Terrible "Manatee". Why does Russia need two supercarriers?

227

What have we been shown?


On July 10 of this year, TASS reported that the Neva Design Bureau, which is part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), showed the model of the promising aircraft carrier of the 11430E project "Lamantin". The presentation took place within the framework of the St. Petersburg International Navy Salon.





Known alleged characteristics. According to the stand of the Nevsky Bureau itself, the displacement of the aircraft carrier will be 80-90 thousand tons, and the maximum length will be equal to 350 meters. Autonomy will be approximately 120 days, the full speed is about 30 nodes. The crew of the aircraft carrier - 2800 people, the 800 people will be part of the air group. The life of the ship will be over 50 years.

The aircraft carrier will receive a springboard, two electromagnetic catapults and four aerofinisher. The total number of aircraft that will be based on its board will exceed fifty: now they are talking about 60 aircraft and helicopters, but this figure may change. However, as many other expected characteristics may change as the ship develops. It is important to note that as part of the ship’s air group they plan to place aviation radio detection and guidance complexes. A significant plus to combat capabilities, especially against the background of "Admiral Kuznetsov."

Concept issues


Despite possible changes, the overall concept is generally understandable. The ship will be less than the newest American aircraft carrier of the Gerald R. Ford type, whose displacement, we recall, is approximately 100 thousand tons. However, much more heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and the only French aircraft carrier currently in operation - Charles de Gaulle. Its displacement amounts to “modest” 42 000 tons, and the aviation group includes in total up to 40 airplanes and helicopters. Approximately the same amount is borne by the newest British aircraft carrier "of the type" Queen Elizabeth ", however one should not forget that, unlike Kuznetsov and Charles de Gaulle, the newest low-profile fighter of the fifth generation F-35B is based on it. Despite the very limited combat radius, this is a strong argument in any naval "dispute".

The official description of "Lamantina" is very restrained and could approach the description of any aircraft carrier in general. The aircraft carrier "Lamantin" is designed to provide for the deployment and combat use of an air group including shipborne aircraft of various types capable of using weapon and armament against air, sea (submarine and surface) forces, as well as ground and enemy ground targets in the ocean, sea and coastal zones, as well as to ensure the military stability of naval naval groups and to cover the amphibious assault forces and their landing forces from strikes and attacks of enemy air attacks, ”the presentation says.

So what exactly can be a new ship? To this question, oddly enough, you can give one specific clear answer - a direct analogue of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Ulyanovsk, which was dismantled on the stocks in 1992 year. And that was supposed to be the first "real" Soviet aircraft carrier. Recall that the new ship of the 1143.7 project was supposed to get what the previous Soviet aircraft carrier lacked: the launching catapult. They wanted to equip it with two "Mayak" steam catapults, which would allow, for example, to raise DRLOI aircraft. And the total number of Su-33 fighters on the Ulyanovsk should have been 60 units. Approximately as much as carried the American "Nimitz": in his case, however, it was more multifunctional F-14 and F-18.



Of course, “Lamantin” and “Ulyanovsk” are still not exactly the same thing. Technology over the past years did not stand still: this applies primarily to electronics. But the relationship between the ships can be seen with the naked eye.

Battle of Russian aircraft carriers


It is worth recalling that as early as July 2013 of the year, a large-scale model of a Russian aircraft carrier was demonstrated for the first time to specialists in closed mode as part of the naval salon in St. Petersburg "Storm", work on which began in the Krylov State Research Center. The length of the ship should be 330 meters, width - 40 m, and the displacement - up to 100 thousand tons. An important difference between the Storm and the “Manatee” is a scheme with two deck superstructures according to what we see on new British aircraft carriers. This solution is not entirely clear, as it complicates the operation of aircraft and, in general, makes the project more complex and expensive.



The Storm Air Group looks more impressive than the Lamantin: up to 90 aircraft against 60. In general, the situation with her is very strange and mysterious. For the older project, they did not regret making the fifth-generation model of the Su-57 fighter: it was assumed that a deck version of the Russian "five" might once appear. But in the case of the 11430 project, “Manatee” was limited to models of Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters. This is despite the fact that the Su-33 is no longer produced, and the machines that are in use survive their life. In a word, the Soviet legacy has manifested itself here, which further strengthened the link with Ulyanovsk.

However, simple lovers of marine technology can be grateful that at least they showed it. According to the “glorious” tradition of the post-Soviet military-industrial complex, everything could be limited to a couple of meager statements by officials and reports from leading media about “unparalleled in the world.”

On the whole, “La Mantin” can be viewed as the answer of the DIC to new realities. When a country has to count money with a tripled force, one should not wait for the implementation of new military "super-projects". That is, the aircraft carrier of the project 11430E became a kind of trimmed "Storm": in fact, a return to the Soviet traditions of shipbuilding. In this sense, perhaps, he has more chances for at least some implementation than the earlier projects. Speaking even simpler, in the future, the fleet may receive a sort of “2.0 Kuznetsov”. Not the most powerful aircraft carrier, but it is also not strange that it is not clear, but a quite combat-ready ship that can be confidently assigned to a certain class.



The very need for an aircraft carrier for a major power that has access to the sea is completely obvious. As in the current realities without air cover any, even the most powerful combat ship, is simply a big and convenient target. Including for carrier-based aircraft of the probable enemy.
227 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +47
    29 July 2019 05: 15
    This is just a budget cut, I think that in the next 20-25 years, there will be no aircraft carriers in Russia. In the country there are problems with demographics and this is the most pressing issue, and not some super aircraft carriers.
    1. +50
      29 July 2019 05: 50
      An unaccompanied aircraft carrier is a big target. Before aircraft carriers build an ocean fleet, it is necessary to rebuild, rather than build super boats.
      1. +26
        29 July 2019 05: 56
        Of course, I am not a statesman and not an analyst, but a simple entrepreneur and personally I think that for a start it is necessary to solve completely different problems, which I wrote above, I also need to solve something with the distribution of income, as well as problems with labor productivity and production discipline.
        1. +12
          29 July 2019 06: 02
          need to deal with income distribution

          to begin to regulate the distribution of income will have to return to the old, socialist system of state economic policy. Are millions of entrepreneurs ready to become not ordinary businessmen (of any level), but ordinary workers and women workers? I doubt very much that they will support you.
          first you need to solve completely different problems

          Unfortunately, it is not possible to put the country's defense capability secondarily. In the conditions of the modern world, it may turn out that until the time and money appear on it, you simply can not survive
          1. +6
            29 July 2019 06: 09
            Well, why copy the Soviet system? You can take a closer look at the countries of Scandinavia and the same China, which are developing successfully. ICBMs Sarmat can not sober up our enemies? Kim puts in place with a significantly smaller arsenal.
            1. +12
              29 July 2019 06: 29
              Quote: Pessimist22
              ICBMs Sarmat can not sober up our enemies?
              Global weapons hold back global war - all that.
              Without projection means, we won’t be allowed to deal with strategic (in economic terms) partners, especially if they are rather weak: look at Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua (the channel, if that) - ICBMs are not an aid here, but the ACG may well be .

              Quote: Pessimist22
              Kim puts in place with a significantly smaller arsenal.
              Kim, by and large, no one needs. He does not mean anything, they forgive him much, like a child.
              1. +8
                29 July 2019 06: 54
                There are no numbers for the number of Marines. Or they are not provided there. request
                My opinion, We should at least let UDC into the series, what kind of aircraft carriers are there.
                Storm, Manatee - cool models that we will never see ... but I wanted to !!! recourse
                Koreans UDC as pancakes bake, one by one. Already going to transfer to aircraft carriers ... maybe just stupid Buy ??? There will not be a drink, and projects are much higher than Mistral! The Koreans and the sanctions ... somehow sideways.
                1. +2
                  29 July 2019 11: 29
                  It can be just stupid Buy ???

                  Will they sell it?
                2. +2
                  30 July 2019 08: 39
                  In order to order from them (they will not sell ready-made ones, there are their secrets, and everything is in Korean) you need to pay 90-95% in advance under the contract, and this is money from the budget for 3 years ... no snort, but we can build ours monthly advances, and the budget is replenished every day (due to excise taxes and VAT). And then they may not give it back (they will build for our grandmothers, then they will sell them to the Saudis and ... our bablosy will be returned to us in 3 years with a small penalty. do we need it?). Before World War I, our grandmothers were driven to England, as a result, not a weapon of any money. And they returned something in the form of weapons and uniforms already ... in red.
            2. +6
              29 July 2019 06: 50
              Well, why copy the Soviet system? You can look at the countries of Scandinavia and also China, which are developing successfully

              Successfully develop and income distribution are different concepts. Since the first refers to the model of economic development, and the second is the distribution of profit / income. And if the first China is a very revealing example, then the second is just not very. Since the stratification by per capita income in China is very high, higher than in Russia.
              as for Norway, its well-being is primarily tied to the fuel and energy sector (moreover, no gorlopan calls it a gas station, although Norway has a greater share in GDP from this segment than Russia). Just in contrast to the Russian Federation, the fuel and energy sector in Norway is owned by the state. And we have only 50% of Gazprom, 75% of Rosneft. And Surgutneftegas, Lukoil, Tatneft and others are completely private companies.
              1. +2
                29 July 2019 11: 09
                Quote: Ka-52
                Successfully develop and income distribution are different concepts. Since the first refers to the model of economic development, and the second is the distribution of profit / income.

                Did you understand what you said?

                Is "to develop successfully" a model? And "distribution of income" is "already distribution of profit / income".

                "Successfully develop" is one of the empty phrases that "servants of the people" have been constantly trying to hear since the prime minister.
                This phrase can be easily changed, for example, to "Lord, carry it!" - in the same way, having neither timelines, nor goals, nor tasks and tools to achieve them.
                In contrast to the economic Development Program, which should include, among other things, financial levers of the Program management, which are hidden behind the amateurish "distribution of profits / incomes".
                1. +3
                  29 July 2019 12: 41
                  Did you understand what you said?

                  I got it. But I would advise you or learn to read or comprehend what you read. At one of these stages you have a breakdown of the thinking process
              2. -1
                29 July 2019 12: 17
                Quote: Ka-52
                And we have only 50% of Gazprom, 75% of Rosneft. And Surgutneftegas, Lukoil, Tatneft and others are completely private companies.

                Where does this come from:
                1. +2
                  29 July 2019 13: 11
                  ROSS 42 (42 region) Today, 12:17
                  Where does this come from:

                  learn to read, comrade combat pensioner Yes ... It just owns it through Rosneftegaz, which itself is owned through the Federal Property Management Agency of the Russian Federation. By the way, the "National Settlement Depository" is a structure affiliated to Sberbank, empip.
                  1. -1
                    30 July 2019 11: 25
                    Quote: Ka-52
                    learn to read, comrade combat pensioner. It just owns through Rosneftegaz, which itself belongs through the Federal Property Management Agency of the Russian Federation.

                    And you learn to count. So far I see 50% + 0,00000000 .... and not yours:
                    And we have only 50% of Gazprom, 75% of Rosneft.

                    For a long time, various sources asked questions why and why 50% of gas and oil work for the country (roughly) and where the remaining %% went fool
                    1. 0
                      31 July 2019 06: 22
                      And you learn to count. I still see 50% + 0,00000000 .... and not yours

                      why are you so dense? If we rallied less on the suffering of pregnant pensioners through the fault of the bloody children of oligarchs, we would know that the Russian Federation has full control over the company, since none of the other participants has a blocking stake (25% + 1 share). Read at your leisure what PAO, stocks, shareholders, etc. are.
            3. +9
              29 July 2019 10: 01
              No one needs the countries of Scandinavia for hell, they don’t need to support the army. And China is just the modernization of the USSR, not for nothing that they contain a whole institute for the study of the collapse of the USSR. We can’t act by Kim’s methods, the scales are not the same; he easily multiplies his dissent by one minute by zero. And they are trying to fight with us not by a vigorous loaf, but by brainwashing our neighbors and setting them against us in the hope that we will crumble like a house of cards, that gentlemen, entrepreneurs will finance some kind of birch revolution.
            4. +1
              29 July 2019 11: 57
              Quote: Pessimist22
              Well, why copy the Soviet system? You can take a closer look at the countries of Scandinavia and the same China, which are developing successfully. ICBMs Sarmat can not sober up our enemies? Kim puts in place with a significantly smaller arsenal.

