Military Review

Chinese media: Shoigu showed that Russia refuses to maintain the status of an ocean power

230
Recently, an interview with the head of the military department, Sergei Shoigu, appeared in the domestic media, in which he voiced the position of the Ministry of Defense: Russia does not need aircraft carrier groups; weapon for their drowning. This statement attracted the attention of the world press, including the Chinese.




Shoigu in an interview with MK:
Gigantic money is being spent by the United States on private military companies, on aircraft carrier groups. But does Russia really need its five to ten aircraft carrier groups, if we are not going to attack anyone? We need funds that could potentially be used against such enemy carrier groups in case of aggression against our country. And it is incomparably cheaper and more effective!


Cuba as a warning


According to the PRC, in fact, this material signals the transformation of the Russian Navy: Russia refuses to maintain the status of an ocean power, and efforts to maintain this status. As indicated, instead of building large surface ships, a choice was made in favor of deterring the enemy's Navy, including its aircraft carrier fleet. However, this situation has already occurred in the Soviet past.

Publications from the PRC note that in the 1950 - 60 of the USSR, the Soviet Union sought to implement the concept of "missile universality", categorically abandoning the construction of aircraft carriers, as it considered them useless. But the Cuban crisis, accompanied by the American blockade of Liberty Island, showed the fallacy of this approach.

In this regard, from the mid-60s, Moscow began to create an ocean fleet. However, the collapse of the USSR sharply cut short this process. Given the current military spending of the Russian Federation (sixth place in the world), it will be extremely difficult for it to build a navy that can compare with American power.



Admiring wilting


Russia made every effort to maintain the image of the “great fleet”, from time to time sending its only aircraft carrier “Kuznetsov” on military campaigns, which even visited off the coast of Syria.

But it was admiring faded flowers. On the one hand, most of the equipment of the Soviet era was gradually outdated, the service life of ships approached the limit. And on the other hand, after the loss of large shipyards remaining in Ukraine, the opportunity to build new large ships was lost

- The Chinese media write, noting that this process also affects submarines, which, although equipped with formidable Caliber, are becoming less in tonnage and can not be compared with the previous Typhoon [like Shark] displacement ( surface) over 23 thousand tons.

From the helplessness voiced by Shoigu, it is clear that the Russian Navy is faced with current dilemmas and seeks to adapt its strategy to reality [...] The future Russian fleet will, for a considerable period of time, be only a force capable of naval defense

- indicate the Chinese media.

However, at the same time, Chinese observers have noted that the containment doctrine can prove to be quite productive due to a whole arsenal of highly effective weapons such as X-35U missiles and Poseidon submarines.
230 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Adimius38
    Adimius38 23 September 2019 17: 05
    +16
    Yes, what is the status of an ocean power with a rook boat
    1. K-612-O
      K-612-O 23 September 2019 17: 09
      -60
      Well, he was very doubtful under the USSR.
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 23 September 2019 17: 17
        +46
        Putting by virtue of brilliant foresight, and by virtue of circumstances, the development of guided missile weapons, the Soviet Navy, and now the Russian Navy, which has a unique line of anti-ship missiles with excellent performance characteristics, even in difficult times, won strategically, ensuring the country's safety from the sea by virtue of the ability deploying a volley of anti-ship missiles sufficient to disrupt any task of the adversary against the territory of the USSR-Russia in the conventional version. Switching to hypersound, and even to a high one (M = 2,5-3,0) nullifies almost any means of naval air defense of the US Navy, because they have huge problems with this kind of anti-ship missiles.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 23 September 2019 20: 22
          +30
          Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
          Switching to hypersound, and even to a high one (M = 2,5-3,0) nullifies almost any means of naval air defense of the US Navy, because they have huge problems with this kind of anti-ship missiles.

          Dear Aristarkh Ludwigovich! The correct message and - the wrong conclusion!
          Speaking of anti-ship missiles, it should be said about the means of missile defense / air defense, and not about the fact that the Yankees do not have supersonic anti-ship missiles! Because it is logical to think: - "And what are you going to shoot down our supersonic anti-ship missiles with !?
          With the GZKR, everything is clear ... That's just a question: they should have carriers with a displacement of more than 5000 tons, and a submarine of the 4th generation ... And how will they go to D provided? Well, the boats, those "smarter", they zhahnat from under the water ...
          But the NK (?) To them, heartfelt, how to rake out the line of the task under the dominance of carrier aviation in the DMZ? And boats without an "umbrella" will be dashing ...
          It turns out that from the 1500 km line, the aircraft carrier can be discharged at the designated coastal targets without experiencing any particular difficulties with counteraction ... Well, unless, of course, the "Rook" boat does not beat him to death before that ... But this is hard to believe, even after a liter "oxygenated" naval fluid ...
          So, there’s clearly no way to get rid of the supersonic anti-ship missiles here: in addition to the MEANS (anti-ship missiles), you also need the FORCES of the fleet. A wise Chinese monkey has seen the essence of the problem, for the solution of which we have no means ... It's a pity.
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 23 September 2019 21: 24
            +11
            Alexander hi Nobody disputes the usefulness of aircraft carriers. They are definitely needed. Some are already for future discussions, but the construction of an aircraft carrier-centered fleet as the United States did is not a path to the future, which, in principle, practice has shown. They either have to change or will be finally pushed into a small niche of projection of power only against those Papuans who by that time will not have access to modern missile systems. The days of 100000 tons of mastodons are over. The position of the AUG (either by coordinates, or by bearing-azimuth and distance) will be, without issuing the control center in real time, a circle whose radius grows (increases) by R = VxTau, where tau is the time of the control's obsolescence and V- -speed AUG. With a Zircon salvo from a distance of 800 kilometers, the obsolescence time will be about 270 seconds, i.e. about 4,5 minutes. At 30 knots, this is a circle with a radius of about 22 cables or 2.2 nautical miles. Good luck to AUG in trying to deflect the volley. The "initial" position of the AUG can be determined in dozens of different ways, using the appropriate forces of the Fleet, its Aviation, and even "civilian" capabilities. By the way, has the United States already developed systems capable of intercepting a 6-8 missile salvo of Onyx, not to mention the Dagger and Zircon?
            1. NordOst16
              NordOst16 24 September 2019 00: 58
              +3
              The only question is whether the Zircon flies 800km. For nevertheless friction at such speeds is more than at supersonic. And the dimensions, as I understand it, of a new rocket should fit in the UKKS.
              To send a missile along a ballistic trajectory - the factor of surprise is lost and enemy ships will find missiles from a long distance
              1. edeligor
                edeligor 24 September 2019 08: 54
                +3
                Quote: NordOst16
                For nevertheless friction at such speeds is more than at supersonic.

                This is the problem of the engineers of the country of mattress and others like them.
              2. Dreama
                Dreama 24 September 2019 22: 32
                -4
                "... whether the Zircon will fly 800 km" - I do not know (although I hope), but the fact that Poseidon will cover the required distance from Kamchatka to all American naval bases with nuclear submarines on the Tikhiy, and the Northern (I do not know where exactly) they will reach Anyone in the Atlantic (let's not forget the English on the way) - don't go to the grandmother. I hope there is no need to explain - what will happen to the base when the device is triggered at 2 (10) Mt? So with the fact that we ceased to have "ocean" status (-6 hi ) - I would not be in a hurry.
                1. NordOst16
                  NordOst16 25 September 2019 09: 19
                  0
                  Do not you think that this super torpedo will be intercepted on the way? If it goes at high speed, it will make noise on the ocean floor and the Americans will only have to drop from the plane or launch a deep nuclear bomb from the ship and goodbye to our miracle torpedo.
                  If it is quieter and slower, then it will be much more practical to bomb the enemy’s womb with cruise or ballistic missiles.
                  It seems to me that this is another project to create a child prodigy instead of solving more pressing problems.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 26 September 2019 01: 02
                    0
                    Quote: NordOst16
                    Do not you think that this super torpedo will be intercepted on the way? If she will go at high speed

                    The key point IF, and in general from the confirmed and consistent information follows the following:
                    Poseidon is a BPA deployed on a nuclear submarine (most likely on an SSBN instead of SLBMs) ​​and designed for independent movement over extremely long distances and for long-term patrolling in these places. At the same time, judging by the nuclear power plant and the existence of stationary HACs (Sever-E, etc.), the Poseidon is designed specifically for secretive ultra-slow movement in order to overcome PLO.
                    1. NordOst16
                      NordOst16 26 September 2019 01: 37
                      -1
                      Even so, then 72 kr will be much more successful in fulfilling the task than these 6 (well, how many of these torpedoes can stick into the loaf) miracle torpedoes. N
                      I have questions about the noise of the torpedo itself, because you need to somehow shield the noise from the turbine, and there’s not so much space
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 26 September 2019 05: 51
                        0
                        Well, firstly, it’s far from the fact that there is a turbine there, the stirling engine is much more likely, or the radiation-chemical as on satellites in general.
                        And secondly, it’s easier to detect and shoot down the CR, you can immediately give the command to sink to the bottom to a depth of 4-5 km and wait for the AUG to approach, or for example program a call to the bay then a quick train of warheads from the carts and an explosion. or the best option is to block all bottlenecks like straits and channels where the depth is too small for the submarine but sufficient for the ships.
                      2. NordOst16
                        NordOst16 26 September 2019 09: 10
                        0
                        The turbine gives maximum power for a minimum volume, stirling is much larger, and the efficiency of heat-emission elements is nowhere lower. Maybe stirling is worth it.
                        Well, crushing down, even subsonic, is not so simple because it is small, it flies low and you should try to notice it, and when you notice the reaction time there will be not so much, and the missiles themselves are equipped with electronic warfare systems, which greatly complicates the successful interception, and when they arrive at a hundred, then the interception of all cr turns into Russian roulette.
                        The torpedo has problems with both speed (it’s low) and with control - it’s too difficult to reach the torpedo at depth, but it shouldn’t come up for anything. C cr is much easier in this regard.
                      3. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 26 September 2019 14: 20
                        0
                        Quote: NordOst16
                        C cr is much easier in this regard.

