicopters may well perform this task.