              Carriers have completely different tasks.
            5. 0
              29 July 2019 18: 54
              Do you know that capitalism in Russia is fundamentally different from capitalism in Europe? In Russia, rabid capitalism of the American type, where a person can be fired for no reason, where everyone is squeezed out to the last, cut off salaries and so on. In most European countries, after a certain period of working in production, you cannot be fired from your job for no reason. And if they get fired, it is fraught with great compensation. Is there such a thing in Russia? I doubt very much. So the USSR system is more suitable for the Russians as more familiar and understandable to many more. I don’t mean the system of the 90s where they didn’t pay half a year
          2. +1
            29 July 2019 07: 57
            Do not distort, under socialism, private companies can exist, and in general it is not written anywhere that the state system cannot change and will be supplemented by the spite of the day. During the gap in poverty and wealth, it was always with everyone, The main resource is to work, and if he lives and does not survive, then figs with that gap, because a well-fed and satisfied worker works well and we can plan children because he can grow up and does not whine like to knock over a hill.
            1. 0
              29 July 2019 08: 59
              Do not distort, under socialism, private companies can exist, and in general it is not written anywhere that the state system cannot change and will be supplemented by the anger of the day

              you do not distort it. There is a classical model of socialism, with state management of the economy. In which the state is fully the beneficiary of any economic activity and it also distributes all income.
              What you are stating here are mixed systems. In which, to one degree or another, there may be a situation when income from the economic activities of an enterprise is distributed far from "fairly" as you would like and as the very idea of ​​socialist management envisages
              1. 0
                29 July 2019 10: 12
                Quote: Ka-52
                There is a classical model of socialism, with state management of the economy. In which the state is fully the beneficiary of any economic activity and it also distributes all income.

                I'm afraid you do not understand what socialism is. During World War II, up to 40% of military property was produced by private enterprises. Submachine guns, grenades, helmets, clothes were made by private artels. 100% of food was produced on collective farms.
                1. -1
                  29 July 2019 10: 43
                  I'm afraid you do not understand what socialism is. During World War II, up to 40% of military property was produced by private enterprises

                  I’m afraid you do not understand what socialism is. If you are talking about Leninist socialism with its NEP, cooperatives, etc., this is one thing. If about the period of building socialism, which fell on Stalin's time and was associated with the nationalization of everything and everything - this is different. And we are already talking about the Khrushchev-Brezhnev era. What does 2MV have to do with it?
              2. +2
                29 July 2019 11: 28
                Quote: Ka-52
                There is a classical model of socialism, with state management of the economy.

                Please give a link to the description of the "classical" model of socialism.
                Quote: Ka-52
                In which the state is fully the beneficiary of any economic activity and it also distributes all income.

                This has not always been the case. Recall the NEP, and post-war development, when there were many cooperatives, artels, etc.
                But then the advocates of the "pure" idea decided that the state, or rather, they, the managers, should control everything, including baking buns and sewing panties.

                In the best times of the rise of the USSR, the economic model was ... state capitalism! And the subject of this model is the state-corporation. And this somehow did not contradict the ideas of socialism.

                Socialism, i.e. a socially oriented state is not an economic model. You have "Horses, people mixed in a heap and" ... the centaurs ran.
                1. +3
                  29 July 2019 12: 00
                  You have "Horses, people mixed in a heap and" ... the centaurs ran.

                  if you open the eyes of your centaurs, then I hope you can (I hope you do not get it right the first time, but it will work out) to read the whole dialogue, and not just one piece on which you started to ride with your theories, and even scribble. And initially the conversation was that equality and justice in the sharing of income can be achieved by returning to the system of state socialism! What I wrote about in the first comment. And now you are throttling from empty to empty, discussing different models, some of them Chinese, some Scandinavian, some Lenin. Ugh on you, tired of it. Initially, it was about aircraft carriers.
                  1. +1
                    29 July 2019 17: 01
                    Hmm. Another fellow dogma merged.
          3. +3
            29 July 2019 09: 43
            Quote: Ka-52
            to begin to regulate the distribution of income will have to return to the old, socialist system of state economic policy. Are millions of entrepreneurs ready to become not ordinary businessmen (of any level), but ordinary workers and women workers? I doubt very much that they will support you.
            first you need to solve completely different problems

            Unfortunately, it is not possible to put the country's defense capability secondarily. In the conditions of the modern world, it may turn out that until the time and money appear on it, you simply can not survive

            firstly, for the most part, entrepreneurs are not rich and the existing bureaucratic machine crushes them almost like ordinary workers, only a few oligarchs reign ..... and secondly, the construction of an aircraft carrier can become an irreparable blow to defenses, based on the basic law of nature, because its construction will lead to savings on submarines, minesweepers, aircraft, missiles, ground forces, battleships destroyed the empire, super cruisers destroyed the ussr, do not get into the same puddle for the third time
            1. +3
              29 July 2019 10: 56
              firstly, for the most part, entrepreneurs are not rich and the existing bureaucratic machine crushes them almost like ordinary workers, only a few oligarchs reign

              what nonsense. First, the concept of "wealth" is a relative concept. If you are talking about the Forbes billionaires, then yes, there are not many of them (one and a half to two hundred) and they are very, very wealthy. But we are not talking about them. According to statistics, more than 1.5 million citizens in the Russian Federation are wealthy. That is, every hundredth. These are Russians whose income exceeds 200 thousand per month or who have a fortune of 30-50 million rubles. Perhaps there are officials among them (although most likely they do not shine on their income), but most of them are entrepreneurs. Or do you naively think that all owners of medium-sized businesses are low-income people? Or do you think that ALL Russian business is an individual entrepreneur level business?
              and secondly, the construction of an aircraft carrier can become an irreparable blow to defenses, based on the basic law of nature, because its construction will lead to savings on submarines, minesweepers, airplanes, missiles, ground forces,

              so nobody argues. Read carefully what I wrote about it
            2. +5
              29 July 2019 13: 21
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Battleships destroyed the empire, super cruisers destroyed the USSR
              Battleships destroyed the empire, the super cruiser of the USSR ... Maybe the empire was destroyed by Tsushima, the talentlessness of the tsar and technological dependence on the West, because of which they got credits and got into the Entente? Not because of the battleships, Nicholas II abdicated the throne, and not because of the Bolsheviks. There was a struggle for world domination, the leader and master of the capitalist system was determined, which then eliminated all significant empires in Europe, both possible competitors, and the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian empires fell to the Anglo-Saxons. As for the Soviet Union, it was certainly not a super cruiser that killed him, but, again, flirting with the West, which wanted to see a strong and independent Russia (USSR) in its grave. Foolish Gorbachev or a traitor, this is already a consequence, by and large the Soviet Union surrendered much earlier, exchanging the huge potential of socialism, which made it possible to build a superpower, for capitalist "cookies", primarily for the party nomenclature itself, which betrayed the idea. As for aircraft carriers, do not bother with your "State Department" propaganda, not because of aircraft carriers and the fleet in general, hundreds of billions of dollars from Russia are leaking out. Any modern and significant fleet needs aircraft carriers, and will be needed, as long as aviation is needed at sea, aircraft carriers are only its carriers.
          4. +3
            29 July 2019 14: 16
            Quote: Ka-52
            Unfortunately, it is not possible to put the country's defense capability secondarily. In the conditions of the modern world, it may turn out that until the time and money appear on it, you simply can not survive


            The accumulated tactical and strategic nuclear weapons are no longer enough to maintain sovereignty?
            The gradual modernization of the army of the Navy and Navy without gigantic expenses for an aircraft carrier, for which no military doctrine is provided, does not seem to be a more balanced way?
            1. -1
              29 July 2019 14: 20
              The accumulated tactical and strategic nuclear weapons are no longer enough to maintain sovereignty?
              The gradual modernization of the army of the Navy and Navy without gigantic expenses for an aircraft carrier, for which no military doctrine is provided, does not seem to be a more balanced way?

              what does the aircraft carrier have to do with it? And what does the nuclear weapons have to do with it?
              1. +1
                29 July 2019 14: 23
                Quote: Ka-52
                what does the aircraft carrier have to do with it? And what does the nuclear weapons have to do with it?


                Meant - to maintain sovereignty, an aircraft carrier is not needed. Enough available means and weapons more than.

                That is, we need a moderate military budget, which would allow us to improve army weapons, the Air Force and the Navy.
        2. +5
          29 July 2019 06: 02
          It's like that. And honestly and frankly, then no further real action is expected beyond such articles on the construction of super aircraft carriers. If, including those in the military, explainers explain that sales of military equipment abroad solely to saturate their army. They sold 2 aircraft, they built a third one, and sold 2 tanks a third one. You need to sell a couple of aircraft carriers so that you can build at least one yourself.
          1. +1
            29 July 2019 09: 44
            Quote: YOUR
            You need to sell a couple of aircraft carriers so that you can build at least one yourself.

            nobody will buy
            1. +1
              29 July 2019 14: 53
              Of course not. Because there are no plans to build aircraft carriers. Nothing to sell
        3. 0
          29 July 2019 06: 22
          Quote: Pessimist22
          Of course, I am not a statesman and not an analyst, but a simple entrepreneur and personally I think that ...
          Remember the 90s? Do you pretend a lot when the bandits stand in line to cover you? Now there is only one "bandit" left - the state (because of the bandits who have merged with the power - including).
        4. +4
          29 July 2019 06: 30
          Quote: Pessimist22
          problems with labor productivity and production discipline.

          Well, this is exclusively your concern. Raise your salary above the market, come up with incentives and fire for shoals. Nothing supernatural. Then people will have an incentive for you to work, and work well.
          Well, or how do you propose to raise labor discipline at the state level?
        5. +4
          29 July 2019 07: 34
          While we are solving "other problems" we will lose the unique school of pilots and their own, imprisoned for flights over the sea. It's easy to lose, but create. And an aircraft carrier, or even better two, is absolutely necessary for us now and in the future. As for the escort ships, they already exist.
          First of all, they are the world famous cruisers of the 1144 project. There are two of them just under two aircraft carriers. To help them frigates of the far zone of the 22350 project (by then there will be at least 6) and one submarine each. The company in Syria has clearly shown that we need an aircraft carrier. Yes, expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Yes, they need to build infrastructure from scratch. But as the construction of the naval base in Novorossiysk showed, we can all do it in the short term if we really need to.
          Carrier groups one in the Northern Fleet another in the Pacific will give us:
          - pride in the country and the demonstration of the flag. The projection of the country's strength at sea.
          - an aircraft carrier is both a command post and a floating airfield, which allows bringing a significant number of aircraft into the required square, supporting and carrying out a land operation on land from the sea.
          - allows you to solve problems in the most remote regions of the world. This is mobility.


          Considering that the further the more often we will have to drive various Papuans violating our interests, then the question arises as old as the USSR - where to get those naval bases around the world that we used to have. Start them again? It is much more expensive and more expensive than two aircraft carrier groups and times have changed. Our Tipo "friends / partners"They are not at all eager to give them to us, and even for free. And we understandably should not save everyone like Assad, and not from our hands. The question.
          So at leisure, I suggest that you read the article last season whether we need aircraft carriers or not https://topwar.ru/140815-tak-nuzhny-li-rossii-avianoscy-staryy-spor-pod-siriyskim-sousom.html
          For me, I definitely need it.
          1. +1
            29 July 2019 09: 46
            I do not need unambiguously
        6. 0
          29 July 2019 12: 23
          Quote: Pessimist22
          problems with labor productivity and production discipline

          There are no such problems. Productivity and labor discipline are those that are reasonably sufficient. What to produce? Everything that is developed in the USA and Germany, the Chinese will do everything. Enough for everyone.
      2. -1
        29 July 2019 09: 55
        Quote: YOUR
        Unaccompanied aircraft carrier big target

        Where did you see an unaccompanied aircraft carrier?
        Quote: YOUR
        Before aircraft carriers build an ocean fleet, it is necessary to rebuild, rather than build super boats.

        Well, in addition to "super boats", as you put it, we build corvettes and frigates for now ... super boats are means of strengthening the coastal zone. Aircraft carriers are ships of the FAR OCEAN zone. Do you feel the difference? We are strengthening both our near borders and thinking about the far ocean zone.
        As for the aircraft carrier for our fleets ... here commentators talk about the big target, about hyper-speed missiles, but ... for some reason they modestly keep silent about the fact that in the arsenal of ship warrants there will also be the same hyper-speed missiles, means of protection against them, etc. Surely, by the time the aircraft carrier was built, we’ll already be producing shock UAVs that will be able to work not only on the ground, but also fight in air battles. I am talking about the terms 15-25 years. Combat strike systems are developing, new systems are appearing, but who said that offshore platforms do not change, adapting to the new realities of the database?
      3. +4
        29 July 2019 10: 43
        Quote: YOUR
        An unaccompanied aircraft carrier is a big target. Before aircraft carriers build an ocean fleet, it is necessary to rebuild, rather than build super boats.

        An aircraft carrier needs a full-fledged port complex, even Kuznetsov does not have it. An already tested AWACS aircraft is needed. And the most important thing is that you need to build everything in front of the ship
      4. +2
        29 July 2019 11: 40
        TO YOUR.
        I agree with you. To ensure the actions of an aircraft carrier of the designated class, it is necessary to create a new system of combat, special-technical, logistic, social security (today they say logistic support, but this is from the "evil", from pseudoscience), to refine the strategy, operational art, tactics, and ...
        The creation of such a system will take many years and its cost will greatly exceed the cost of building two aircraft-carrying ships. That's when there will be 10 units, then this system will be justified. Perform an analysis of the content and use of aircraft carriers in countries that have them today, view open information about the effectiveness of the AUG over the past 20-30 years and get the answer: the combat effectiveness of the AUG has never exceeded 0,2 (i.e. 20%).
        Such ships are needed solely to demonstrate power and only to underdeveloped countries.
        So is it worth it to spend huge amounts of money on creating a fig leaf? Is it not better to direct these funds to the development of new types of weapons and the country's economy?
      5. +2
        29 July 2019 12: 14
        YOUR you wrote:
        An unaccompanied aircraft carrier is a big target.