                        Nope, specifically in this regard, it’s the other way round, because to launch a submarine’s launch vehicle it is necessary to approach much closer to the shore, but the main thing is different, the launch of the Kyrgyz Republic is a strong unmasking effect, but in a BPA, the submarine will have time to go tens and hundreds of kilometers away from the launch point. After all, the submarine will have at least a month to leave the PLO-search zone.
                      4. NordOst16
                        NordOst16 26 September 2019 18: 23
                        0
                        Why is this a strong unmasking effect? From 2000 km, launch to the target (or even more if we are talking about X101) and at the same time the rocket itself will not rise above 100 meters, and then immediately fall by 10-15 meters. You can’t detect satellites, only by accident, but in this case there should be more carriers.
                      5. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 26 September 2019 20: 52
                        0
                        Since besides space, surface and above-ground radars, there are also airborne ones, for example, aerostats, airships, manned and unmanned aircraft, and now they perfectly see the start and trajectory of ultra-low-altitude RS. And even if it fails to protect the target of the attack, the submarine will unmask itself and the submarine aircraft will begin its search.
                      6. NordOst16
                        NordOst16 26 September 2019 21: 39
                        0
                        Airborne radars - this is just one of the random factors because, thanks to the ridiculous EPR, even the powerful radar of deck-mounted AWACS will detect a missile at a short distance. So, I still don’t consider launching missiles from such vast distances something that can very likely reveal the location of nuclear submarines.
                        Also, the KR are more versatile in the use of weapons and, most importantly, more speedy. For the Navy is a tidbit at the beginning of the conflict due to the presence on it of a large number of ships that can be destroyed in one gulp. The torpedo will reach the base much later and all combat-ready ships will already have left the port by then. The port will still be an important goal, but destroying it will not inflict so much damage to the enemy’s Navy.
                        You can lay it in advance, but again there will be a problem with communication, how long the torpedo can be offline, how can it be returned to the carrier if the conflict runs out before it starts? So, as for me, a salvo of cruise missiles will be much more effective than these torpedoes
            2. Archivist Vasya
              Archivist Vasya 24 September 2019 12: 49
              +3
              The times of mastodons of 100000 tons have passed.

              May still come back what all the same, if there is a battleship / cruiser with normal armor, then a dozen missiles will not sink it, except what vigorous. The main thing is to protect from aviation, otherwise they will peck.
              What ships were before - handsome, not so small and angular as they are now. I’m silent about American irons - such an ugliness ...
            3. ZAV69
              ZAV69 24 September 2019 16: 33
              +4
              Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
              By the way, the United States already has systems capable of intercepting a 6-8 onyx missile salvo, not to mention the dagger and zircon?

              And what will Onyx Aviku do very badly? How many missiles will they intercept, and the Avik box is large, very tenacious.
              1. ROSS_51
                ROSS_51 24 September 2019 17: 12
                +1
                At a minimum, it will make it impossible for an aircraft carrier to carry out a combat mission.
                1. ZAV69
                  ZAV69 24 September 2019 19: 28
                  +4
                  Quote: ROSS_51
                  At a minimum, it will make it impossible for an aircraft carrier to carry out a combat mission.

                  Discussed a month ago. You’ll only scare him alone, you need 5 pieces so that it penetrates well. Now, if the special battalion hits, then yes, it will break.
                  1. ROSS_51
                    ROSS_51 25 September 2019 02: 08
                    -2
                    Yes, even a week ago. A modern aircraft carrier consists entirely of special warheads, and falling into any one will make the fulfillment of a combat mission .. impossible. Is that a Tsushima cruiser? Why would the AUG include a dozen security ships, if he is "very tenacious"?
          2. GAF
            GAF 23 September 2019 22: 10
            +10
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            It turns out that from the 1500 km line, an aircraft carrier can be discharged against designated coastal targets without experiencing any particular difficulties with counteraction ... Well, unless, of course, the Grachonok cutter will score it to death before that ...

            About "Rook" is well said. Only this is what the AUG will do in the ocean 1500 km away from the "Grachenok", and what will be "born" if the F-35S ballistic missile is about 1000 km away. In addition, we have naval aviation. During military service in the early 60s, TU-16s could launch cruise missiles from a distance of 500 km. Now, obviously, there is something better. Still, not the Papuans, with whom the United States had no problems, and what they wanted, they did with them.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 23 September 2019 22: 28
              +8
              Quote: GAF
              what will the AUG do in the ocean 1500 km from the "Grachenok", if the BR of the F-35S is about 1000 km.

              Dear colleague! Do not be mistaken for a US Navi account!
              1. AVM will "come out of the shadows" after the first wave of strikes by the KRBD on airfields, BC, DBK positions, etc. I'm afraid that after that little will remain of the MPA ... and the DBK ...
              2. F-35 can refuel several times to complete the task. Therefore, BR in 1000 km is far from the limit. There are also conformal PTBs. And in the 2016 year, the Yangkes started the engagement with our surface forces with D = 1600 km ... There is something to think about!
              1. edeligor
                edeligor 24 September 2019 09: 03
                +2
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                counter battle with our surface forces

                I'm just wondering, is it really theorized at headquarters so far? As for me, this action has remained in the past, which our minister told about. And I agree with him - AUGs are ineffective with the introduction of new types of weapons exclusively from an economic point of view. Just calculate how much it costs to maintain one AUG with all the logistics and approximately the cost of neutralizing it. Everything will become clear to you.
                1. Fan-fan
                  Fan-fan 24 September 2019 17: 17
                  +5
                  Are AUG ineffective? Here are the scribblers. Do you remember grandfather Krylov's fable "The Fox and the Grapes"? So the conclusion is that we have no money to build an AUG, but we have to get out somehow, so Shoigu "sang" about inefficiency, like that fox about unripe grapes.
            2. Yora dan
              Yora dan 24 September 2019 05: 00
              +6
              We don’t have naval missile-carrying aviation; we have completely reformed everything
            3. Zdishek
              Zdishek 24 September 2019 08: 26
              +8
              In the Russian Federation there is no Naval Missile Aviation. Destroyed by order of the current Commander-in-Chief. And there are huge problems with long-range aviation. Tu-22m of all modifications is already not recruited to the division
              1. Lötnab85
                Lötnab85 24 September 2019 14: 35
                +5
                I don’t know how naval aviation of other fleets, but KTOF naval aviation, with the exception of one Tu-22M3 regiment in Mongohto, was destroyed as far back as 1992-1993, however, as well as reconnaissance. Then the current Commander-in-Chief is not that there wasn’t, no one even knew about it.
          3. 5-9
            5-9 24 September 2019 07: 23
            -1
            And how is he discharged from 1500 km? (the fact that this is a nuclear war and we don’t care about some kind of AB), three or four dozen AGM-158Es with 450 kg warheads? Oh, how scary, awful :)
            Yes, and Tu-22M3 + X-32 have a much greater range. This is, if at all, to exclude our floating component.

            After 1960's, no one in US Navi has ever considered such ravings as an attack of the homeland of birches from the sea ...
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 24 September 2019 19: 50
              +3
              Quote: 5-9
              And how is he discharged with 1500 km?

              Stas, you, right thing, how small! You ask a question yourself and answer it yourself. That's right: Hornets with air refueling will leave for 1200 km, and then they will launch Axes or whatever they have by that time, well, at least the same AGM-158 ...
              As for the answer ... If we still have something left by this time, then it will be fine ...
              Quote: 5-9
              After 1960's, no one in US Navi has ever considered such ravings as an attack of the homeland of birches from the sea ...

              Stas, I dare to remind you that the doctrine of "Sea Power-21" was adopted by the United States taking into account the leading role of AVM at sea ...
              In Sea Power-21, the Navy's leadership has put forward a “global concept of warfare,” the essence of which is the flexible and coordinated use of globally dispersed unprecedented sea power. According to this concept, aircraft carrier strike groups (AUGs) will remain the core of strike power and provide a wide range of fleet operational capabilities.
              http://old.redstar.ru/2009/10/27_10/3_04.html
              1. 5-9
                5-9 25 September 2019 07: 42
                0
                I do not understand what "terrible" damage will be caused by pieces of 24 AGM-158 (even 36) and pieces of 30 Axes ... actually the "chilling" result of 62 and 101 CR (the most massive strikes of the CD in the history of mankind, the second is already 3 countries with he performed half a dozen directions) in Syria (with the Syrian air defense) everyone saw ... so that he could be taken into account in the Russian-US war. Or what kind of CS game are we playing for Venezuela?

                Where does this concept say "let's attack the AUG on Mazu-Rasha"? And so - everything is correctly written there and so it is .. especially about "globally dispersed unprecedented sea power"
        2. bayard
          bayard 23 September 2019 21: 24
          +39
          China stubbornly promotes itself as "naval power number 2", since their ships are baked like cakes in a bakery. The Ukrainian plant "Zorya-Mashproekt" is overwhelmed by Chinese orders for turbines for destroyers (its capacity is not enough for such a pace). So they try to kick the Russian Navy at any occasion - they say they went around the turn.
          But Russia should not rush at all costs. Shoigu said we don't need aircraft carriers NOW? We don’t need it - we don’t have them and we will not be able to build it soon (in five years, not earlier), and it will take at least 10 years to build the first one.
          So what are the fables to breed?
          Need to work .
          The Russian Navy now needs intermediate class ships (frigates, corvettes, destroyers 22350M) and support ships - minesweepers, supply ships, tankers, icebreakers, landing ships. These are works for many years - the fleet has been under construction for a long time. And it is necessary to approach its construction in a systematic - phased manner. Tightening industry, economics, science, building and equipping bases, educating new naval commanders.
          And everything will work out.
          Not immediately, gradually, as children grow.
          But in case of war, you should not be afraid - Russia has something to fight back (there is a strategic nuclear forces, aviation, ground forces, coastal forces of the fleet including coastal complexes of anti-ship missiles) while the Fleet is being built.
          Now program 22350 has been resumed again - they are completing the construction of the iris, new ones have been laid. So in 5 years, ships of projects 22350 and 22350M will arrive at the fleet rhythmically. "Admiral Nakhimov" will be pre-modernized - they will immediately add joy. 6 submarines are promised to be delivered next year, 4 of them are nuclear-powered.
          And now Shoigu correctly said that funds are needed for their (AUG) drowning. Therefore, the cruiser "Moskva" is coming out of repair the other day.