        Right !!!

        The strange name "Manatee" - after the slow, herbivorous warm-water mammals known as "sea cows" ... ???
        As you call, you’ll swim ...
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 12: 25
          Quote: Mikhail Drabkin
          The strange name is "Manatee"

          Everything has already been done. There are no other names left.
      6. +1
        30 July 2019 14: 03
        The question is different, for example, an operation in the SAR, this aircraft carrier with a cover group can, for example, provide cover for the ground operation in Libya of General Haftar?) The number of sorties, the number of ammunition, the range, if necessary rescue operations, communications with ground units, the operation of drones, etc. .d etc. if not, then we need landing and transport ships to capture and supply distant air bases.
    2. -5
      29 July 2019 06: 00
      Quote: Pessimist22
      In the country, problems with demography and this is the most pressing issue, and not some super aircraft carriers
      30-50 million of the population will be left without these aircraft carriers, including.
      1. +2
        29 July 2019 06: 05
        I agree that the current leadership is successfully doing this even with such theft of state money by high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the Investigative Committee, as well as governors and all sorts of ministers, I also assume that this will most likely be so.
        1. +3
          29 July 2019 06: 20
          Quote: Pessimist22
          I agree that the current leadership is successfully doing this even with such theft of state money by high-ranking officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the Investigative Committee, as well as governors and all sorts of ministers,

          I understand that in Kazakhstan there is no such problem ...
          1. -1
            29 July 2019 08: 09
            Did you talk about Kazakhstan above? Or did you decide to summarize and show your knowledge in geography? If I live in Kazakhstan and have the citizenship of the Russian Federation, am I somehow different and cannot express my opinion? I always understood those Russians who do not want to go to Russia, because they told me that some Russian citizens like you make distinctions between them.
            1. +4
              29 July 2019 08: 13
              Quote: Pessimist22
              I always understood those Russians who do not want to go to Russia, because they told me that some Russian citizens like you make distinctions between them.

              Differences, no. There is simply a misunderstanding why this person living far away from Russia is so deeply immersed in its problems, although in the territory where he lives now they are no less, if not more. Sorry, but I do not believe in your sincerity.
              1. 0
                29 July 2019 08: 19
                Suppose there is no difference, but for what purpose did you focus on this, can you explain to me?
                1. +2
                  29 July 2019 08: 26
                  Quote: Pessimist22
                  and for what purpose did you focus on this, can you explain to me?

                  Ok, I’ll try to clarify. I live not so far from Kazakhstan and have acquaintances on its territory; moreover, friends living nearby have relatives in Kazakhstan. And all of them unanimously talk about the deterioration of the situation, and most importantly, the attitude towards both the Russians and the Germans, so much so that many no longer think, but take real steps to move. And now their situation in Russia is more than satisfied.
                  From your own words, everything turns out the other way around, so I'm sorry, but I personally DO NOT BELIEVE you.
                  1. 0
                    29 July 2019 08: 32
                    How does what you wrote refer to the fact that you make a distinction between me living in Kazakhstan (I am Belarusian by nationality, having Russian citizenship) and Russians from Russia, I am also a minority in Kazakhstan, you think that I also worsen the situation of Russian speakers here or how can I just not understand?
                    1. +3
                      29 July 2019 08: 45
                      Quote: Pessimist22
                      what you wrote refers to the fact that you make a distinction between me living in Kazakhstan (I am a Belarusian by nationality, having Russian citizenship) and Russians from Russia

                      I do not make any distinctions; you are doing this. Stating that in Russia
                      Quote: Pessimist22
                      the current leadership is successfully doing this even with such theft of state money by senior officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the Investigative Committee, as well as governors and all sorts of ministers, I also assume that this will most likely be so.

                      And not wanting to answer, but what about this in Kazakhstan. It turns out that you are engaged in a complete IGNORATION of me as a citizen of Russia living in its territory.
                      And yes, not demography is the main problem of Russia
                      1. 0
                        29 July 2019 08: 51
                        You have an opinion about how Russians are oppressed in Kazakhstan here, you learned it from acquaintances in Russia, whom acquaintances in Kazakhstan told you, it’s a little better than the OBS agency, but I have all the rules about demography, four children.
                      2. +2
                        29 July 2019 08: 56
                        Quote: Pessimist22
                        You have an opinion about how Russians are oppressed here in Kazakhstan

                        Wait. The question was specifically asked to you and I wanted to know your opinion, but you wag that once again makes you doubt your SINCERITY. I answered all your questions.
                      3. 0
                        29 July 2019 09: 00
                        For the gifted, can I tell you what I am saying that I am a citizen of the Russian Federation, I live in Kazakhstan, in my homeland and do business here and not in Russia?
                      4. +1
                        29 July 2019 09: 02
                        Quote: Pessimist22
                        For the gifted, can I tell you what I am saying that I am a citizen of the Russian Federation, I live in Kazakhstan, in my homeland and do business here and not in Russia?

                        Says, as well as your unwillingness to normally answer questions and further "wagging". Even speaks very much
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                  2. 0
                    29 July 2019 08: 46
                    Or do I need permission to ask you, dear Great Russian patriot! Is it possible for me to be a slave to the Russian, a Belarusian living in Kazakhstan, to express my opinion on the problems of modern Russia? Will it be okay? Will you be okay?
                    1. 0
                      29 July 2019 09: 00
                      Quote: Pessimist22
                      Is it possible for me to be a serf of the Russian Federation, a Belarusian living in Kazakhstan, to express my opinion

                      Oh, how are you, and what is this feigned servility for, what would you feel sorry for? You see how this "evil Great Russian" offends the child. But this is a cheap propaganda trick. And no one does not forbid you anything, but you deliberately try to present yourself as a "victim". It's not even funny
                      1. 0
                        29 July 2019 09: 56
                        Do not dishonor the high rank of Great Russia, attacking your brother living in Kazakhstan
                  3. -1
                    29 July 2019 09: 53
                    I am warning you of a gross violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 19 p 2, and have violated the Criminal Code of Article 282 (as amended by Federal Law of December 27.12.2018, 519 No. XNUMX-FZ)
                    1. Actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliating the dignity of a person or a group of persons on the basis of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as belonging to any social group, committed in public, in including with the use of mass media or information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, by a person after being brought to administrative responsibility for a similar act within one year, -
                    shall be punished by a fine in the amount of three hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the convict's salary or other income for a period of two to three years, or by forced labor for a term of one to four years with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for a term of two to five years. 282 ......... Universal Declaration of Human Rights
                    Adopted by resolution 217 A (III) of the UN General Assembly of December 10, 1948 ..... send the victim in cash until he filed a lawsuit against you, otherwise you will also have a criminal record))))))
                    1. 0
                      29 July 2019 12: 55
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      I warn you about a gross violation of the constitution of the Russian Federation

                      Vladimir, you don’t need to puff out your cheeks. There is no violation of laws in what a person wrote.
                    2. +1
                      29 July 2019 17: 21
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      I warn you about a gross violation of the constitution of the Russian Federation

                      Yes, it's already scary ... Why are you so "done" then? The question was simple, but you already have a HYSTERIC. I advise you to go to the doctor, otherwise I am already worried about your state of mind, no matter how heart attack or stroke happened. And you don't need to scare me. I can scare you the same that your comment may well fall under the administrative article about insulting the authorities ... But I will not, protecting your health
                    3. 0
                      30 July 2019 10: 17
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      I warn you about a gross violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

                      laughing That's what a life-giving avatar does ... fellow
            2. +1
              29 July 2019 09: 00
              Advise and judge the real about the country can only be living in it.
              Citizenship is not enough.
    3. +4
      29 July 2019 06: 18
      Quote: Pessimist22
      There are problems with demography in the country, and this is the most pressing issue, and not some super aircraft carriers.

      Forgot to add that it is better to give this money to children and pensioners ...
      1. -2
        29 July 2019 08: 10
        It’s very funny, and with this phrase you perfectly showed the level of your thinking. And I don’t need to answer anymore, I perfectly understand your position, goodbye.
        1. +1
          29 July 2019 08: 54
          I agree, you need to build at least two aircraft carriers, and preferably 10 (among them it is even easier to "lose" a couple of billion). Yes, and the United States is pushing, they will soon go to war:
    4. +2
      29 July 2019 08: 53
      Quote: Pessimist22
      There are problems with demography in the country, and this is the most pressing issue, and not some super aircraft carriers.

      and tigers don’t report meat !! the production of aircraft carriers drags a chain of related industries, and this includes jobs and infrastructure and, as a result, improved demographics
      1. -1
        29 July 2019 13: 57
        Quote: Tiksi-3
        Quote: Pessimist22
        There are problems with demography in the country, and this is the most pressing issue, and not some super aircraft carriers.

        and tigers don’t report meat !! the production of aircraft carriers drags a chain of related industries, and this includes jobs and infrastructure and, as a result, improved demographics

        well, a couple of thousand new jobs ... and the rest of the country is moving to a hungry rations. Straight North Korean miracle.
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 15: 17
          Quote: Dechterev
          well yes a couple of thousand new jobs

          this is how you counted? adjacent production is not a process of assembling a ship's hull !!
          Quote: Dechterev
          and the rest of the country moves to a hungry rations
          I’ve written for people like you - they don’t report meat to tigers .... but you go hungry and walk, dress only in castoffs (second-hand) YOU don’t have money for an Internet computer-telephone, you probably live in a hut built in 1945, in the military and politicians are to blame ... ..and haven’t you tried to work?
          1. The comment was deleted.
    5. +1
      29 July 2019 10: 44
      Quote: Pessimist22
      It's just a budget sawing

      No, this is not just a budget cut, but the development of technologies that should be introduced into mass production for mass sales. Another thing is that while the Chinese mass-produce and sell, because it is impossible to establish mass production in a small country (by population). The construction of two supercarriers means that the government and the Russian Defense Ministry have a plan to rapidly increase the population of the Russian Federation to 200-250 million people.
    6. 0
      29 July 2019 11: 31
      The aircraft carrier will receive a springboard, two electromagnetic catapults and four aerofinisher.

      The Russian Federation has no experience in building electromagnetic catapults. Faced with this problem, I quickly discovered three things: first, we do not have organizations that produce power electronics of the required power; secondly, it is very likely that lithium-ion batteries are supposed to be used as energy storage. Remember the trouble with "Losharik"? On an aircraft carrier, a catapult requires an order of magnitude or even two times more power. In addition, an aircraft carrier may be shot at - and then it will have a hard time. Nobody is considering other alternatives, although they exist: lobbying, sir. Thirdly, the development of a storage device at the preliminary design stage goes down the stairs of subcontractors, and each time the requirements increase and erode, becoming technically and economically meaningless. However, everything is as usual. One consolation: it seems that there will be no aircraft carrier - either there will not be enough money, or they will decide that the Navy does not need it.
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 15: 07
        There is an opinion that on "Losharik" the self-liquidator of some kind of nasty thing that was taken aboard was pulled! It was not the battery that burned out!
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 17: 59
          Be that as it may, but the experience of operating electric vehicles says that the probability of ignition of such a battery is quite high. And the larger the battery, the lower its reliability - simply because it is built on a modular basis. Say, if the probability of failure of a battery for a given period is 10%, then for a battery ten times larger it is already 65%, and for a twenty-fold greater - 88%. Do I need a battery that is more dangerous than ammunition?
    7. +1
      29 July 2019 11: 46
      Quote: Pessimist22
      In the country, problems with demography and this is the most pressing issue

      how do you personally deal with this problem?
      ps
      before talking about problems, it would be nice to study such a subject as "demography" ....
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 12: 28
        Quote: NEOZ
        how do you personally deal with this problem?

        A camel has two humps, because life is a struggle.
        The problem is the TASK. A task that has no solution. The task includes the goal and the conditions for its achievement. No goal, no task.
        1. -1
          29 July 2019 12: 44
          Quote: iouris
          A camel has two humps, because life is a struggle.

          Ukrainian notes are felt in your comment .... Are you from Ukraine?
      2. 0
        30 July 2019 10: 04
        Curious. To the entire government and to the GDP personally, to begin to struggle with the problems of demography and allow work to be taken home?
      3. +1
        30 July 2019 10: 26
        Quote: NEOZ
        it would be nice to study such a subject as "demography" ....

        Lavrenty Palych, everything is deaf there. Yes The local liberda has already used the unfortunate term to the holes. Some, however, for a change, use the definition of "population decline", yeah. And so on many branches, but not once a day. At first I tried to explain something, but I realized: the horse was not fed. So these "demographers" are funny people, but you can also be bullied if the concentration is exceeded.
        P.S. In the 90s, without knowing it, he took measures to improve the current situation. "Meram" is now 26 years old. laughing
    8. 0
      29 July 2019 14: 23
      Quote: Pessimist22
      This is just a budget cut, I think that in the next 20-25 years, there will be no aircraft carriers in Russia. In the country there are problems with demographics and this is the most pressing issue, and not some super aircraft carriers.

      Well, about the pilby. You do not care what kind of money they saw: allocated for an aircraft carrier or for demographics? If the budget is sawn, then the whole, and not some separate articles. And money for social needs, as a rule, is stolen more fun from us than for the defense industry.
      1. 0
        30 July 2019 10: 06
        Forum users Envy is a Sin. and even more so consider other people's money. The budget is not yours and take it easy!
    9. 0
      30 July 2019 02: 47
      IMHO. but I also think that in the next 10-20 years we will not have aircraft carriers. Of course, the development will be carried out at the level of scale. Models, but that's all. Well, we will not pull it. or rather they won’t. here and theft and pressure of the West and so on ....
    10. Geo
      0
      31 July 2019 01: 41
      Quote: Pessimist22
      . In the country, problems with demography and this is the most pressing issue, and not some super aircraft carriers.

      Do you suggest that engineers throw drawings and tackle the vital issue of demography, since it’s not a tricky thing?
    11. 0
      31 July 2019 03: 57
      Especially if you recall how many “pots” (frigates) were built, then the aircraft carrier obviously will not appear during our lifetime. The overwhelming task for our country in its current state, which is why the topic is completely incorrect, is out of place and time. Destroyers would build .... at least one.
  2. +4
    29 July 2019 05: 53
    Before talking about aircraft carriers, you need to remember that the expression "One in the field is not a warrior" fits them as no one else. These are not TARKs of the pr.1144 type, which are hypothetically capable of performing tasks, if not alone, then with little escort. And the aircraft carrier is the core of the strike group. Which should include cruisers and destroyers URO and PLO, security submarines and support ships. The aircraft carrier itself must have on board not only strike and fighter aircraft, but also AWACS and EW aircraft. This is undoubtedly the American concept of the strike aircraft carrier group, but it is a successful operating model and, of course, you can reinvent the wheel here, but why?
    And then the question immediately arises - which ships of which fleets can we put in this connection? Will we have AWACS aircraft capable of taking off from the deck of an aircraft carrier? And until the answer to this question appears, it is simply pointless to discuss the "need / uselessness" of an aircraft carrier in the Russian Navy.
    1. +1
      29 July 2019 08: 55
      And you also need to add the possibility of basing and repair (and not only the aircraft carrier, but also its support).
      There is essentially neither one nor the other.
    2. +1
      29 July 2019 09: 59
      Quote: Ka-52
      This is undoubtedly the American concept of strike carrier group

      I support it, only from the very beginning it is necessary to understand where and why Russia will send this strike carrier group worth all the armed forces of the country?
  3. +1
    29 July 2019 06: 26
    By the time the real conditions (including financial) for the construction of aircraft carriers, the need will be to build a carrier for sea and air drones. Which is likely to be a robot
  4. +1
    29 July 2019 06: 28
    Yes, of course I would like, only by the time they build it, a lot will change in technology and it will work, we built, built and finally built.
  5. 0
    29 July 2019 06: 47
    All these "projects" are not worth a damn egg. If the Russian Federation were really going to create an aircraft carrier fleet, they would start with a series of light aircraft carriers to cover at least three "free" fleets (in the Black Sea, aircraft carriers are not needed, and you cannot lead them through the straits). We would have made four ships (one training and one each for the Baltic, Pacific and Northern fleets, respectively), 25-30 thousand tons each, with an air group for 12-24 MiG-29K, an AWACS aircraft with AFAR and a couple of MSS helicopters, with nuclear power plant, steam catapults and without any unnecessary garbage like a battery of anti-ship missiles and an air defense battalion on board. It would be much cheaper, easier from a technical point of view, and most importantly, more efficient than starting every year the next mega-project of a super-aircraft carrier, for the creation of which at the moment there are no funds, no technical capabilities, or even an intelligible task.
    1. +5
      29 July 2019 07: 51
      Why an aircraft carrier in the Baltic? There and so all the Air Force and the Air Force of the DCBF and missiles are blocked, but there will not be enough ships for a full-fledged order, and if enough, we won’t scrape together for the rest of the tasks. Voluntarism, some kind.
      1. -1
        29 July 2019 09: 19
        And in the Baltic, for trips to the North Sea and the Atlantic, as well as to strengthen the grouping of the Northern Fleet.
        1. +1
          29 July 2019 16: 51
          Sorry, but how will we break into the Atlantic? What, they are not expecting us from the word at all? And who, whom, in the event of a breakthrough, will throw support, a northerner or a Baltic, and the hunt for both will be announced at the very first hour. Enemies, in the sense of NATO, have the Air Force's striking capabilities an order of magnitude larger and more powerful.
          1. -1
            29 July 2019 17: 25
            You will go to the Atlantic. On long hikes. Distracting to escort NATO forces.
    2. 0
      29 July 2019 10: 01
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      They would make four ships (one training one and one each for the Baltic, Pacific and Northern Fleets, respectively), 25-30 thousand tons each, with an air group for 12-24 MiG-29K, an AWACS aircraft with AFAR and a couple of PSS helicopters, with nuclear power plant, steam catapults and without any extra garbage like a battery of anti-ship missiles and an air defense division on board. It would be much cheaper, easier from a technical point of view and most importantly - more effective than every year

      it's a thousand times more expensive than
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      every year to start the next megaproject of the supercarrier, for the creation of which at the moment there are no funds, no technical capabilities, or even an intelligible task.
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 11: 17
        Not, it is clear that the layout and a couple of dozen sheets of the "project" are really cheaper than a ship.
    3. +2
      29 July 2019 12: 56
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      If in the Russian Federation they were really going to create an aircraft carrier fleet, we would start with a series of light aircraft carriers

      Forgive me, but this is utter stupidity.
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 13: 13
        Arguments?
        1. +3
          29 July 2019 16: 36
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          Arguments?

          Elementary Watson:))))
          First, a ship with a dozen MiG-29Ks is not worth talking about at all - such an "air group" is too weak to solve almost any tasks that can be assigned to AB. So, we can only talk about the upper limit indicated by you, that is, 24 MiG-29K. They - yes, they can already do something. Next you write
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          AWACS aircraft with AFAR and a couple of PSS helicopters, with a nuclear power plant, steam catapults and without any extra garbage like a battery of anti-ship missiles and an air defense division on board

          AWACS and PFAR will do just fine, but oh well. Most importantly - for some reason, for some reason, you killed a ship’s PLO in the bud without giving it at least the appropriate helicopters. And they need at least 12 there (for organizing round-the-clock duty) well - let's say we will manage at a minimum, pieces of 8.
          By the way, "extra garbage" will be very necessary - today there is no one to provide air defense of such an aircraft carrier. Or do you want to place a cruiser on a warrant for him? So our old people have not been at their peak for a long time, except for Peter the Great, but he is alone, and you want 3 operating AV
          So the polymer / redoubt, or at least a considerable amount of the Shell - completely without options.
          In total, in order for the ship to be able to solve at least some tasks, you need an air group in 24 Mig 4 AWACS aircraft, and up to a dozen helicopters, including rescue ones. The Franks tried to tamper with a similar air group in the 42 CT displacement and it turned out frankly bad. I would say that an atomic, two-catapult AB capable of effectively serving such an air group will weigh at least 50 000 tons.
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          It would be much cheaper, easier from a technical point of view

          Not cheaper and not easier. In pursuit of the need to squeeze a bunch of equipment into small sizes, get an increase in value in terms of a ton of weight. That is, a ton of an aircraft carrier in 45 000 tons will cost more than a ton of aircraft carrier in 80 000 tons.
          Thus, even if by some miracle you manage to build an AB within 40 000 t (which is extremely unlikely, or he just can’t normally operate his air group), then the 4 of the ship voiced by you (3 in service + 1 training) will cost the fleet more expensive than two full-fledged ABs in the 80 000 with a displacement, which in their combat capabilities will significantly surpass the 4 of the ship you designed
          1. 0
            29 July 2019 17: 12
            And the aircraft carriers are just needed to cover the cruisers from air attacks. These are not shock monsters like the Ford, but relatively small ships like the Minsk or Novorossiysk. Only without anti-ship missiles and without Yak-38, but with normal aircraft. A strike group order can be composed of aircraft carrier, aircraft carrier, 2-3 BODs, 1-2 multipurpose nuclear submarines, a couple of supply vessels and little things like corvettes. It is this trifle and the submarines that will be engaged in anti-aircraft defense and air defense.
            1. +2
              29 July 2019 17: 52
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              And aircraft carriers are just needed to protect the cruiser from air attacks.

              Well, let's think about how an aircraft carrier designed by you can cover a cruiser from the air, having two, two and a half times fewer planes than the same Ford.
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              A strike group order can be made up of a TAKR, an aircraft carrier, the 2-3 BOD, the 1-2 multipurpose nuclear submarines, a couple of supply vessels and little things like corvettes.

              Will not work.
              There are 2 concepts for the use of carrier-based aviation. The first is American, according to which it solves all problems. The second was in the USSR, that decks should only cover the strike groups of diverse forces, which will deliver the main blow.
              The AMG you designed is too weak for the Soviet version, and the AB air group is too small for the American one.
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              and relatively small ships like "Minsk" or "Novorossiysk". Only without anti-ship missiles and without Yak-38, but with normal aircraft.

              The result was Vikramaditya - up to 20 MiG-29 and 10 helicopters without catapults and nuclear power plants
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              It is this trifle and submarines that will be engaged in PLO and air defense.

              Corvettes have very weak PLO, submarines cannot provide PLO in transition mode - only in deployment mode
              1. -1
                29 July 2019 18: 34
                Actually, the American AUGs will fight with aircraft carriers, that without it, it won’t work out anyway. Here you can fight with a fleet of the Netherlands or Norway.
                And the option is not Soviet or American, but rather British. Covering from enemy strike aircraft and striking at the enemy.
                Nuclear power plant just to supply steam catapults.
                1. +2
                  29 July 2019 18: 44
                  Quote: Zeev Zeev
                  Actually, the American AUGs will fight with aircraft carriers, that without it, it won’t work out anyway.

                  Then the meaning of investing in the fleet is not childish?
                  Quote: Zeev Zeev
                  And the option is not Soviet or American, but rather British. Covering from enemy strike aircraft and striking at the enemy.

                  There is no such option :))) The British profess the American scheme, but do not have the ability to build a fleet that could realize it
                  1. -1
                    29 July 2019 18: 56
                    There is such a party!
                    About the same concept for the French.
                    And this is the only concept your industry and navy is capable of right now. A full-fledged AUG with strike aircraft carriers still cannot be pulled, and on the basis of light ships, you can create a base for development.
                    1. +1
                      29 July 2019 19: 10
                      Quote: Zeev Zeev
                      There is such a party!
                      About the same concept for the French.

                      They have the same thing - the American model, if it is impossible to implement it correctly, that is, in American :)))
                      Quote: Zeev Zeev
                      And this is the only concept your industry and navy is capable of right now.

                      Incorrect :))) In fact, the difference between the nuclear carrier in 40Kt with 2 catopult and 70K with two and a springboard or three is small, but the combat capabilities ...
                      It is even easier for industry to build a large ship than a small one. We have many problems, by the way, because of the desire to push military power into a small displacement
                      And for the Development Base and Kuznetsov is good
                      1. 0
                        30 July 2019 07: 08
                        Your "aircraft carrier" is not suitable as a base for development. And because it is old, and because it is built on a wrong concept. They also tried to cram something unpushable into him.
                      2. 0
                        30 July 2019 11: 19
                        "Kuzma" in its current state is hardly suitable for ....... "development base" and for many other things, alas. And when he comes out of it in a somewhat more suitable for these cases - IMHO, of course, but no one knows.
                        About the need for non-castrated Aviks for the fleet - there’s nothing to argue about. However, there is such a part of speech in the great and mighty ..... But ......
                        But, without an DLRO aircraft, it is needed as ...... (enter the necessary)))) About the work, active, I personally have not heard anything about this issue. If I am mistaken, I will be very glad.
                        Heavy AB - IMHO, however, a mixed air division, based on an extremely small volume. To learn at least just to use THIS normally is already a fiercely non-trivial task, even with the normal operation of the regiment from the coastal airfield we have problems above the roof. With one exemplary "unit")))), we can handle it, but then ...
                        Well, a bunch of questions are just ...... everyday, so to speak ... ... Starting from Tosho, how we are building everything now, alas, and how we work with subcontractors, and ... ... that under AUG we simply don’t have a base. As it was not yet in the Union .....
                        Therefore, I would venture to say (purely objectively)))) that in real life all these games with crowds of projects of "promising aircraft carriers" are nothing more than an IDB of respectable offices, for various reasons not willing / unable to work ...
              2. val
                0
                6 August 2019 22: 48
                Corvettes have very weak PLO, submarines cannot provide PLO in transition mode - only in deployment mode ....
                1. val
                  0
                  6 August 2019 23: 02
                    Shuttle by two Los. Revealed approximately in 1988-9. Los alternate distant PLO, pair Orion with Adak. They are also repeaters for SOSUS. Opened by the Pacific Fleet reconnaissance, there was an RTM and two RZK. Supervised by Veruzhsky from the intelligence department. I learned from our intelligence officer of the KVF Vova Chumachenko, he gave extracts to read.
        2. 0
          1 August 2019 15: 49
          Aircraft carrier must be large or none.
  6. +5
    29 July 2019 06: 52
    Why do Russia need two supercarriers?