          Do not tear your heart about the impossible
          Have joy from today.
          (I’m not Aristarkh Ludwigovich for you, but for those who see a rook one, or there aren’t enough aircraft carriers).
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 23 September 2019 21: 37
            +13
            Quote: bayard
            The 22350 program has been resumed again - they are completing the iris, new ones have been laid.

            What Shishkin writes about this: “Thanks to the information from the VK page of the Ukrainian NPK Zorya - Mashproekt, kindly provided by his colleague artemiyrussia, one can try to predict the fate of Golovko and Isakov. Former (2000-2015) engineer of Zori , and since 2016 - Rybinsk "UEC-Saturn" S. Panov in a discussion with his interlocutors reports that in Russia "a ban has been introduced on the design of ships with a foreign power plant", and that "the approximate delivery time [M55] for ships is summer 2020 ". And in more detail:" As for the M55, its gearboxes are being tested at Zvezda, the gas turbine engines are already ready. Gearboxes from Zvezda will arrive at Saturn probably in December, all this will be tested again and in the summer of 2020 the DGTA will be delivered to the ship. ”It is impossible to mount the power plant afloat for the simple reason that, in addition to the main engines, it includes shaft lines and propellers ( propellers) - therefore the frigates will wait for the DGTA on the slipway.In addition, it should be emphasized that: 1) the installation of the power plant is not an easy and very time-consuming business; 2) according to the installation technology, the Russian DGTA, albeit insignificantly, will differ from the Russian-Ukrainian (by in fact, this will be the first experience of installing them on a ship); 3) they have not yet restored their competencies at Severnaya Verf, in other words, they have not learned to work quickly.Taking into account the above, we can hardly expect the launch of "Admiral Golovko" in 2020 - at best, this will happen in the first half of next 2021, and the transfer of the ship to the Navy (after completion and testing) - until the end of 2022. As for Isakov, taking into account the announced the long interval between the delivery of the gas turbine engine (DGTA) for two orders is 3-6 months (I / II quarter. 2019), its launch and transfer to the customer will take place in 2022 and 2023. https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/214435.html
            On my own behalf, I will add that this project has many problems, except for the refinement of the Polyment-Redut anti-aircraft missile system, in particular, turbines for frigates 22350 were made in Rybinsk from the very beginning. Saturn made turbines, Kolomna made diesel engines, then it was sent to Zorya, which added its own gearbox and gas generator, tested the assembled unit at its assembly and test complex of gas turbine engines and units, and sent it to St. Petersburg. It was necessary to substitute import not so much for the turbine, but for the Ukrainian gearbox, which is part of the DSTU. GTUs were developed by "Saturn" and were tested back in the 2009s (they were shown at various exhibitions since 2014), it was necessary to build a test stand and replace part of the components made in Ukraine. And the gearbox at Zvezda began to be reproduced only in 22350. The turbine has been made to date, the assembly and testing complex of gas turbine engines and units (GTE and GTA) for marine programs, the production of ship gas turbine engines has been built. Now the industry will have a free hand. GEM for 2020 is just the beginning. By the way, such stands remained after the collapse of the Soviet Union only in Ukraine at Zorya-Mashproekt. The gearbox is ready, in XNUMX you can assemble the turbine, diesel engine and gearbox at the stand.
          2. Greenwood
            Greenwood 24 September 2019 08: 40
            0
            Quote: bayard
            do we not need aircraft carriers NOW? We don’t need it - we don’t have them and we will not be able to build it soon (in five years, not earlier), and it will take at least 10 years to build the first one.
            And what will happen in the next 5 years, that we will begin to build an aircraft carrier. And most importantly - where?
            1. Povelitel_buri
              Povelitel_buri 24 September 2019 10: 21
              +4
              Quote: Greenwood
              And most importantly - where?

              Without even serious modernization and RECONSTRUCTION of shipyards, there is nowhere to build aircraft carriers. Even Zaliv needs reconstruction in an amicable way in addition to updating the crane equipment. And how will such an aircraft carrier take up its entire dock for 10 years and that's it - the plant will only suffer losses with it.
            2. bayard
              bayard 24 September 2019 12: 35
              -1
              Quote: Greenwood
              And what will happen in the next 5 years, that we will begin to build an aircraft carrier. And most importantly - where?

              Where? Well, for example, in St. Petersburg in a new 400-meter dock, in the Gulf after reconstruction and comprehensive preparation, or in Zvezda, where, in addition to tankers and gas carriers, they are going to lay the nuclear icebreakers "Leader", 77 tons of displacement each. That is, it will be more convenient to build a nuclear aircraft carrier there. But not soon. When the plant is properly on the wing.
              What will happen in 5 years? Projects will prepare (no longer sketchy), production base, contractors, logistics.
              And it is better to start with the construction of non-nuclear - gas turbine aircraft carriers of medium displacement - aircraft carriers of air defense / anti-aircraft defense of the fleet. To achieve this, there are no serious gaps in technology and competencies, all the components are there and worked out. And it will come out cheaper and faster. But after the nuclear power plant has been completed on the new Lider icebreakers, it is possible to start building nuclear power plants.
              In my humble opinion, it is preferable to have a group of 4 non-nuclear / gas turbine aircraft carriers and 2 nuclear displacement of 80 - 100 thousand tons - 3 pieces for each fleet (SF and ITF) according to the scheme (1 + 2) x 2.
          3. Doctor
            Doctor 24 September 2019 12: 11
            0
            And now Shoigu correctly said that funds are needed for their (AUG) drowning. Therefore, the cruiser "Moskva" is coming out of repair the other day.

            There will be an INF, an analogue of the "Pioneer" with a range of 5000. For that, we have withdrawn from the agreement. Guidance - ZGRLS 29B6 "Container" range of 3000. Two in the Far East, one in the North.
            1. bayard
              bayard 24 September 2019 13: 03
              +1
              Over-the-horizon radars are poorly suited for guidance / target designation - accuracy is low and sensitivity to changes in the atmosphere / magnetosphere. They are more likely to reveal the fact of a raid / entry of an order in a certain area. Those. warning station. However, it all depends on the capabilities of the seeker of the striking ammunition or will require additional reconnaissance by aviation forces.
              When the effect of over-refraction on the P-70 radar in the North-East Bank (Azerbaijan) was first discovered, she painted on the VIKO the southern coast of the Caspian.
              And for the sinking of enemy AUG and KUG, medium-range ballistic missiles are useless (although the Chinese do not think so, but have not yet demonstrated the capabilities of their products in practice). For this there are the coastal complexes "Bal" (X-35) and "Bastion" (anti-ship missiles "Onyx"), after the completion of the tests, it is possible to install the hypersonic missile launcher "Zircon" on the "Bastion" launcher. There is the basic aviation of the fleet - Tu-22M3 \ M3M, Su-30 with CD on the boat. There are warships of various classes - anti-ship missile carriers, from MRKs to missile cruisers and nuclear submarines.
              And the INF, as befits their rank, will target targets in Europe and American bases in Eurasia and Alaska. Well, and for the United States itself, if suddenly "unexpectedly" appear in Cuba or Nicaragua.
              1. Grits
                Grits 24 September 2019 14: 31
                +3
                Quote: bayard
                Well, and for the United States itself, if they suddenly "unexpectedly" appear in Cuba or Nicaragua.

                The circle is closed. In order for rockets to suddenly appear in Cuba or Nicaragua, aircraft carriers are needed. Otherwise, without the support of the Russian Navy, color revolutions will very quickly arise there.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 24 September 2019 15: 01
                  -3
                  But what if instead of aircraft carriers Russian naval and air bases appear there?
                  Unsinkable.
                  With the coastal complexes "Ball" and "Bastion".
                  With air defense cover.
                  Undoubtedly, the fleet needs aircraft carriers to gain combat stability thereof, but looking into the eyes of REALITY, we will clearly see that our fleet will not receive these wonderful ships for another 10-15 years.
                  This is the prose of shipbuilding practice.
                  And how to live on?
                  Without aircraft carriers, then.
                  Whole 12 - 15 years?
                  The answer is friendly and fun, with a twinkle and optimism (depression shortens life and deprives it of the best colors), setting REAL tasks for itself and translating them into reality.

                  And regarding missiles in Cuba and Nicaragua (we keep Venezuela in mind), our position should be extremely simple: "We do not have and do not plan to have missiles in these countries, but if necessary, we will use them."
          4. nickname7
            nickname7 24 September 2019 14: 10
            +4
            . Shoigu said that we NOW do not need aircraft carriers? We don’t need them anymore - they don’t have to build them yet
            So what are the fables to breed

            The point here is that the effective ones are much worse than the communists, but they lie a lot.
        3. Chaldon48
          Chaldon48 24 September 2019 01: 01
          0
          For the transfer of small missile ships and diesel submarines from one ocean to another, it is now necessary to start building large transport ships due to their complete inability to do it on their own. Maybe that's why they are building a large Zvezda plant in Bolshoy Kamen.
        4. Sasha_rulevoy
          Sasha_rulevoy 24 September 2019 20: 32
          -1
          Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
          The transition to hypersound, and to a high over (M = 2,5-3,0) zero almost any means of naval air defense of the US Navy


          They shot down the satellite with a kinetic head (i.e., hitting it directly). The speed of the satellite relative to the Earth is 7,9 km / s.
      2. Saul_Rhen
        Saul_Rhen 23 September 2019 17: 37
        -21
        A plus. We have not had a normal fleet over the past 100 years. First, the collapse of the Empire and, accordingly, all the naval programs, then the war, the transfusion of ideological concepts and slogans from empty to empty, then the construction does not understand what on the principle of "not like everyone else", and, finally, when the high Soviet leadership came enlightenment, and the construction of a modern fleet began - the USSR collapsed.
        1. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter 23 September 2019 17: 48
          +70
          We have not had a 100 normal fleet in recent years.