    While we are talking about two "models" produced by "Kruzhok Skillful Pens" at pioneer house design bureau
    1. -5
      29 July 2019 08: 57
      Any design of such an object always goes through the model stage.
      Even in the USA.
      The irony about the circle of pioneers is not appropriate.
      1. +4
        29 July 2019 09: 09
        Even in the USA.
        The irony about the circle of pioneers is not appropriate.
        Reply

        All over the world, even with the USA, they have been making computer 3-D models of everything that they want for quite some time. And products made from papier-mâché or like know-how from colored foam are the level of the Palace of Pioneers.
  7. +1
    29 July 2019 07: 28
    I personally like the Manatee model more, here the scale is bigger and the main thing is painting is much better, compare yourself -


    So the Nevsky Design Bureau definitely makes more high-quality models
    1. +4
      29 July 2019 07: 47
      They would have entered the market of stand modeling, then "Zvezda" would have started doing something new besides the pansewaffe. fumbled on other sites, damn yes such models, yes prefabs for sale, yes reasonable money I would immediately receive a well-deserved pension, i.e. resignation.
    2. +7
      29 July 2019 08: 40
      The Nevsky Design Bureau took the Soviet model from the museum and scraped the island. There are even old ZRAKs left there, which haven’t been produced for 15 years already, and air defense mines for the complex that died in 90’s, without having been born.


      Therefore, Nevsky cheated using the SOVIET ASSESSMENT, and the Krylovtsy did the model from scratch.
    3. 0
      1 August 2019 15: 51
      One thing is not clear. If catapults are planned on such an AB, then why the springboard? Is this if the catapult breaks?
  8. +3
    29 July 2019 07: 40
    And the manufacturers of electromagnetic catapults and drill planes (in the trend of import substitution) are already aware of what they have to do, or we will manage with their models.
  9. 0
    29 July 2019 08: 55
    Quote: Ka-52
    to begin to regulate the distribution of income will have to return to the old, socialist system of state economic policy.

    Is it again in the lines to stand for food?
    No, thanks.
  10. 0
    29 July 2019 08: 58
    We must not refuse, but build military bases in other countries. Then aircraft carriers will be needed as a technological product.
  11. +1
    29 July 2019 09: 05
    You need to have 2 aircraft carriers. But their use at the moment is only possible against backward countries that do not have high-precision modern long-range anti-ship weapons. Take Syria, for example. If the terrorists seized access to the sea, then Russia would not be able to deploy its military base on the coast, it would be necessary to first recapture the bridgehead. And this is most conveniently done by strikes from aircraft carriers located near the coast. And secondly, the construction of aircraft carriers is a good lesson and experience for industry, it gives an impetus to industry, the development of technology, etc.
    You just need to stop stealing up to 70% of the state budget to the corrupt elite of power, the oligarchs, plant directors and other bloodsuckers, and then there is money for everything.
    And then the director of UVZ has money for a mansion on the ruble with personal chefs and an elevator for lifting food from the kitchen to the dining room, but the state does not have money for new equipment. Something is clearly wrong here.
    1. 0
      29 July 2019 10: 05
      Quote: Esaul
      Take Syria, for example. If the terrorists seized access to the sea, then Russia would not be able to deploy its military base on the coast, it would be necessary to first recapture the bridgehead.

      in this situation it would not be necessary to conquer the bridgehead, but it would be possible to not meddle there with a clear conscience
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 12: 56
        !!!
        Migratory birds fly
        In the autumn, they gave blue
        They fly to hot countries
        And I stay with you.
        And I stay with you
        Native land forever
        I don’t need the Turkish coast,
        And I do not need Africa.

        I’ve seen a lot of countries,
        Walking with a rifle in hand
        And there was no sadder
        Than to be far from you.
        A lot of thoughts I changed my mind
        With friends in the far land
        And there was no greater debt
        How to fulfill your will.
        Let me drown in swamps
        Let me freeze on ice
        But if you tell me again
        I will pass all this again.
        Desires and hopes
        I have connected forever with you
        With your harsh and clear
        With your enviable fate.

        Migratory birds fly
        Search for the past summer
        They fly to hot countries
        I don’t want to fly away
        And I stay with you
        My dear side
        I do not need someone else's sun,
        Another's land is not needed.
  12. +4
    29 July 2019 09: 10
    Again, a reason for cutting. A masterpiece of idiocy. Two means nothing. One will go to repair and that's it. The Northern Fleet without an aircraft carrier, but with all the "necessary" infrastructure. At least 4 aircraft carriers! BUT! To begin with, the state must begin to take care of its citizens in accordance with the Constitution. First, stop the robbery of natural resources by gangs and gangs, but only who will do this, if the people in power for whom their own pocket is more expensive, and the country is not the Motherland ... And the people are dark, inert and stupid. So there will be two aircraft carriers, and gasoline for 100 rubles, and free 3 classes, and clinics and childbirth for money.
  13. 0
    29 July 2019 09: 24
    If you need an aircraft carrier - the platform for him must be cut on the basis of a conventional tanker, and the control center - a separate small boat. If the Americans can gash a landing support vessel based on an old cargo ship, why can't the same be done with a healthy tanker?
  14. 0
    29 July 2019 09: 30
    Common thoughts about the redistribution of income in the state were voiced here. Sounded from an average entrepreneur as he introduced himself. And then the liberal-minded users immediately tried to scare him with the fact that most of the entrepreneurs would turn into ordinary workers in such an attempt. Blatant lie. Take the statistics on capital outflow from Russia. The sums are measured in tens, or even hundreds of billions of greenery, how many fleets have flown through your fingers and not only fleets. And what did small and medium-sized businesses do that work tirelessly to survive ...? This was by no means done by large banks and corporations owned by "fat cats". There should not be in a developing country or in any other country, very rich people who can radically influence politics and financial flows ... Name the billionaires from Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France, other countries with a high standard of living
    1. +1
      29 July 2019 10: 12
      Quote: Jeremiah
      Name billionaires from Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France, other countries with a high standard of living
      I support your pathos, but you are mistaken, in all these countries all wealth is also in the hands of American oligarchs. it's just that the local slaves are fed better by the owners .... 95 percent of the world's property is controlled by only one company vanguard, compared to the members of the committee of 300, all our "oligarchs" are just beggars, and by the way, domestic oligarchs are constantly cleaned out in favor of the members of the committee of 300, recently Deripaska deprived of Rusal,
      1. -1
        29 July 2019 10: 35
        All this is unambiguously clear and visible, the system and the single plan and the current lash of the butt cannot be beaten, and where these lard are flowing is also understandable ... I just want the local slaves to have more food and fewer links to this board of the world collective farm, which is also supposedly voluntary ...
    2. +3
      29 July 2019 11: 01
      Quote: Jeremiah
      Take the statistics of capital outflow from Russia. Amounts are measured in tens, or even hundreds of billions of greenery, how many fleets through your fingers have flowed, and not only fleets.

      Even if the capital would not have been exported and remained in Russia, it just cannot be taken like that and allowed to build the fleet. This money is loved on the bank accounts and they belong to private individuals. But the bank can already give out this money as loans to other private individuals. The state can extract this money only by pairing any treasury obligations to the bank.

      Quote: Jeremiah
      Name billionaires from Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France, other countries with a high standard of living

      Will the Rothschilds fit?
      1. -1
        29 July 2019 11: 41
        The Rothschilds?)))) Recognized and correct ...
    3. 0
      30 July 2019 11: 09
      "There should not be in a developing country, and in any other country, very rich people who can radically influence politics and financial flows ..."

      "Matvienko demanded not to allow discrimination of rich people in Russia.
      On July 25, 2019, the speaker (chairman) of the Federation Council of Russia, Valentina Matvienko, at a press conference on the results of the work of the upper house of parliament for the past session, stated that people with high incomes should not to be discriminated against, so you should not prevent them from entering politics ....
      Matvienko believes that the problem of the gigantic incomes of Russian senators, deputies and officials is "exaggerated." She recalled that, for example, only 16 deputies of the Russian State Duma were included in the rating, which is 4% of the total. "
      “It should be recalled that according to Forbes, the first place was taken by the deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Vladimir region Pavel Antov, vice president of the Vladimirsky Standard company. In 2018 he earned 9,97 billion rubles. The second place was taken by the deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Chelyabinsk region Konstantin Strukov, President of Yuzhuralzoloto, whose income in 2018 amounted to 4,5 billion rubles.

      The third place in the rating belongs to the deputy of the Belgorod Regional Duma, Sergei Gusev, who owns the Slavyanka confectionery factory. In 2018, he earned 2,84 billion rubles. On the fourth place is a member of the Federation Council of Russia, co-owner of one of the largest fishing enterprises in Kamchatka "Okeanrybflot", Valery Ponomarev. In 2018, he earned 2,4 billion rubles. The fifth place was taken by the deputy of the State Duma of Russia Grigory Anikeev. In 2018, he earned 2,3 billion rubles. This is exactly what the top five of the mentioned rating looks like. "
      Well, a few quotes from Mrs. Matvienko ...
      You scale this problem very much and in this way instill in people hatred of rich people, this is wrong, this should not be done.
      This is not a mass phenomenon, not a massive seizure of legislative bodies of power by rich people.
      We do not appoint deputies, they are elected by the population.
      I do not think that they elect them only because they have large incomes. I think that some voters elect such people because they see them as successful people, in the hope that they will be able to make a rich country and citizens in person.
      Let's just say that Ms. Matvienko has been delivering to fellow citizens for a long time)))), but at the same time she is a "speaker (chairman) of the Federation Council of Russia" .....
  15. +1
    29 July 2019 09: 49
    It’s sad that these are all models so far ... but there is no prospect, there is no prospect for this pseudo-economic device, at least in the next 35-40 years ... ((
  16. Quote: Ka-52
    need to deal with income distribution

    to begin to regulate the distribution of income will have to return to the old, socialist system of state economic policy. Are millions of entrepreneurs ready to become not ordinary businessmen (of any level), but ordinary workers and women workers? I doubt very much that they will support you.
    first you need to solve completely different problems

    Unfortunately, it is not possible to put the country's defense capability secondarily. In the conditions of the modern world, it may turn out that until the time and money appear on it, you simply can not survive

    ***
    Millions of "entrepreneurs" have become entrepreneurs because they have nowhere to work.
    And the policy of strangling small business continues from year to year: the state and the Duma issue such laws that regulation is turned into lawlessness, and the Duma's half-yearly reception of 350 laws makes entrepreneurship unbearable for 90% of "entrepreneurs."
    Any industry where the state breaks in with its regulation begins to die, and the final product (service, product) of the industry begins to rise in price.
    Everywhere where the state entered with regulation, rules, excise taxes, taxes and other benefits for business and the people, destruction and appreciation from above occurred if the market did it.
    1. 0
      29 July 2019 12: 36
      USSR Air Force lieutenant colonel in reserve (Yefim) Today, 10:23
      Any industry where the state breaks in with its regulation begins to die, and the final product (service, product) of the industry begins to rise in price.
      Everywhere where the state entered with regulation, rules, excise taxes, taxes and other benefits for business and the people, destruction and appreciation from above occurred if the market did it.

      umm .... these words have more emotion than meaning. Because the nationalization of large corporations is quite a worldwide practice. Market price regulation is also a global practice, especially in times of crisis. This is done by ALL large, economically developed countries.
      Everywhere where the state entered with regulation, rules, excise taxes, taxes and other benefits for business and the people, destruction and appreciation from above occurred if the market did it.

      in fact, there are three main problems for the market, IMHO: "expensive" money, outdated technologies and the inertia of the entrepreneurs themselves. Taxes and excise taxes, of course, is not an easy cargo, but you are reasoning strangely - on the one hand, you are advocating a reduction in the tax burden, and on the other hand, you are complaining about the low social security of citizens (carried out just from these very excise taxes and taxes). You will somehow decide what is more important - to have a low burden or to forget about social programs for the population.
      1. -1
        30 July 2019 13: 01
        I read the statements of this beauty .... She defends hers)) And her son, her young business talent ... on her mother’s stolen money
  17. +1
    29 July 2019 10: 38
    I'll tell you this: to take control of the Nikolaev shipyards, you first need to take Ishmael.
  18. 0
    29 July 2019 10: 54
    Quote: Ka-52
    There is a classical model of socialism, with state management of the economy. In which the state is fully the beneficiary of any economic activity and it also distributes all income.