          Come on. The USSR Navy was the second most powerful fleet after the US Navy. The USSR Navy had only about a hundred nuclear submarines. And you call this “there was no normal fleet?” The Russian Empire's fleet is even ridiculous to compare with the USSR Navy both in number and in technological excellence. Just in the period of the USSR, Russia had the most powerful fleet in its entire history.
          1. Saul_Rhen
            Saul_Rhen 23 September 2019 18: 10
            -2
            In terms of quantity, the USSR fleet is undoubtedly the strongest in our history. By meaningfulness, either the last programs of the Empire (unrealized) or the last program of the USSR (also unrealized).
            At the time of the collapse of the Union, the fleet had on its balance sheet a huge amount of outright rubbish (old 1st and 2nd generation APLs, post-war EM, RC of the first generation) and very dubious projects - the same 1135, practically defenseless and unable to provide target designation to the complex squeezed onto them at an adequate distance; 1155 and 956 projects, which were built instead of one normal universal EM project (being practically useless separately) and had near-zero unification; the first 4 corps 1143, by a strong-willed decision of the leadership, built INSTEAD of nuclear aircraft carriers, the project of which was developed in parallel in the 60s, but was canceled. The wildest zoo of projects of ships and planes, built to perform the same functions. Constant attempts to shove non-stuffable (giant anti-ship missiles, PLURs, etc.) onto any platform and create another "wunderwaffe" (monstrous and titanium nuclear submarines, the Urals, etc.) ate up the budget immensely with very little benefit. Infrastructure for home and maintenance was also not a priority. Therefore, the real strength of the USSR fleet was much less than the declared one (and that which could be with a competent approach).
          2. Prisoner
            Prisoner 23 September 2019 18: 50
            +10
            Don't bother. Here gentlemen from the "partner" countries under the left-wing chases immeasurably. laughing After all, the war, her mother, is hybrid. laughing laughing
          3. Lexus
            Lexus 23 September 2019 18: 53
            +13
            But now: "Pelorus", Sailing "A", "A" a la "Zumvolt", "Dilbar", "Black Pearl" and many other yachts of Russian oligarchs and officials have long replaced the Russian Navy in the vastness of the world's oceans, though flags " demonstrate "far from Russian. But we know that this is all a "cunning plan". wink
        2. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter 23 September 2019 18: 01
          +15
          Quote: Saul_Rhen
          A plus. We have not had a normal fleet over the past 100 years. First, the collapse of the Empire and, accordingly, all the naval programs, then the war, the transfusion of ideological concepts and slogans from empty to empty, then the construction does not understand what on the principle of "not like everyone else", and, finally, when the high Soviet leadership came enlightenment, and the construction of a modern fleet began - the USSR collapsed.

          The fleet of the Russian Empire could not surpass the Navy of the USSR.

          The state of the Navy of the USSR at the end of the 1980s:

          The fleet (strategic and general purpose) included

          ★ ↗100 squadrons and divisions, and the total number of personnel of the USSR Navy was
          ★ ≈450 (including 000 thousand in the Marine Corps).

          The costs of the Navy of the USSR in 1989 amounted to:

          ★ 12,08 billion rubles (with a total military budget of 77,294 billion rubles), of which
          ★ 2993 million rubles for the purchase of ships and boats
          ★ 6531 million for technical equipment).

          In the combat formation of the fleet was:

          ★ 160 surface ships of the ocean and far sea zone,
          ★ 83 second-generation strategic nuclear submarines,
          ★ 113 multipurpose nuclear submarines
          ★ 254 diesel-electric.

          In 1991, at the shipbuilding enterprises of the USSR were built:

          ★ 2 aircraft carriers (including one nuclear),
          ★ 11 nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles,
          ★ 18 multipurpose nuclear submarines,
          ★ 7 diesel submarines, 2 missile cruisers (including one nuclear),
          ★ 10 destroyers and large anti-submarine ships, etc.

          In 1991, the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov, the first Soviet classic aircraft carrier, was adopted.

          http://ussr-cccp.moy.su/publ/vmf_sssr/baltijskij_flot_sssr/voenno_morskoj_flot_sssr_vmf_sssr_1941_1991_str_3/276-1-0-1029
          1. Sonixnk
            Sonixnk 24 September 2019 03: 03
            0
            Introduced the number of submarines, the Yankees must have been ecstatic
        3. NEXUS
          NEXUS 23 September 2019 18: 14
          +25
          Quote: Saul_Rhen
          A plus. We have not had a normal fleet in recent years 100.

          How is everything running then ... child of Wikipedia or the exam?
          Well, let's see what was not there and what was ...
          And so, let's start with tsarist Russia ...
          By 1916, the Russian Navy included 55 submarines. Only submarines. Further...
          As of 1914, the Russian Imperial Fleet included 4 battleships, 10 squadron battleships, 14 cruisers of various types, 75 destroyers and 45 destroyers, two mine loaders,

          If this is not the ocean fleet, then, dear?
          Now for the fleet of the times of the USSR. Let's take just before the collapse ...
          In the 1985 year, the Soviet fleet reached the peak of its power, had in its composition the 1561 ship in the total and in the number of ships and combat potential occupied the second place in the world after the US Navy.
          At 1991, the year at the shipbuilding enterprises of the USSR was built: two aircraft carriers (including one nuclear), 11 nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles, 18 multipurpose nuclear submarines, seven diesel submarines, two missile cruisers (including one nuclear), 10 destroyers and large anti-submarine ships, etc.

          And this is not a normal fleet? And if you recall that the Soviet submarine fleet was the largest in the world, then in general doubts about your adequacy creep in.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 23 September 2019 18: 35
            +9
            Quote: NEXUS
            If this is not the ocean fleet, then, dear?

            This is not an ocean-going fleet. At least based on the cruising range and seaworthiness of the Sevastopol. More or less the problem of seaworthiness of these aircraft was solved only in the 30s of the XX century.
            By the way, of all the RIF ships listed above, only the Sevastopoli were morally not obsolete (with a stretch - because the second and third generations of dreadnoughts already served for others) and the only EM Novik. All the rest are projects of the times before the RYAV (including "Rurik-2" - the reincarnation of the "tower armored cruiser of the late XNUMXth century).
            By the way, what kind of ocean fleet can we talk about without overseas bases, without supply transports, and in conditions when both of the largest fleets are locked in inland seas (moreover, the Baltic Fleet is locked twice already - both by Germany and Britain - with whom you will not enter into an alliance, all block equally).
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 23 September 2019 18: 55
              +8
              Quote: Alexey RA
              At least based on the cruising range and seaworthiness of the Sevastopol.

              Sevastopol class battleships had a cruising range of 4000 nautical miles. What does it take at what speed? This is in full swing, and on 12 nodes this figure is twice as much. What is not the ocean warship of that time?
              For comparison ... The British battleship Iron Duke had a range of 3800 miles at full speed, 4500 at 20 nodes and 8100 miles at 12 nodes.
              But the British turns out to be an ocean warship, and our Sevastopol is a coastal barge, in your opinion.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 23 September 2019 19: 01
                +4
                Quote: NEXUS
                Sevastopol class battleships had a cruising range of 4000 nautical miles. What does it take at what speed? This is in full swing, and at 12 nodes this figure is twice as much.

                Due to the increase in the size of the boilers, they had to be installed on ships in smaller numbers: 25 instead of the planned 31 boilers. All this led to a decrease in the efficiency of the boiler plant, since the ratio of the area of ​​the heating surface to the area of ​​the grate was reduced to 56,5 compared to the value of 59,2 achieved with boilers used in England. To achieve a turbine power of 42 hp it was also necessary to increase the number of revolutions by 000% relative to that adopted throughout the world, which reduced the efficiency of the power plant as a whole when it was operating at full speed. The need to increase the power of reverse turbines led to an increase in their size due to (due to the specified size of the turbine compartments) a decrease in the length of the forward turbines, which caused an abnormally increased fuel consumption and a design range of 10 miles with a 5000-node stroke was simply unattainable.
                © A.V. Skvortsov. Line ships of the Sevastopol type.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 23 September 2019 19: 08
                  +6
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  © A.V. Skvortsov. Line ships of the Sevastopol type.

                  You are right ... my source was different ... but ... the imperfection of liquors like Sevastopol does not at all mean that the Russian fleet was not oceanic. hi
            2. at84432384
              at84432384 23 September 2019 22: 04
              +8
              In 1905 the Russian fleet "waved" 40 miles from the Baltic to Tsushima and immediately entered the battle. What was the fleet like? Coastal or Oceanic?
              1. Spambox
                Spambox 24 September 2019 08: 39
                +1
                Let's not talk about this transition and joining the battle "outright" with the subsequent crushing defeat. It's definitely not worth repeating.
        4. The comment was deleted.
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 23 September 2019 17: 38
        +18
        Quote: K-612-O
        Well, he was very doubtful under the USSR.

        And what was this doubtfulness, can you intelligently enlighten?
        AUG we do not need to attack the country, but to cover their googs from the air. In the days of the Union, at first, no one even thought of building not just aircraft carriers, but even aircraft carriers, but ... then something pecked at the fried rooster, and they began to build, with each ship getting closer to a clean aircraft carrier. And to cover the deployment areas of our SSBNs with what? These areas are often not on our borders, and you can’t cover them with ground aviation.
        The bet on the means of destruction certainly has the right to be, but ... any sword must have a shield. We will create systems for intercepting new anti-ship missiles, both we and the mattresses, and in the bottom line there will again be a dispute - which is more effective, KUG or AUG?
        1. K-612-O
          K-612-O 23 September 2019 18: 01
          +5
          Well, at least to start with the fact that several dozen artillery (!) Cruisers were written off only in 93, they kept a lot of obsolete corbles for numbers. And the base of the fleet was the guard and BOD. AUG as such was not.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 23 September 2019 18: 18
            +8
            Quote: K-612-O
            Well, at least to start with the fact that several dozen artillery (!) Cruisers were written off only in 93, they kept a lot of obsolete corbles for numbers. And the base of the fleet was the guard and BOD. AUG as such was not.