    This is a model of socialism according to Khrushchev. And there was the Stalin version. Private owners and cooperatives existed quite well. I used to read my grandfather's work book. So after the war until 53, he worked in the artel. This is already under Khrushchev, he moved to a state enterprise where he worked until his retirement.
    1. 0
      29 July 2019 11: 11
      US multinationals do not need artels.
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 11: 25
        Controversial statement. Large companies around the world gobble up small ones. Here in our city Magnit with Pyaterochka almost ate small shopkeepers. On the other hand, corporations themselves hire small ones for some sort of outsourcing (for example, Tricolor and its dealers-installers-servicemen), and there are also a bunch of directions where there are a lot of crumbs, and gimor dofig, there are still small private enterprises and unions working there,
  19. +3
    29 July 2019 11: 09
    These articles about aircraft carriers remind me of Ukrainian hysteria about wet dreams.
    THERE WILL NOT BE ANY AIRCRAFT
    at least 5-6 years, even design work to start on them makes no sense
    for economic reasons. Take the example from the banana republics. They do not dream about aircraft carriers.
    It's time to admit that we have now become the same banana republic, the only difference is what else
    not all the legacy of the USSR was stolen. So why compare and discuss this nonsense?
    In a situation where we cut basic needs for armored vehicles and aircraft,
    when we have been building a lousy corvette for many years, what kind of aircraft carriers can we talk about?
    People promoting this topic are unprincipled demagogues!
    better discuss why the Russian Guard has tanks and strike aircraft, why there are already 340 thousand of them.
  20. +1
    29 July 2019 11: 16
    Quote: Tiksi-3
    and tigers don’t report meat !! aircraft carrier production pulls a chain of related industries

    it does not pull anything. look at the suppliers of the construction of the Crimean bridge
    Are there many of ours? Turks, Poland, Western Europe, China, etc.
    Finally, if we do not even produce can openers and sockets, why do we suddenly become able to make aircraft carriers? Or do you propose in the budget of Avik to lay the development of all sectors?
    1. 0
      29 July 2019 11: 43
      there are a lot of ours

      Many general and all contractors, suppliers are also our metal, for example, NTZM supplies.
      Honestly, I didn’t find Europeans among large ones. Share information?
    2. 0
      29 July 2019 13: 01
      look at the suppliers of the construction of the Crimean bridge
      Are there many of ours? Turks, Poland, Western Europe, China, etc. Finally, if we do not even produce can openers and sockets, why do we suddenly become able to make aircraft carriers?

      Based on your canning and rosette theory, the question then becomes, how could our design bureaus design all the systems that have come into service over the past 5-6 years? :)) just do not talk about the Soviet backlogs, pzhl.
      1. +1
        29 July 2019 14: 06
        Quote: Ka-52
        all systems that have come into service over the past 5-6 years?

        Do you understand the difference in scale between, for example, installing a Buk and an aircraft carrier?
        Yes, one metal is needed more than a few tank divisions.
        and most of these volumes are entirely unique R&D.
        look how long the T50 is debugging. flies for more than 16 years, and the full version still does not go to the troops. Now imagine that Avik is hundreds of different projects of similar complexity.
        The Americans made their name - a more or less finished type of Avik, based on more than 40 created projects, operating about 200 units, including many years of combat, having a powerful shipbuilding industry. And then, the United States built the first nimtsy 7 years.
        We, given the complete unpreparedness for the construction of even the French Mistral, it will take a sea of ​​resources and time only to prepare shipyards, and in addition, the industry is simply unable to give the right amount of parts quickly and construction will take 11-12 years according to the most conservative estimates.
        And if we take into account that our industry is still not able to give a significant part of the nomenclature of the right quality and does not have the necessary experience in key elements, we can safely double the construction period, i.e. 20 years. And I also suggested that the budget is not being cut, all funds are received in advance, no sanctions and the ship and perfect conservation is kept all the time.
        Now tell me who needs a ship that was designed for several years and was still built for 20 years, i.e.
        reflecting to a large extent technologies of 25 years ago, and these technologies are not the best.
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 18: 28
          Quote: yehat
          more than 16 years flies, and the full version still does not go to troops.

          I really didn’t know that 2010 years passed from 2019 to 16
          Quote: yehat
          And then, the United States built the first nimtsy 7 years.

          Well, we've been taking 12 for years. Well then?
          Quote: yehat
          We, given the complete unpreparedness for the construction of even the French Mistral

          For which we immediately and without problems made the stern
          Quote: yehat
          And if we take into account that our industry is still not able to give a significant part of the range of the required quality and does not have the necessary experience in key elements

          On the contrary, today Russia has mastered ALL of the key structural elements of an aircraft carrier, with the exception of catapults. High-power nuclear reactors, aerofinishers, take-off and landing control systems, special coating of decks ... There is everything.
          Quote: yehat
          Now tell me who needs a ship that was designed for several years and still built for 20 years

          USA.built their Nimits with 1968 g, 50 years have passed, and they are still the basis of the U.S. Navy
  21. 0
    29 July 2019 11: 40
    There will never be an aircraft carrier in Russia, see how much a 5-generation aircraft is being tortured. He will reach the series for 10 times already, which aircraft carrier can be talked about. Of course, under the veil of an aircraft carrier, many millionaires will become billionaires, and that’s all over.
    1. 0
      29 July 2019 13: 03
      see how much 5 generation aircraft is being tortured.

      so how much?
    2. +3
      29 July 2019 13: 09
      Quote: Plague Doctor
      There will never be an aircraft carrier in Russia, see how many 5 generation aircraft are being tortured.

      The Su-57 has been "tortured" since 2001, when the program for its creation began. After 9 years, the pre-production model made its first flight. In the United States, this cycle took 11 years for the F-22 - the competition was opened in 1986, the first pre-production prototype flew in 1997. The first serial Raptor entered the army after another 6 years, that is, in 2003, that is, from the beginning works and 17 years have passed before the first "swallow". Work on the F-35 began in 1995 at the latest, and has not been completed to this day.
      Our PAK FA takes an intermediate time between the F-22 and 35, but you need to understand that the Su-57 is much more complicated than the "twenty-second" - it has both a side-looking radar and an OLS. So in general we can say that in the development of the 5th generation we are going even faster than the USA
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 13: 20
        And we have Israel and do not know that the work on the F-35 has not yet been completed. And in Syria they do not know, and in Iraq. And in Iran, judging by the statements of the Arab press, they also don’t know feel
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 14: 17
          They know, and therefore use it to a limited extent, to build experience. Just like we are Su-Xnumx in Syria
          1. 0
            29 July 2019 17: 21
            Very limited hits on an unlimited number of targets;)
            1. 0
              29 July 2019 18: 34
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              Very limited hits on an unlimited number of targets;)

              They forgot to add "practically in polygon conditions close to combat".
              Excuse me, what do you want to prove? That the F-35 program has been implemented and that the aircraft are combat-ready? Here with you their creator, the United States does not agree, why are you trying to be holier than the Pope? We have such a stage in the creation of an aircraft, when it is transferred in a limited batch to the GLITs or somewhere else, so that the best pros of the country will "twist" it, test it properly, then draw up combat manuals on it and, along the way, reveal all childhood diseases. So now both the F-35 and the Su-57 are at this stage, only the F-35 began to be created 6 years earlier than the Su-57.
              1. 0
                29 July 2019 18: 44
                I do not know what the Americans want from the F-35, but in Israel this plane showed itself perfectly, including in the conditions of the "unified air defense system" created by Russian specialists in Syria.
  22. +1
    29 July 2019 11: 46
    "The very need for an aircraft carrier for a major power with access to the sea is quite obvious." - Not at all obvious! All the more so for a power that cannot master its own coastal regions as it should. Moreover, this type of ships (aircraft carrier), which from the main strike force of the Navy (in 1945) turned into an auxiliary one (to scare the Papuans without air defense), and into a carefully guarded object. We pull the owl on the globe, we pull! More precisely, we are stretching the Russian budget for manatees! We need "Leaders", submarines with anaerobics and BTK. To cover ground airfields and naval bases deployed "on distant shores" and to protect communications. If somewhere it is impossible to create a naval base in a pair with an air base, there is nothing to do there, we are not expected there.
    1. +1
      29 July 2019 11: 56
      It would be better if instead of an aircraft carrier they would be engaged in the construction of the Northern Sea Route - from bases to the ship's crew
      and the creation of a sane group of fishing ships and their floating bases in the northern seas.
    2. -1
      29 July 2019 12: 29
      !!!. Aircraft carriers are offensive weapons. Serve to intimidate the Papuans. More specifically, to enrich the oligarchs. Bomb the pipeline from Qatar to Europe through Syria. And what do grandmother-pensioners get from this? It is a disgrace to distribute humanitarian aid to warring loafers and will not take care of its people. They would give out free buckwheat to flood victims, but no wait a penny. And we have a defense with what. One submarine can leave alone memories from an aircraft carrier group.
    3. +1
      29 July 2019 13: 25
      Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, the DPRK ... Everyone seemed to have air defense, and help from the USSR and the PRC, and all the same, aircraft carrier aviation frolic quite there.
      1. 0
        29 July 2019 15: 03
        Why didn’t she frolic over the Union, this enemy aviation? Nobody frolic over the Warsaw Pact countries either. If aircraft jacks rule, why are we still alive?
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 17: 20
          Because no one was going to conquer either the USSR or the Warsaw bloc.
          1. 0
            30 July 2019 09: 10
            Tell this to the authors of "Dropshot" and a dozen more plans to "atomize the USSR".
            1. -1
              30 July 2019 11: 23
              War plans are not proof of a desire to take over the country. The USSR was going to reach the English Channel in a week.
              1. 0
                30 July 2019 13: 21
                You are not looking for Indians there, dear "partner". Old bikes a la Novodvorskaya are not rolled here. Ask to update the manual.
                1. 0
                  30 July 2019 13: 27
                  I do not quite understand the allegory about the Indians, but what does the tales and the late woman Lera all have to do with it? Nobody is going to capture Russia, it makes no sense. It is cheaper to give a residence permit to another oligarch and get direct access to Russian resources for ridiculous money.
                  1. 0
                    30 July 2019 13: 51
                    Let me explain: about the Indians, this is about how first they swallow and digest, and then crocodiles, tears, regrets and "compensation" to the surviving relict aborigines. And it would be ugly to ride the oligarchs, because it was about a military confrontation. However, here is your truth, they lost outright according to K. Simonov, lost to those who: "... where not with swords, there with trade; where not with trade, there with a cross."
                    1. 0
                      30 July 2019 13: 55
                      Military confrontation involves two sides. One side had many bombers, the other many tanks. Based on the availability of these funds, military plans were created. At both sides.
  23. +1
    29 July 2019 12: 04
    The truth is old as the world. "If you want to ruin the country - give it one aircraft carrier." GIFT already built and running costs will leave "no pants" on the population of this country. Who are you going to fight with? To carry humanitarian aid to Syria? So it would be better in the Amur region to attend to the elimination of a national catastrophe.
  24. 0
    29 July 2019 12: 04
    Terrible "Manatee". Why does Russia need two supercarriers?

    In the topic title, the question is posed incorrectly.
    It will be more correct to ask - Why do Russia need two models of an aircraft carrier?
    You might think they will really be built.
  25. 0
    29 July 2019 12: 22
    ".... but it's not strange, it's not clear what, but a completely combat-ready ship, which can be confidently attributed to a certain class ..." The author absolutely disagrees with you on this point, Kuznetsov was created for specific tasks and does it well and not his guilt that he stood idle for a long time, that the pilots of the air group had little experience ...
    In general, yes, a country with claims to protect its interests anywhere in the world should have aircraft carriers and not 2 but at least 4, optimally 5-6.
    As for the operational squadron of the Russian Navy, in my opinion, this is quite feasible now:
    1. "Kuznetsov", "Peter the Great", "Marshal Ustinov" - the first task force;
    2. 3 BOD + 3-4 frigates second operational group PLO;
    3. 3-4 BDK + 2 destroyers of the 956th project — the third operational group;
    4. supply group;
    5. 5-7 nuclear submarines of different classes - the fourth operational group
    All together, an operational squadron capable of much ...
    R.S. Well, depending on the theater of the proposed actions, the ship’s composition can naturally change ...
  26. +1
    29 July 2019 12: 29
    Cuba is the best aircraft carrier.
  27. +2
    29 July 2019 12: 29
    The presentation of "Manatee" took place in the framework of the St. Petersburg International Naval Show. It was just that the "salon" assumed a demonstration of some "great project". So they gave it out. And then everything will go on as usual, about the “Manatee” will slowly be forgotten. Lord, if only the already adopted programs (albeit 5 years late) were implemented!
    1. +1
      29 July 2019 15: 05
      Salon Anna Pavlovna Sherer (Leo Tolstoy "War and Peace", volume 1).
  28. +2
    29 July 2019 12: 52
    Quote: Pessimist22
    Kim puts in place with a significantly smaller arsenal.