            You are so illiterate then do not disgrace ...
            Look at the statistics and the number of warships of the 1985-91 period, and at the same time take a look. At the same time ...
            At 1991, the year at the shipbuilding enterprises of the USSR was built: two aircraft carriers (including one nuclear), 11 nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles, 18 multipurpose nuclear submarines, seven diesel submarines, two missile cruisers (including one nuclear), 10 destroyers and large anti-submarine ships, etc.

            So there is no need here to drive a horse in a vacuum, dear. I don’t remember about the ekranoplanes, which were also part of the Navy.
    2. Piramidon
      Piramidon 23 September 2019 17: 26
      +5
      Quote: Adimius38
      Yes, what is the status of an ocean power with a rook boat

      But really, why the hell do we need these AUG? Export democracy, or show your coolness like the Yankees? Modern means of destruction allow gouging "democrats" without leaving the pier. But "Grachata" is needed so that all Svidomo brothers do not meddle in our bridges.
      1. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter 23 September 2019 17: 34
        +12
        A fragment of an interview with Shoigu. Here about aircraft carriers.
        - We were lucky in that we still managed to stop in time. The process of returning to common sense has begun, as I said, in 1999. Starting from this moment, we are hard, hard, on our teeth, but nevertheless we have achieved that the world today has ceased to be unipolar. And this, of course, is very disliked by the West, which is making every effort to regain its monopoly on influence in the world. Someone believes that the open large-scale opposition of the West to Russia began only five years ago - from Ukraine and the Crimea. But this is a mistake. We can recommend to recall in detail what exactly happened in the 90, in the 2008, 2013 years. What nonsense did not speak and did not write about us at a time when we were preparing for the Olympic Games in Sochi! And this was by no means a manifestation of only information war.

        I do not want to go deep in particular. But the meaning of what is happening, from my point of view, is as follows: in the West, patterns and algorithms for overthrowing any legal authority inconvenient for them in any country have long been created. Of course, all this is done under the banner of promoting democracy. Well, in which country where they “came with democracy” did this democracy take root: in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya? Or in the former Yugoslavia, which they forcibly divided into 1999 countries with their "democratic" bombing in the 6 year. And you can simply forget about sovereignty and independence after any American intervention. And does it surprise anyone that in Libya the majority of oil deposits belong to American or US-controlled companies? Our Western colleagues like to accuse Russia of waging some kind of “hybrid wars” there. But I must say that the West itself is waging real hybrid wars. Now, for example, leaving Afghanistan in a dilapidated state, the Americans are diligently making a fuss in Venezuela - also, of course, for the sake of a "triumph of democracy"!

        - The US military budget is ten times greater than the Russian one. Can Russia, in principle, effectively confront America under such conditions?

        - Our Supreme Commander-in-Chief answered this question thoroughly and reasonably. Not just it can - Russia is already quite effectively opposing America. Resists thanks to our science, our industry, our new developments. And besides this, we are not trying to compete with them on all fronts. If you put the US military budget on the shelves, understanding will come to you: they have huge expenses for various bases scattered all over the world. Such bases in America 170. The US alone costs of the same operation in Afghanistan are almost equal to our annual defense budget. Gigantic money is being spent by the United States on private military companies, on aircraft carrier groups. But does Russia really need its five to ten aircraft carrier groups, if we are not going to attack anyone? We need funds that could potentially be used against such enemy carrier groups in case of aggression against our country. And it is incomparably cheaper and more effective!

        https://www.mk.ru/politics/2019/09/22/sergey-shoygu-rasskazal-kak-spasali-rossiyskuyu-armiyu.html
      2. Sandor Clegane
        Sandor Clegane 23 September 2019 17: 48
        +8
        Quote: Piramidon
        Modern means of destruction allow gouging "democrats" without leaving the pier

        eg? if you are talking about strategists, then following your logic is cheaper than Poplar and mine ..... then the Navy is not needed at all .... only border guards on corvettes and guard patrols, and if there is an apl, then a fleet is also needed for their deployment and combat stability. .. including the ocean one, so Shoigu’s statement is a temporary way out of the current situation
        1. Piramidon
          Piramidon 23 September 2019 17: 52
          -4
          Quote: Sandor Clegane
          if you're talking about strategists, then following your logic is cheaper than Poplar and mine ..... then in general the Navy is not needed ....

          Well, about the uselessness of the submarine, I did not say anything "hit from the pier" - purely figuratively. And they do not have to go to the shores of the foe to strike. But that's why we need AUG, you didn't bother to answer. Their goals and objectives are in the war with a worthy enemy and not with the "Papuans"
          1. Sandor Clegane
            Sandor Clegane 23 September 2019 18: 07
            +7
            Quote: Piramidon
            And they don’t have to go to the shores of the adversary to strike.

            it's a delusion
            Quote: Piramidon
            But that's why we need AUG, you didn't bother to answer. Their goals and objectives are in the war with a worthy enemy and not with the "Papuans"

            earlier, already 5 times wrote about it ..... tired of pounding with fingers, but the point is to ensure the combat stability of the nuclear submarine strategists .... this is very short
            1. Piramidon
              Piramidon 23 September 2019 18: 21
              -9
              Quote: Sandor Clegane
              it's a delusion

              It is simply unproven. Like - you're wrong because I said so. Estimate the range of ICBMs and tell them why they need to go there?
              earlier, already 5 times wrote about it ..... tired of pounding with fingers

              Don't press on pity, mice and keyboards hard worker. Tired - don't knock, rest. Moreover, there are two simplest actions (Ctrl + C - Ctrl + V) I personally did not ask you to knock on the keyboard. I had a dialogue with "Adimius38" request
              1. Tiksi-3
                Tiksi-3 23 September 2019 18: 44
                +4
                Quote: Piramidon
                Estimate the range of ICBMs and tell them why they need to go there?

                belay : here's a "strategist", why do we need strategic aviation? if the range of an ICBM covers it at times? !!, why do we need tanks, if there are Iskanders ..... why machine guns, if there is MLRS? wassat love
                Quote: Sandor Clegane
                it's a delusion

                this is not a mistake, it is such an attitude towards the naval) ...
                1. Piramidon
                  Piramidon 23 September 2019 19: 07
                  0
                  Quote: Tiksi-3
                  why do we need strategic aviation? if the range of the ICBM overlaps it at times? !!

                  Now the strategic aviation application strategy is also changing so as not to fly to the adversary and not to go into the area of ​​its air defense, but to strike from afar, fortunately, the range of their missile weapons is constantly increasing.
          2. NordOst16
            NordOst16 24 September 2019 01: 10
            +2
            AHG is needed by the state if it wants to act beyond its coast and ensure the stability of its groups in the ocean.
            The question is different: do we need an ocean fleet, if so, then aircraft carriers are indispensable both in the search for targets and in protecting ships from air strikes. If not, then you can limit yourself to frigates.
            But then the Russian Federation will become a regional power because, in most cases, only the fleet is capable of projecting forces thousands of kilometers from the state.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 23 September 2019 18: 04
          0
          Quote: Sandor Clegane
          eg? if you're talking about strategists, then following your logic is cheaper than Poplar and mine .....

          Exactly. Cheaper, more reliable, and more suitable for our concept of the use of nuclear weapons.
          Here you are absolutely right
    3. Greg Miller
      Greg Miller 23 September 2019 17: 31
      +1
      Well, don't tell me! Russia in the ocean will be represented not by missile cruisers and destroyers, but by MEGA yachts of Abramovich, Melnichenko, Usmanov, Sechin and other "Russian patriots" ... In this class of ships, everything is not as sad as in the Russian Navy ....
    4. svp67
      svp67 23 September 2019 17: 35
      -2
      Quote: Adimius38
      Yes, what is the status of an ocean power with a rook boat

      There is no Ocean without the Rook, as well as without many other small ships
    5. Tersky
      Tersky 23 September 2019 17: 36
      +3
      Quote: Adimius38
      Yes, what is the status of an ocean power with a rook boat

      laughing Now they will explain to you what status and current naval composition of the Russian Navy as of the current date. yes
    6. Sarmat Sanych
      Sarmat Sanych 23 September 2019 21: 18
      +3
      Even Sinanthropus recently very much fanned out). And in fact, the submarine fleet itself is weaker than even the French one, two strategists on the Soviet project of the early 70s with antediluvian J-2 carrying only a couple of 40 kt warheads (tested for 40 years, for this 4 dozens of responsible persons were shot), this is weaker than the Russian tacticallaughing. Multi-purpose workers are even more flawed, rattling all over South China, and therefore are hiding in Hainan’s mink, otherwise the Americans will poke them instantly during kipish. So do not tell the Chinese, the Russian nuclear submarines of all classes are an order of magnitude more powerful.
      1. NordOst16
        NordOst16 24 September 2019 01: 11
        +1
        Well, with the surface fleet, the trouble is sadness, we are terrible
  2. Gardamir
    Gardamir 23 September 2019 17: 08
    +8
    Gigantic money is being spent by the United States on private military companies, on aircraft carrier groups. But does Russia really need its five to ten aircraft carrier groups, if we are not going to attack anyone? We need funds that could potentially be used against such enemy carrier groups in case of aggression against our country. And it is incomparably cheaper and more effective!
    Well it is necessary. Here, I agree with Shoigu one hundred percent. The times of aircraft carriers are gone.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 23 September 2019 17: 23
      +9
      Quote: Gardamir
      The times of aircraft carriers are gone.

      Literally a couple of decades ago, with the advent of 1C: Accounting (and similar analogues), many believed that the profession of "accountant" would go down in history, but, somehow, it did not work out somehow, and accountants did not disappear.

      After the First World War, many believed that "there will be no more wars because there is already a bloody vaccination against wars in the form of WWI", and then BAC and WWII began, and after it XV.

      There were many such examples, and there will be even more. So that aircraft carriers will not go anywhere, it will change for sure, but they will not leave .... But what and how aircraft carriers will turn into, this is a question of questions, in any case, Shoigu is in many respects right, at least he is right in that it is not profitable for us (the Russian Federation) to build a fleet-analogue of the USA / China and it is not profitable to build a fleet analogue of France / Great Britain ...
      1. Shuttle
        Shuttle 23 September 2019 18: 03
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Shoigu is in many respects right, at least he is right in that it is not profitable for us (the Russian Federation) to build a fleet-analogue of the USA \ China and it is not profitable to build a fleet analogue of France \ Britain


        I agree with you that I also believe that the carrier democrats are unnecessary for us. At least not yet needed.
        Why? The answer to this question lies in t.s. objects of application of these same AUG. They are not needed to protect the United States. In modern conditions, with a real attack to destroy the US state system, such groups will be slightly less than useless even if no one acts against them at all. They alone cannot defend US territory from a nuclear missile attack even if they are moored along the very borders of the Russian Federation. They understood and understand this at the Pentagon no worse than you and me. But for some reason they are being built? What for? And then, to project your will (read, dictatorship, that is, unlimited power) on some coastal areas of the oceans and seas that interest them. For example, the Southeast Asian region (greetings from China, by the way), the countries of the gulf (from the word, oil gulfs, well, or the Persian, Hormuz gulfs - this is what you like). And also a little bit to Europeans to demonstrate gyus, so that they do not forget to maintain USD liquidity.
        The USSR has never had such tasks. Russia has so far too. In some very distant future, Russia may have something that will appear, but hardly. Because we still have enough of our natural wealth. And hydrocarbons, and all kinds of ores (including transuranic, by the way, too), and mineral reserves, and indeed with the territories somehow after the ancestors, everything is not so bad even after the Soviet Union collapsed.
        That's why we don't need projectors like American ones. Those. those same useless in the global armageddon AUG. But such a long arapnik is needed to get all these floating airfields together with their orders quickly, efficiently and, if possible, all at the same time. The fastest and most powerful rocket armament from cartoons is just suitable as such an arapnik. And there is no need for super-accuracy of the type so that whoever needs to fly through the window. Although this would not be a bad thing at the same cost. The main thing is to efficiently and reliably destroy ocean chicken coops with "Deadly Cats", "Lightning", "Super Hornets", "Warthogs", "Hawk Eyes", as well as their guides.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 23 September 2019 18: 41
          +10
          Quote: Shuttle
          The USSR has never had such tasks.

          And at the same time, the admirals of the USSR Navy, starting from the 60s, asked and demanded aircraft carriers from the leadership and industry. Without which the fleet could not build "bastions" to ensure the security of the SSBN deployment areas and its own bases.
          Well, it is impossible to cover from the shore ships operating 600-700 km from the nearest land - the IAP will arrive from the shore when there is nothing left of the ships. And to move the line of the "bastion" closer to land meant to build "Port Arthur at sea" when there is a defense, but it does not protect from anything.
          1. K-612-O
            K-612-O 24 September 2019 06: 08
            +1
            So in the 60s the BRMS range was thousands of 3-4 km long, we were very behind the Polyaris and Trident, now the situation is the opposite. Our missiles fly at 8-10 thousand, and the launch areas of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the North Seas do not need to go to the Atlantic. The aircraft carrier, like the battleship, has outlived itself at one time, can’t work on the ground, which is still a Desert Storm has shown, no one is going to chase them in the open sea, the RCC range covers the radius of their aircraft.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 24 September 2019 10: 54
              +1
              Quote: K-612-O
              So in the 60s the BRMS range was thousands of 3-4 km long, we were very behind the Polyaris and Trident, now the situation is the opposite. Our missiles fly at 8-10 thousand, and the launch areas of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the North Seas do not need to go to the Atlantic.

              The situation was reversed not now, but already in the 80s of the last century. Nevertheless, the Navy continued to demand the AB - primarily for the air defense of its naval anti-submarine groups, which provide the defense of the "bastions" covering the positional areas of the SSBN. Fri = the fact that you still need to get to these areas from the bases, and in the areas themselves - to survive.
              Quote: K-612-O
              The aircraft carrier, like the battleship, has outlived itself at one time; it can’t work on the ground, what else did the Desert Storm

              The Desert Storm showed that if there are enough airfields on land, then AB (especially working "from the neighboring sea") is not very needed.
              And if these airfields are not? Physically not - how in the north? 3-4 airbases on the right side, 3-4 airdromes on the other. It seems to be parity. And then four more airbases with a mixed air regiment on each come into this harmonious picture of approximate balance of power.
        2. Alf
          Alf 23 September 2019 21: 22
          +2
          Quote: Shuttle
          The USSR has never had such tasks.

          And what did our operational squadron do in the Mediterranean?
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 24 September 2019 02: 39
            +4
            Quote: Alf
            Quote: Shuttle
            The USSR has never had such tasks.

            And what did our operational squadron do in the Mediterranean?

            She was engaged in the most important business of all the men of the planet, "I was measuring with pipiski with a probable enemy," the fact that this is a geopolitical enemy, and not, let's say, does not change the love essence.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Quote: Shuttle
            The USSR has never had such tasks.

            And at the same time, the admirals of the USSR Navy, starting from the 60s, asked and demanded aircraft carriers from the leadership and industry. Without which the fleet could not build "bastions" to ensure the security of the SSBN deployment areas and its own bases.

            But for this interpretation of the "need for aircraft carriers" Soviet admirals had to tear their heads off, how much do you need not to love your own profession and the state in order to harm it by this method? although if you figure it out, everything is much simpler and more banal, because the more fleets, the more admirals ... In general, the rulers of the country of Soviets are also those eccentrics with the letter M, this is how much you need to have a disregard for your own security in order for the enemy to inform in advance the location of their nuclear submarines weapons under the slogan of their "protection".
            Well, if it’s serious, then to protect the submarines, she needs to be given the opportunity to attack herself, or rather, to enable active self-defense. First of all, it is to provide means of ultra-small and small air defense, and ideally, in general, a full-fledged air defense of the S-400 level. (I'm generally surprised why this has not yet been done ...).
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 24 September 2019 11: 06
              +1
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              In general, the rulers of the country of Soviets are also those eccentrics with the letter M, this is how much you need to have a disregard for your own security in order to inform the enemy in advance of the location of their submarines with nuclear weapons under the slogan of their "protection".

              And how do the AB and ASW ship groups located at the “bastion” line (the meridian of Bear or even Spitsbergen) report the location of SSBNs located behind them, somewhere within the two seas? wink
              Once again: no one was going to organize a direct escort of SSBNs by surface ships. There were no eccentrics in the command of the fleet. Surface ships under the cover of AB were supposed to deploy a "bastion" in front of the Barents Sea, cutting off ASW aircraft, ISSNS and enemy ship groups from their bases and launch areas of SLBMs located behind them, somewhere in the Barents or White Sea. And the fact that these areas are within these seas, the enemy was already aware.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 24 September 2019 13: 22
                -2
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And how do the AB and ASW ship groups located at the “bastion” line (the meridian of Bear or even Spitsbergen) report the location of SSBNs located behind them, somewhere within the two seas?

                The position of the submarine is marked with a red cross! laughing hi
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 24 September 2019 13: 21
              0
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              But seriously, to protect the submarines, she needs to be given the opportunity to attack herself

              Yes, I see, you’re right Nelson in three ways !!!!!
            3. Alf
              Alf 24 September 2019 21: 18
              -1
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              then, to protect the submarine, she needs to be given the opportunity to attack herself, or rather, to enable active self-defense. First of all, it’s to provide means of ultra-small and low air defense,

              That is, the boat will have to attack planes and helicopters by itself? Couldn't think of anything smarter? A land plane or a helicopter in the ocean has nothing to do, if something flies, then this "something" can only be aircraft-based. And if the submarine, through the captain's foolishness, knocks down at least one plane or helicopter, then by this she will shout to the whole sea - I am here. Deck carriers do not fly one by one, the aircraft carrier always knows who is hanging out in which area at the moment.
              And in order to use the S-400, as well as any other air defense system, the boat should EXPLODE, after which its attack will become inevitable and very likely sunk.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 24 September 2019 23: 36
                0
                Quote: Alf
                That is, the boat itself will have to attack planes and helicopters? Couldn’t come up with anything smarter?

                1) the range of carrier-based aviation is greater than the range of detection of the ship, moreover there are anti-submarine aircraft that can search for submarines thousands of kilometers from the land-based point.
                2) there are different submarines, not only for launching nuclear weapons, but also for working along ships / shores, and there submarines need not only to destroy the target but also return to the base, and this is problematic when it is already known where to search for submarines and the target designators are already sent.
                3) today transport and logistics routes run not only through land and water, but also through the air, which means that in case of war they also need to be blocked.
                Well, I think this is already enough to understand the fallacy of your opinion ...
      2. nikon7717
        nikon7717 24 September 2019 01: 04
        -4
        I dare to assure you that much of the above (the profession of accountant, aircraft carrier) can change very much in the near future. You will not even notice or realize it.
        In 20 years, there will be highly qualified accountants and general level operators, to fill out the reports.
        A clean aircraft carrier will no longer be relevant, especially with the development of hypersonic weapons and tracking equipment. Perhaps there will be underwater universal monsters filled with unmanned aircraft. Perhaps these UAVs will be with miniature atomic engines (since they’ve already built into the rocket)
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 23 September 2019 17: 38
      +8
      There is always a ton of expectations and super weapons. Examples? Yes, even the Navy:
      Whitehead mines - which the armadillos were supposed to bury. However, with the exception of some excesses (Port Arthur wake-up, successful attacks in the Adriatic against an Austrian) - the wunderwaffe did not take off.

      the leaders are the lightweight high-speed headquarters ship. He had to provide fire superiority over any light enemy forces, while at the same time go at his own pace. The price of such ships was equal to the standard light cruisers, and not a single successful application (namely, as a leader) was recorded. The Wunderwaffe failed completely and was scrapped.

      The times of aircraft carriers will leave only when another powerful core of the expeditionary / strike group is created. That's when there will be all sorts of orbital strikes, controlled vehicles flying into the atmosphere, M + aircraft with an unlimited radius of action without the need for regular refueling. Then here you can bury aircraft carriers. So far they have not come up with any replacement request .
    3. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 23 September 2019 18: 46
      +12
      Quote: Gardamir
      Carrier times are gone

      Of course they leave, like America is dying .... everything will never die ....
      1. prodi
        prodi 23 September 2019 19: 09
        0
        and here it is (America) the biggest nail in the cover of the AUG theme
    4. Alf
      Alf 23 September 2019 21: 21
      +4
      Quote: Gardamir
      The times of aircraft carriers are gone.