    The fact is that the Anglo-Saxons are well aware of the deeply immoral state of the modern Russian elite, including the ruling one. The fifth column in Russia has long become the country's main selling force. And this is not some kind of Navalny or Gudkov, these are the forces at the helm of the country's economy and firmly standing for the interests of international banking capital and corporations. Any "patriotic" inclinations of individual statesmen, if it will pose a clear threat to their interests, will be immediately suppressed.
    In principle, this can be clearly seen in the fact that our Foreign Ministry is in a state of constant "deep regret" ... Sometimes thoughts creep in that our diplomats are expressing regret not about the arrogant aggressive position of some countries, but that some of the actions of their native country, Russia " make "these impudent people worry once again.
  29. 0
    29 July 2019 13: 24
    Quote: Cyrus
    ".... but it's not strange, it's not clear what, but a completely combat-ready ship, which can be confidently attributed to a certain class ..." The author absolutely disagrees with you on this point, Kuznetsov was created for specific tasks and does it well and not his guilt that he stood idle for a long time, that the pilots of the air group had little experience ...
    In general, yes, a country with claims to protect its interests anywhere in the world should have aircraft carriers and not 2 but at least 4, optimally 5-6.
    As for the operational squadron of the Russian Navy, in my opinion, this is quite feasible now:
    1. "Kuznetsov", "Peter the Great", "Marshal Ustinov" - the first task force;
    2. 3 BOD + 3-4 frigates second operational group PLO;
    3. 3-4 BDK + 2 destroyers of the 956th project — the third operational group;
    4. supply group;
    5. 5-7 nuclear submarines of different classes - the fourth operational group
    All together, an operational squadron capable of much ...
    R.S. Well, depending on the theater of the proposed actions, the ship’s composition can naturally change ...

    Ours would be calves ... How smart bed strategists are. Let’s say they dug up the mountains of gold, not a lot of money, they built palaces for seniors, provided drugs, stopped asking for money on TV to help sick children, etc. And where to build it? In Nikolaev? Falling away. In Severodvinsk? The submarine is loaded to the limit. In the Big Stone? The production is also not adjusted. In St. Petersburg? It is necessary to deepen the Neva. Where else??? As Chapay used to say
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. +1
    29 July 2019 13: 36
    Idiocy! We don’t need them, even for free! Where to apply them ???!
  32. +1
    29 July 2019 13: 39
    shipyards are needed, and not another plywood under glass, where 100500 shipyard projects are better for telling me who will build it ???
  33. The comment was deleted.
  34. +1
    29 July 2019 14: 34
    Submarines are our everything, not virtual super aircraft carriers. I look at the photos of officials and see a budget cut in my eyes, as a child I didn’t play enough models!
  35. +3
    29 July 2019 15: 36
    Pride overwhelms when you read such articles. Mostly, there are models. And aircraft carriers, of course, are not for the raw material power of the third world, which has not only economy, but also personnel. We should admire the number of oligarchs, officials, managers, presidential guards and other worthy people. The word laborer has disappeared from the vocabulary. There are no more scientists, engineers, skilled workers. So, we will continue to read fairy tales. And our rulers will continue to take energetic measures to rapidly die out the country's population.
  36. +1
    29 July 2019 15: 36
    And one is not needed.
  37. +3
    29 July 2019 16: 32
    It is unclear to whom besides the author, the necessity of building aircraft carriers is OBVIOUS
  38. +1
    29 July 2019 16: 41
    Quote: Zeev Zeev
    Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, the DPRK ... Everyone seemed to have air defense, and help from the USSR and the PRC, and all the same, aircraft carrier aviation frolic quite there.

    DPRK and Vietnam did not have air defense there. And when she appeared, they no longer frolic
    Libya - there was a passage yard as it is now in Syria
    Iraq - there was air defense, but its suppression from an aircraft carrier and 7 ground bases was carefully planned
    so that all of these options do not prove the strength of the carrier groups.
    Their main problem is flight restrictions and limited grouping.
    1. +1
      29 July 2019 17: 27
      Quote: yehat
      Their main problem is flight restrictions and limited grouping.

      I would add - vulnerability. hi
  39. +3
    29 July 2019 17: 06
    Suppose (2 times) there is where to build, what to build on, where to base and (hooray !!!) there is decent logistics. Another question, for what? The Black Sea and the Baltic are not for aircraft carriers, in one is the unsinkable aircraft carrier - the Crimea submarine, the other is a shallow puddle, surrounded on all sides by enemy BRAVs and the Air Force. Pacific and trunk oceans? Are we there that the very first or the smartest will be? (again, the question of powerful enemy air groups) Hikes to an aircraft carrier with an escort to Mauritius, why is this what we are looking for there. Forces to capture the enemy nuclear submarines, that with 2, that with 10 aircraft carriers, for the Russian Navy, an unattainable dream. But the presence of the most powerful, multi-purpose air force in all directions, with many bases, is YES, it is necessary.
  40. +1
    29 July 2019 17: 06
    I think that our aircraft carriers will be created for a long time only in shipbuilding circles. Breaking, not building.
  41. +2
    29 July 2019 17: 24
    Warriors need to restrain their appetite! Aircraft carriers are useless for defense, and for "colonial" wars, Russia is simply not needed. Or does the MO have a different opinion? hi
  42. +1
    29 July 2019 18: 47
    What for? * Patriots * to please .. In fact, not a single one will ..
    1. -1
      29 July 2019 19: 23
      You can build one, but only at the expense of the complete impoverishment of the people. So it will be.

      PS Don't get it wrong. I, apparently, also a patriot. It only hurts to watch when a pack of villains owns 99% of the assets of the country in which I was born, and at the same time does not want to take into account the fact that people cannot eat crumbs that have accidentally fallen from the table of "masters".
  43. AAK
    -1
    29 July 2019 20: 00
    The geopolitical features and the list of problems needed to solve were practically the same for the Russian Empire, for the USSR, that for the current Russian Federation, and similar problems should be solved by similar methods and similar tools. The idea of ​​a full-fledged aircraft carrier was considered back in the Republic of Ingushetia (then there was a slightly different term - "airplane"), then in the late USSR, it is being considered now. The only question is in the choice of the concept, general design and structure of the aircraft fleet. The restoration of the possibility of building large surface ships in the Russian Federation is proceeding, albeit slowly, but gradually: corvette - frigate - hereinafter "Super Gorshkov" - "Leader" / "Avalanche" - aircraft carrier, with the beginning of construction - 2029-2030, not earlier
  44. 0
    29 July 2019 20: 32
    I believe that there should be as many modern projects of promising aircraft carriers as possible. Paper can withstand everything, especially the production of design documentation on paper should be slightly lower than the production of the aircraft carrier itself, so there is no point in limiting the displacement of aircraft carriers to 100 thousand tons, and moving immediately to 250 - 350 thousand tons. If the strength of ordinary paper is already not enough for such large projects, then you can switch to cardboard or thick cardboard. And it is desirable that the project be accompanied by a large-scale model of plywood and polystyrene, so to speak, for clarity, so as not to delve into the technical details of the "paper" part of the project - after all, it is easier to calculate model airplanes on a model than to look for it in project documentation on paper.
    Particularly interesting and promising projects can be equipped with Chinese radio control with electric motors and shown in swimming pools and closed reservoirs, demonstrating the impact power of the project.
  45. -1
    30 July 2019 08: 55
    I propose to build an aircraft carrier and give it to Ukraine! This will kill them completely. They will not sell it because of show-offs.
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 09: 13
      Will be handed over for scrap. Immediately. Especially the "wrong" Moscow ship.
  46. -1
    30 July 2019 10: 07
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    U.S. built their Nimits since 1968

    The United States built Nimits since 68, they reflected technology for about 65 years. commissioned the first in 1975
    Now the Nimits have already begun to decommission, around 2015.
    in total, they served at the "level" 2015-75 = 40 years on average for 1 car with an average lag of 8 years from the current "level" of technology at the time of launch.
    what will be in our most rainbow dreams?
    25 years of construction on technologies of about 10-15 years ago, i.e. we are now laying a lag of 40 years (!!!). Further, operation. Given the harsh climate in the theater suitable for AUG (Murmansk, Vladivostok), they will last a maximum of 30 years, and if they do not fix the ground infrastructure in time, then even less by 10 years.
    Total - we need it SUCH ??? operation 20 years obsolete for 40 years at the time of launching the ship?
    This is 3 times worse economically than in the USA, and still not counting the costs of a small batch and others.
    And this is the most rainbow-colored option, and if you take into account, as usual, everything is much darker.
    Are we so mega rich ???
  47. 0
    30 July 2019 10: 16
    Quote: Popov Konstantin Ivanovich
    But the presence of the most powerful, multi-purpose air force in all directions, with many bases, is YES, it is necessary.

    the power of the fleet should not be underestimated. Read Tirpitz, how in Germany the idea of ​​the fleet was breaking down as something unnecessary.
    Aviation - yes, because of our distances, the highest priority is the military after the Strategic Rocket Forces.
    But others are needed. For example, I would really like our fleet to squeeze back what the Norwegians took away thanks to Dimon. To finally, the fishermen began to catch a lot and sell to our market.
    In order for the Northern Sea Route to become more effective, for a powerful hub of the merchant fleet, protected by our combat forces in the Mediterranean, to appear in the Crimea.
    1. +1
      30 July 2019 10: 38
      Quote: yehat
      Crimea, a powerful hub of the merchant fleet, protected by our combat in the Mediterranean, appeared.

      What will we trade with? Oil and gas are piped, the Chinese take the forest by rail directly from the root. Wheat is loaded through the Sea of ​​Azov.
      Quote: yehat
      To finally, the fishermen began to catch a lot and sell to our market.

      In order for fishermen to sell to our market, conditions must be created in our market. Remember in a year ago a man from Murmansk cheated and made his way to a direct line to Putin? Here it is just about this ...
      And also, that year, in the Far East, the fish were thrown into the garbage dumps, how many, remember? It seems to me that they will catch more only under the escort of the navy, and surrender under duress at fixed prices. No other way. Judge for yourself: how much can afford to buy fish, the same nurse with a sn in 12-15 thousand rubles?
      Quote: yehat
      To make the Northern Sea Route more effective

      ... we have to wait for global warming laughing
      Joking as a joke, but even the Chinese, in spite of our appeals, are not in a hurry to cooperate in this direction.
  48. 0
    30 July 2019 10: 18
    Quote: Valter1364
    You can build one, but only due to the complete impoverishment of the people

    you can start building, but history has shown that such ships are never commissioned.
  49. +1
    30 July 2019 10: 43
    Quote: Klaus
    the same nurse with a sn in 12-15 thousand rubles?

    a can of sprat from the Black Sea costs 120 rubles and 15 in stores.
    a similar difference is being made with other fish even now. If you fine-tune the marketing of fish like kefir, you can make it available to everyone.
    For example, before pollock it was possible to buy cheaper than chicken, but now it is almost the price of an elite fish.
    Quote: Klaus
    ... we have to wait for global warming
    Joking jokes, but even the Chinese, despite

    The Northern Sea Route is dangerous and ineffective not only because of the climate
    there is simply no normal ground infrastructure, there is no necessary number and composition of specialized vessels.
    You just need to do this and gradually its effectiveness will increase noticeably.
    Of course, he will not become a competitor to more southern ways, but his cost can become much better.
  50. -1
    30 July 2019 11: 06
    Quote: yehat
    If you fine-tune the marketing of fish like kefir, you can make it available to everyone.