      In the 60s they also talked about tanks, anti-tank weapons developed something like that.
    5. Lannan Shi
      Lannan Shi 23 September 2019 21: 34
      +1
      Quote: Gardamir
      Here, I agree with Shoigu one hundred percent. The times of aircraft carriers are gone.

      The aircraft carrier is nothing more than an airfield. Only floating. Its time will not pass before the time of aviation. And mobility makes it possible to save money. 1 floating airfield is cheaper than 10 stationary ones. Just think about the cost of building, and the main maintenance, of an airfield network for 500 cars in Kamchatka, Vladik, Crimea, Murmansk, Kaliningrad, the same Syria, somewhere else. Designed to deploy 5 hundred aircraft. Deployment where the need arose, and not where it "could". 5 aviks, against the background of this splendor - sheer trifle.
      Plus Avik is the only means of protecting interests overseas. Without it, or dozens of bases around the globe, all our claims to the role of a great power are empty puffing.
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 23 September 2019 21: 50
        -2
        His time will pass no earlier than the time of aviation.
        Imagine aircraft that easily overcome 10000 km round-trip why do they need an airfield.
        Aviation will remain, but change. Once, my mother went to a neighboring city for two days on a horse. Now by car in an hour. Once the Japanese aircraft carriers crept up to Pearl Harbor, now it is possible differently.
        In the end, develop combat satellites with a prospect or aircraft carriers?
        1. Lannan Shi
          Lannan Shi 23 September 2019 23: 04
          0
          Quote: Gardamir
          Imagine aircraft that easily overcome 10000 km round-trip why do they need an airfield.

          There is one. The airship is called. Using as a percussion device is somewhat problematic. And devices heavier than air, on modern technologies, will not fly so much. Neither 1000% of energy, nor even 101 can be obtained from fuel. 100 is a theoretical limit, in practice unattainable. Or you will fly slowly and sadly, and they will knock you out of the berdanas, or you will get a tanker with wings. The size of a half Avik. SU -35 on the described route will ask for fuel 2 times its weight. And a vicious circle went. We need larger tanks, and under them we will increase the glider, and under it the engines are more powerful, and under them there is little fuel. TU 160 with its 12.000, and not 20.000, as you order, and then - a barrel with wings. 55% of the weight is fuel. A group of 60-70 cars, at a price, will be quite comparable with the price of AUG. But according to the possibilities, if without nuclear weapons, no.
          Quote: Gardamir
          Aviation will remain, but change.

          There is no breakthrough in the natural sciences. Let’s open antigravity, or at least start stamping pocket nuclear power plants for a couple of megawatts, then yes, but not earlier. The path from your mother’s horse to TU 160 is much shorter than from TU 160 to an intercontinental multirole fighter.
          Quote: Gardamir
          Eventually develop combat satellites

          The sleep of reason. A tale for milking the R&D budget. That's just the conclusion of the cargo, even to a low support, at $ 4 million per ton. Su 34 pulls up to 12 tons. Unload 1 BC thirty-fourth, from space, about 50 Lyam. The price of avik is equal to the price of 200-300 such strikes. 3-4 departure AG.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 24 September 2019 13: 24
          +1
          Quote: Gardamir
          Imagine Aircraft

          laughing Gardamir, you are not only an enemy of the world bourgeoisie, but also of fantasy and alternative history ???
      2. K-612-O
        K-612-O 24 September 2019 06: 14
        +3
        This is just rubbish. A floating airfield with a limited supply of jet fuel and BC, which he needs to constantly replenish + fuel for the warrant. On the ground, ensuring the operation of an airdrome can be both cheaper and faster.
        1. Lannan Shi
          Lannan Shi 24 September 2019 12: 09
          -2
          Quote: K-612-O
          On the ground, ensuring the operation of an airdrome can be both cheaper and faster.

          Quote: K-612-O
          This is just rubbish.

          The cost of delivering cargo from St. Petersburg to Norfolk is lower than from St. Petersburg to the Urals. The cheapest form of transport is sea.
      3. SVD68
        SVD68 24 September 2019 08: 11
        0
        And why does one who proposes to consider the cost of ground airfields not consider the cost of naval bases?
  3. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 23 September 2019 17: 09
    +16
    "write the Chinese media, noting that this process also affects submarines, which, although they are equipped with formidable" Calibers ", are becoming smaller in tonnage and cannot be compared with the previous" Typhoon "[like" Shark "] displacement ( surface) over 23 thousand tons. "

    Interestingly, in China, they simply did not hear about miniaturization, or do they completely deny it? Why build a submarine the size of Typhoon / Shark, when the same number of SLBMs of the same power can carry nuclear submarines three times less in displacement? And about carriers of "calibers" I generally keep quiet. "Caliber", if desired, can be stuck on submarines such as "K", "C", or even "Sh" during the Great Patriotic War
  4. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 23 September 2019 17: 13
    -3
    In principle, I agree - while we are not going to attack, we do not need aircraft carriers.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 23 September 2019 17: 23
      +11
      Well, and China himself was going to attack whom? Having 2 aircraft carrier, building a third. Having the 8 DKVD and launching the UDK on 26 on September 30 000 tons (almost Wosp) and building next to the second, figacha is a gigantic series of standardized destroyers, losing only Berks to the number.



      1. Greg Miller
        Greg Miller 23 September 2019 17: 33
        -1
        Taiwan needs to be returned to them, but ships are needed for this ....
  5. EDWARD
    EDWARD 23 September 2019 17: 17
    -2
    as our MI Kutuzov said .. "with the loss of Moscow, Russia is not lost." you can lose the battle. but not war. we are now in the recovery stage.
    1. Greg Miller
      Greg Miller 23 September 2019 17: 38
      +5
      Oh how! In the ranks of the Navy, there are 14 nuclear submarines of all types that are capable of entering the base. Since 2014, NONE of the new nuclear submarines have been commissioned, and you are in the "recovery" stage. Another 10 years of this stage and there will be nothing to restore ...
      1. Sarmat Sanych
        Sarmat Sanych 24 September 2019 08: 18
        +1
        Well, the Chinese generally have only two strategists of our 70s project with underdeveloped J-2 carrying 3 microscopic warheads of 40 kt each, this is 2 times weaker than one Russian tactical X-102 and 10 times less than on Iskanderlaughing... Yes, and mattress mats from 14 "Ohio" average 35-year-old construction are only on the move, they are not capable of more than double start, and then with an interval of 5 hours as the last two timessmile... The "Columbia" project has stalled, at best it will be finished in the mid-30s, the competencies are lost, the replacement of T2D5 is not expected. And Russia is building the most advanced SSBNs in the world, single-handedly possesses hypersonic and nuclear-unmanned weapons, so in many ways we are the best on the planet.
    2. Reklastik
      Reklastik 23 September 2019 18: 22
      +4
      Come on? And how long will it continue? What level of recovery? 1861 year? )))
  6. SERGEY SERGEEVICS
    SERGEY SERGEEVICS 23 September 2019 17: 17
    +2
    Russia does not need aircraft carrier groups; weapons are needed to drown them.

    In vain, of course, they write off all this so, as for me, 4-5 aircraft carriers, they still needed to be in stock, we have a large territory and water area, each time you cannot transfer one aircraft carrier.
  7. Mikhail Drabkin
    Mikhail Drabkin 23 September 2019 17: 19
    +9
    —Shoigu did not abandon the construction of aircraft carriers, but expressed doubt about the number of aircraft carrier groups needed by Russia.
    -And Shoigu struck out that the main thing with which the transformation of the armed forces began in 2012 was the abandonment of the habit of lying and taking what was wanted for reality.
    1. Greg Miller
      Greg Miller 23 September 2019 17: 45
      +5
      Yeah, failing to achieve what was planned, they simply decided to declare what was achieved - as planned ... and airborne temples in addition ....
  8. Livonetc
    Livonetc 23 September 2019 17: 19
    +2
    Or maybe, with the advent of hypersonic means, aircraft carriers become a means of intimidation of countries that are not the most militarily powerful.
  9. bars1
    bars1 23 September 2019 17: 20
    +19
    The Chinese are probably not aware that the Sharks were built so big not because of a good life - the SLBMs turned out to be too monstrous for them. Therefore, he is proud of the size of these cruisers, anyway he is proud of such a definition as `` the Soviet microcircuit is the largest microcircuit in the world ''
  10. Kontrik
    Kontrik 23 September 2019 17: 21
    -5
    Russia does not need aircraft carrier groups; weapons are needed to drown them.

    I agree with Shoigu! AUGI is for the United States Tipo scare third countries, etc. .. But in the case of the DPRK, when two groups simply draped off the coast of Korea .. That’s the proof.! soldier In supersonic technology, these galoshes are good targets, even at great distances.
    Russia most likely will need in the near future, large landing ships as part of a grouping with good air defense protection, etc.
    1. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 23 September 2019 18: 48
      +3
      Quote: Kontrik
      when two groups just draped off the coast of Korea

      just did not drape from Yugoslavia and from Iraq ....
      1. Kontrik
        Kontrik 23 September 2019 19: 55
        -5
        Quote: Tiksi-3
        Quote: Kontrik
        when two groups just draped off the coast of Korea

        just did not drape from Yugoslavia and from Iraq ....

        True, but then there was no S-300, hypersound and other bastions .. And they can appear in many countries for protection ..
        And most importantly, then Russia was under the EBN and other Jews, a Semibankirism .. ALL FOR SALE! soldier
        And Yugoslavia fought back as best it could alone and not badly! Judging by this photo .. But alas.