    If you disperse half of the ministries and put in their place a few people like that guy from a straight line, then I assure you that everything will be debugged quickly enough
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 12: 42
      Quote: Klaus
      If you disperse half of the ministries and put in their place a few people like that guy from a straight line, then I assure you that everything will be debugged quickly enough

      1 person does not change the system.
      for something to change, you need a budget flow, investment planning with a depth of at least 3-4 years and much more. There is not 1 person needed here, but a team and strength that even Nedimon can convince that the government should work to build this thing, and not stupidly milk it.
  51. 0
    30 July 2019 12: 16
    They ask why Russia does NOT need aircraft carriers. Or NEEDED. And no clear arguments. Only abstract ones: they say, the leading power must have (all) aircraft carriers, and that’s it. Question: The world's fourth largest economy, Germany, is it a leading power? And where are the German aircraft carriers? Oh, she’s not allowed to as the loser of WW2? Well, Japan and Italy are also not allowed - but they have it. It's all nonsense. Or: Canada and Holland - non-poor countries - had aircraft carriers for 20+ years, but abandoned them long ago. Why? And Britain, let me remind you, in the period 1978-1981 and 2010-2018 managed without such ships, without aircraft carriers. And what?
    I will answer the question why aircraft carriers will not help Russia. Is this wording appropriate? Go.
    If Russia were in a different place, had a different history and would still be great, the question would be different. But we have what we have. And this is what we have.
    In 1955, an article by a certain Samuel Huntington appeared in the journal Naval Proceedings, the same one who later (in 1994) wrote: in 20 years Ukraine will be torn in half. In 2014, exactly 20 years later, this happened. But in 1955 Huntington was not thinking about this. What was postulated in that article? That the US Navy is moving to a Transoceanic Navy strategy: the vast sea spaces of the planet are no longer the arena for naval battles. Instead, the United States is creating the so-called. Eurasian Rim, the “Eurasian ring”, surrounding our continent with us, all sorts of Chinas, Iranians and Kim Chens with a ring of active defense along the borders of the littoral waters of this continent, with the goal of destroying and nipping in the bud any naval activity of us and the Chinese literally in these coastal waters. So that no one else enters the operational space. Huntington admitted that only submarines would break out, and that they would have to fight with them in the oceans. BUT ONLY WITH THEM! Therefore, the concept of flexible anti-submarine forces and anti-submarine aircraft carriers lived in the United States until the mid-70s. What happened in the mid-70s? That's right, the mine and railway complexes of the Strategic Missile Forces of the USSR came into service, which without any problems flew to any point in the States without any fleet. That is, boats were no longer needed. But the “ring” concept continues to work, and even China, frantically breaking out of it, is forced to threaten something incomprehensible, like the DF-21D, and not aircraft carriers at all. So, the answer is: no one will let Russian aircraft carriers out of this ring, not at all. Here they will die or return ingloriously to their bases. And they only make sense in an expeditionary form. But these are no longer aircraft carriers, but UDCs. The only way...
  52. 0
    30 July 2019 12: 43
    Quote: maxez
    They ask why Russia does NOT need aircraft carriers. Or NEED

    are needed, but we are very far from being able to build and operate them.
    at least 2 Stalinist five-year plans are needed for such an opportunity to become theoretically possible.
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 12: 49
      Not needed at all. Wasted money. We won't be able to use it. What is needed is UDC
      1. 0
        30 July 2019 13: 02
        explain why we can't use
        and the question is not either/or. You need both, but UDC is much easier to reach and their use is clearer.
        1. 0
          30 July 2019 13: 11
          Because one aircraft carrier, or even two, is not an aircraft carrier. In order to constantly have one AUG in combat service, there must be at least three aircraft carriers: the second in combat training, the third in repair and restoration of the warhead. Or better yet, four - the fourth is ready for deployment: and this is all for the sake of guaranteeing that there will always be only ONE at sea in the desired area. But... This one will quickly be drowned due to a serious mess, and the rest will simply not be allowed out of the base. That's all. They have the strength and means. But the UDC is an expeditionary ship, it is needed NOT only and NOT so much for a full-fledged war. It is needed constantly - also, of course, three or four times. But they are cheaper and, most importantly, they can quickly throw helicopters up to a reinforced infantry battalion 200-300 km from the coast to any point. In this strip, 300 km from the seashore, 80% of the planet's population lives, and conflicts in which the fleet can help will also mainly be there. This is how we should reason.
          1. 0
            30 July 2019 13: 22
            From your reasoning, I did not see any obstacles to the actions of the aircraft carrier.
            but we need Avik not only for normal use in the world.
            We have practically no colonies or bases, but we have huge territories that are useful to control, and in the light of external threats, Avik cover periodically becomes very useful. Static structures are too vulnerable...
            You are completely right about the fact that if you build Aviks, they should be no less than 4, and this is simply impossible now, but I cannot agree that they are not needed.
            Yes, as a last resort, transporting containers will do in peacetime or migrants to Europe from Africa))) the cost of operation (taken from Nimitz) in principle allows you to break even.
            1. 0
              30 July 2019 13: 27
              Well, at 20 years old you can probably think like that. But, alas, I am older, and alas, I served in the navy as an officer. I just have a different picture of the world, and there is no place for Russian AB in it. However, my former colleagues who are now in the Military Medical Academy and the General Staff of the Navy also do not see the point in these expenses. And the fact that industry wants to build AB is not surprising: for shipyards it’s just money. Ours are with you, by the way
              1. val
                0
                6 August 2019 18: 42
                They also don’t see the point in these costs. ........

                :-) If you can’t do it, the main thing is to convince yourself that you don’t need to do it.
                Gorshkov spent his whole life pushing the idea of ​​a full-fledged aircraft carrier, and the same 1143 sailed normally in all fleets.
  53. 0
    30 July 2019 13: 33
    Quote: maxez
    I just have a different picture of the world, and there is no place for Russian AB in it.

    There was never a place for a full-fledged Avik in the USSR fleet, and it is not so easy to come up with a niche for it.
    Moreover, the theaters in which it can operate are all problematic.
    I see many arguments against using Avik, but I also see the benefits that it can bring.
    Don't think of me as 20 years old. this is far from true, I will not start sinking for the construction of the Avik until we have built 4 series of escort ships from a destroyer, an anti-submarine something like that to a minesweeper and at least 4 UDCs (which is also unrealistic). And now I’m just noting that Avik would be useful.
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 13: 48
      Please: do not call this ship an Avik, this is a serious disrespect for the concept itself - it is not a toy and not 3 kopecks. It hurts my ears. A huge and expensive ship for aviation did not deserve this even from armchair experts. This is the first one. Second: like most readers of the site, you probably have no idea about the operational-tactical rationale for the combat use of fleet forces. This is not scary, this is a narrow professionalism, little accessible to people without naval shoulder straps, but until these people begin to prove the opposite: they say, everything is clear to me. I must tell you that this is not so. Regarding the concept of using autonomous vehicles in every national fleet, except the American one (and, to be honest, there are problems there too), not everything is clear even to superpros. That is why they do not pay attention to such comments at all. This is offensive, I understand, but it’s better to accept it as it is and think about this: the aircraft carrier fleet is not just hardware and people, it is a specific industry and a unique personnel training system. Let's think about it in this vein
  54. 0
    30 July 2019 14: 00
    Quote: maxez
    Second: like most readers of the site, you probably have no idea about the operational-tactical rationale for the combat use of fleet forces. This is not scary, this is a narrow professionalism, little accessible to people without naval shoulder straps, but until these people begin to prove the opposite: they say, everything is clear to me. I have to tell you that this is not so

    I don’t understand everything (otherwise I would have ignored this forum), and it would be impudent to claim that the shoulder straps of a naval officer give more rights to talk about the use of an aircraft carrier. I talk about this not on the basis of the experience of going to the store for beer, but on the basis of an analysis of historical events in the actual use of aircraft carriers, on the basis of the statements of people who planned the construction of a large fleet and used it - Tirpitz, Nimitz, Napoleon, Churchill and many others. Because I understand that the essence of using a large fleet is not in missiles and aircraft, but in pursuing and achieving strategic goals.
    1. 0
      31 July 2019 01: 35
      What do you know about the real experience of using aircraft carriers, with the exception of the Pacific events? All six aircraft carrier battles there (4 of them - the only one in 1942) did such a disservice to the community of people interested in history that it is even difficult to compare with anything. If only because in the first two and decisive ones - the Coral Sea and Midway - there was not a single aviator among both the American and Japanese admirals on the spot (i.e., TF commanders). More precisely, it was - the commander of the Hornet at Midway, Mark Mitscher, received the rank of rear admiral a week before the battle and did not have time to hand over his work - but when discussing the degree of combat readiness of this ship and its air group, the Americans themselves usually blush and remain silent. Moreover, it is precisely this Pacific experience of 70+ years ago that is completely and decisively not suitable for Russia. If you pick out useful nuggets of experience, then it’s worth doing it from the Korean War and the combat services of the US Navy AUG in Atlantic waters, and even then not all of them. Are you sure you know enough about this to make a judgment?
  55. kig
    0
    30 July 2019 14: 10
    electromagnetic catapults... there's no harm in dreaming. Even useful.
    1. 0
      31 July 2019 10: 34
      Yes. They were made at Ford by General Atomics, which had never implemented such projects for the fleet before. As a result, there was a situation with one generation system for two catapults, and if it fails, both fail. And she lies down often. Nobody knows what to do. And this is in the USA.
  56. 0
    30 July 2019 14: 49
    New spaceport?
    During construction, the cost will increase five times from what was promised, and construction, like that of the cosmodrome, will drag on until it becomes clear that such ships are already outdated. Old airplanes will be replaced by aircraft based on new principles of movement and aerodynamics.
    It’s like a supersonic passenger plane: it flies over populated land at subsonic levels, it’s absolutely unprofitable, there are fewer airfields in all of Russia than in Alaska alone.
    Who will make AWACS aircraft for an aircraft carrier? And so on and so forth. What about swimming? In Russia, the main sea road is the North Sea Route.
    1. 0
      30 July 2019 19: 38
      Nothing is said about the location of the promising aircraft carrier.
  57. 0
    31 July 2019 14: 08
    The model in the picture is funny. Why a springboard after electromagnetic (no one in the world has!) catapults? It looks like something made by modellers; there are not enough missiles sticking out from the sides and turrets with 500 mm cannons in the corners. For epicness)
    Seriously, until the 30th year, I’m sure there will be no progress. And then they’ll postpone it for another 10 years...
    Riveting such equipment (and also requiring infrastructure for it) is not making cartoons. Cartoons are better!
  58. 0
    31 July 2019 15: 06
    Quote: 3danimal
    Why a springboard after electromagnetic (no one in the world has!) catapults?

    The springboard has one positive feature, and even if it is only one - it does not fail. And it’s not about EMALS, it’s a matter of new and untested technology, it’s about old and seemingly proven steam C-13s. In fact, the US Navy maintains two emergency teams of technicians - one on each coast - who regularly fly on duty to aircraft carriers to repair catapults. The technical reliability of the current S-13 is 63%, which is quite weak. The main problems that these heat engines suffer from are failures of automatic valves, which lead either to cold shots - low steam pressure in the track cylinder, as a result of which the probability of losing the aircraft on takeoff is very high due to a lack of speed even with afterburning engines, or to excess this pressure and the resulting damage to the water brake at the end of the track by the piston, after which the catapult is taken out of service until this emergency team arrives.
  59. 0
    31 July 2019 18: 46
    dudes what is this?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        1 August 2019 10: 34
        Lest you think that I was practicing in Photoshop: here is a video - a compilation of American observations of the USSR Navy in 1965-1975 (\Soviet Naval Ships, ca. 1965 - ca. 1975.mp4\ you can type in YouTube) - watch from 5.38. There was no Photoshop then. I don’t rule out that the American artists tried their best, the shadow of the ship is very confusing, and maybe 1123.3 existed in metal
        1. 0
          1 August 2019 11: 04
          Well, we heard that the Russians were developing the idea of ​​“Leningrad”, and they figured it out based on satellite photos of ChSZ, on the stocks of which “Kyiv” was built. In any case, it’s nonsense - 1123 existed in two pennants, “Moscow” and “Leningrad”, and its design feature, the wide stern, made the ship almost uncontrollable in waves of 5 points. Here in this sketch the contours are clearly straighter. By the way, both projects are from above, “pear” 1123 is clearly visible: http://photo.bazar.nikolaev.ua/wp-content/uploads/images/Vertoletonosets-u-prichalnoj-stenki-CHSZ-v-Nikolaeve-768x671.jpg
          1. -1
            1 August 2019 11: 20
            Well, at least the artist tried. Compared to "Soviet military power"
  60. val
    +1
    6 August 2019 18: 36
    Strange name. Lives x knows where, not found in Russia. Swims underwater. A hint that it will sink right away? :-).
  61. 0
    7 August 2019 07: 40
    An aircraft carrier is an airfield. The airfield itself on land is a complex structure that is always dynamic. To assert the need for an airfield moving across the sea-ocean, you must first know the history of the use of aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft. I’ll make a reservation right away - in solving the problem of weakening the US fleet in the Pacific Ocean, it was vital for the Japanese to have such airfields and covertly deploy them when defeating the fleet support in Pearl Harbor. On the other hand, in the Second World War, to disrupt communications between Southeast Asia and the Japanese Islands, it was extremely important for the Americans to have aircraft carriers. That is why these naval powers have such vivid naval battles of aircraft carrier groups as Mariana and Philippine. Imagine 25 aircraft carriers conducting air combat in these battles. Secondly, to justify the need for aircraft carriers, you now need to know naval art. Who knows him here? In Russia, who knows, is this art? Now, I don’t want to offend anyone here, but the argument that we need an aircraft carrier to ... save pilots is the same thing as justifying the need ... for a barge hauler on the Volga now. For 23 years now I have been simply asking you to justify the need for the use of an aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy. I hear all kinds of nonsense, either because we must be powerful, or so that pilots do not forget how to fly over the sea, or because the Americans have 12 aircraft carriers. Place the aircraft carrier in at least some grouping of forces at sea and at least assign it a task. No you can not? Then why the only argument - and that we HAVE!
    1. 0
      7 August 2019 07: 45
      By the way, look, if you find it, how much these research projects on “Storm” and “Manatee” took to create models for the exhibition at the Ministry of Industry and Trade. And how much money did the Krylov Center receive for this? You'll go crazy right away and there will be no need to argue here right away.
  62. 0
    17 August 2019 09: 45
    Blah, blah, blah, “will be” “will be on it” don’t you find it funny yourself from all these promises? :)
  63. 0
    23 August 2019 21: 42
    for a major power that has access to the sea, but does not have even the minimum necessary coastal infrastructure to service an aircraft carrier, the need for its presence is not at all obvious...

    Kuznetsov, half the size, has not acquired his own pier in 30 years....