        We’ll also see who’s who .. soldier
    2. Greenwood
      Greenwood 24 September 2019 08: 51
      0
      Quote: Kontrik
      two groups just draped off the coast of Korea .. That’s proof.!
      Because it was Trump’s political decision not to escalate the situation and try to negotiate with the DPRK peacefully, at the same time gaining political points.
  11. Pavel57
    Pavel57 23 September 2019 17: 22
    +1
    Give the helicopter carriers.
  12. Thrifty
    Thrifty 23 September 2019 17: 24
    +9
    It’s just that there is nowhere for Russia to build them, and soon there will be no one to build, because generational change is not particularly visible, young people are not going to the shipyard very well. ..
  13. Klingon
    Klingon 23 September 2019 17: 25
    0
    China would be silent in the tube. You can remind them of their long-range aviation. Still fly on a copy of the Tu-16 (a shame, for so many years they could not Tu-160, but what is there, even Tu-22 to copy). From AWACS and its transporters there is nothing? only copies of our IL-76MD, you can also recall about air defense and much more am
    1. Sarmat Sanych
      Sarmat Sanych 24 September 2019 08: 22
      +2
      Absolutely agree! The Chinese have neither the long-range aviation, but the submarine fleet, only the huts of 70s projectslaughing. Yes, and with the ground part of the triad the stanthropes have complete disgrace, all of their few df-31/41 carry only a common charge less than tactical.
    2. Greenwood
      Greenwood 24 September 2019 08: 52
      -2
      Quote: Klingon
      for so many years they could not Tu-160, but what is there, even Tu-22 to copy
      Neither the Tu-22, nor even the Tu-160 were ever delivered to the PRC. How would they copy them?
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 23 September 2019 17: 31
    +4
    Quote: donavi49
    Well, and China himself was going to attack whom? Having 2 aircraft carrier, building a third. Having the 8 DKVD and launching the UDK on 26 on September 30 000 tons (almost Wosp) and building next to the second, figacha is a gigantic series of standardized destroyers, losing only Berks to the number.




    I think yes. Gained economic power, built an army and navy ... it's time to think about expanding influence. I don’t know how this will be expressed, but it will definitely be. Look at the story - it always has been.
    1. Shahno
      Shahno 23 September 2019 17: 38
      0
      If you are about the Chinese .. They have a bad habit of absorbing neighbors ...
      Well, how would I not understand the real level of combat readiness of their aircraft. All in quantity. I'm afraid the quality hits the quantity. For example, if the Japs sorted out or what. And chatter is everything.
      1. Greenwood
        Greenwood 24 September 2019 08: 55
        0
        Quote: Shahno
        Well, how would I not understand the real level of combat readiness of their aircraft.
        All wars and conflicts of the past, the Chinese lost. At international military exercises and all kinds of tank competitions there, their crews do not show any serious skills and results.
    2. Antares
      Antares 23 September 2019 19: 03
      -1
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      I don’t know how this will be expressed, but it will definitely be. Look at the story - it always has been.

      Zhu Di and Zheng Hae-heyday. Expansion, the largest fleet, the largest ships ....
      "Great Chinese Geographical Discoveries"
      1. Sarmat Sanych
        Sarmat Sanych 24 September 2019 08: 26
        +1
        Various "Chinese discoveries" have already been written and analyzed hundreds of times, including about "geographical" ones. In fact, one hat and eyewash. Yes, and they do not belong to the current Han PRC, they do not belong to ANYTHING, Xiangbin, Khitan, Chzhurjeni, Manchus and other peoples and dynasties have nothing to do with the Han people. Otherwise, you can identify the Egyptian pharaohs and the current Arabslaughing.
  16. Moskovit
    Moskovit 23 September 2019 17: 37
    +3
    At least one link to some real Chinese publication was given. Otherwise, the "Chinese media" are becoming the same authorities as the "British scientists"
  17. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 23 September 2019 17: 40
    +3
    The Chinese probably do not know the story of the creation of pr.941, which was created AROUND the rocket
    1. V.I.F.
      V.I.F. 23 September 2019 18: 02
      +3
      Quote: The Siberian Barber
      The Chinese probably don't know

      There are many Chinese.
      Some know, others do not. It's just the media, and the journalists - even in China, are the journalists so far (although they promise to replace them with AI)
  18. arthropod
    arthropod 23 September 2019 17: 41
    +5
    It used to be:
    America did not get
    Dreadnought Yamamoto and Doenitza Wolf Pack.
    For all we are Ivan for them,
    They didn’t wait, go, at your side ...
    We broke into the oceans
    Alarm, gentlemen, anxiety!
  19. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 23 September 2019 17: 48
    -1
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: K-612-O
    Well, he was very doubtful under the USSR.

    And what was this doubtfulness, can you intelligently enlighten?
    AUG we do not need to attack the country, but to cover their googs from the air. In the days of the Union, at first, no one even thought of building not just aircraft carriers, but even aircraft carriers, but ... then something pecked at the fried rooster, and they began to build, with each ship getting closer to a clean aircraft carrier. And to cover the deployment areas of our SSBNs with what? These areas are often not on our borders, and you can’t cover them with ground aviation.
    The bet on the means of destruction certainly has the right to be, but ... any sword must have a shield. We will create systems for intercepting new anti-ship missiles, both we and the mattresses, and in the bottom line there will again be a dispute - which is more effective, KUG or AUG?

    Thank God, we still have the opportunity to respond to the massive heaping of aircraft carrier and other groups on our coasts by mass frying of their main territories. Which is, of course, a fast and achievable ORGANIZATION (you still need to approach the shore imperceptibly, at a strike distance.) Which is many orders of magnitude more achievable for our sick budget.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 23 September 2019 17: 57
      +3
      Well, then you have to work according to Kudrin. Contain a professional, well-equipped, but very compact army, Air Force, Navy. Which will be enough to solve problems a la 888 or Syria. The rest is returned to the economy (both in money and in labor).

      If necessary, the army is enough to pacify which Georgia or to fulfill a duty in Syria. If big uncles from NATO attack, well, radioactive ashes. What is the difference how many hundreds of thousands there are in the army and how many hundreds of Armats are in service?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 23 September 2019 18: 45
        +4
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, then you need to work on Kudrin. Contain a professional, well-equipped, but very compact army, Air Force, Navy. Which will be enough to solve problems a la 888 or Syria.

        And we again return to the combat-ready contract brigades of Serdyukov-Makarov. smile
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 23 September 2019 20: 02
          0
          Not in this case laughing Even if the mentioned 40 motorized rifle and tank brigades are fully staffed by state, a conflict like the Second Chechen Company will initially require the involvement of up to 7 brigades (35 people in 000), and in a year or two up to 1999 brigades (14 people. ), of which up to 90 brigades in numbers over three years will amount to losses (000 killed and 5 wounded). Not to mention the need for a mabut in a local conflict, and there are fewer than 4572-15 in three small and medium-sized businesses in the brigades of 549-1300 brigades.
  20. evgen1221
    evgen1221 23 September 2019 17: 55
    -2
    At this stage of his life, Shoigu is absolutely right, what kind of aug when we can’t cope with our own officials, in the sense of their work for the population and not for themselves (exaggerated, but for a senka and a hat). And yes, PCR is cheaper and more efficient than aug off their shores , and in the distance we have nowhere to go to the colony nightmare.
    1. Alf
      Alf 23 September 2019 21: 27
      +2
      Quote: evgen1221
      when we cannot cope with our own officials,

      Or do not want to?
  21. Cro-Magnon
    Cro-Magnon 23 September 2019 17: 59
    -2
    Shoigu is absolutely right! Aircraft carrier is a means of expansion. Modern weapons easily translate it into a convenient vulnerable target. Also, there is no more sense in an aircraft carrier, if we take into account the characteristics of hypersonic weapons, which will faster and better than any aircraft carrier allow the outcome of the attack. Aircraft carrier - a lot of money down the drain. And the means to destroy them, such as missile multipurpose frigates and corvettes plus submarines, an air wing, need to be further improved. The world is changing, technology does not stand still. The military world has already changed. Ineffective weapons are moving away. Aircraft carriers are ineffective.
    1. Shahno
      Shahno 23 September 2019 18: 02
      +1
      You look like Shoigu is one of the receivers. Suddenly he began to give compliments to the IDF.
      How a politician spoke ... yes
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 24 September 2019 17: 47
        -1
        Shoigu said. And all of a sudden they became alarmed. And who is Shoigu, did he serve in the army? Or do you not know how he received the rank of general? He is a former firefighter, but they found authority.
    2. maden.usmanow
      maden.usmanow 23 September 2019 19: 31
      +3
      Efficiency or inefficiency should be tested in battle, not in words.
      A conventional ballistic missile in itself cannot replace an aircraft.
      A missile is an exclusively striking means, period.

      Matters related to radar, electronic warfare, air control cannot be resolved by missiles and non-aircraft carriers.
      Aviation is simply more universal.


      Following your logic>

      Any aviation: a lot of money down the drain, air defense get off, etc.

      Better to invest in rockets.
      1. panov_panov
        panov_panov 23 September 2019 20: 11
        +1
        Your reasoning is reasonable, and it is difficult to argue with your theses, but everything rests on economic opportunities, if finances are limited, then spending should be proportionate and effective. I am not an expert, but judging by everything, aircraft carriers are, to put it mildly, expensive, and apparently in modern realities we cannot afford. And one more question for discussion, how appropriate are they? battleships, battleships of the early 20th century come to mind, because this type of ships has sunk into oblivion. An example of "Tirpitz" how the Germans fiddled with it and took care of it, and what a final!)
    3. Alf
      Alf 23 September 2019 21: 28
      +2
      Quote: Cro-Magnon
      Ineffective weapons are moving away.

      Which departed? Tanks? Airplanes? Guns?
      1. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 24 September 2019 03: 02
        0
        Aircraft carriers. I am about them. The effect of an aircraft carrier only takes place when your adversary has no democracy (here I am ironic) and a strong army. This is me about banana republics. Or do you consider yourself smarter than Shoigu and the military experts behind him?
        1. Alf
          Alf 24 September 2019 21: 22
          0
          Quote: Cro-Magnon
          Or do you consider yourself smarter than Shoigu and the military experts behind him?

          Some military experts tried to build wheeled tanks in the form of horse hybrids in our weapons system. Thank God there were more sober-minded military men.
          1. Cro-Magnon
            Cro-Magnon 25 September 2019 13: 57
            0
            Stop flogging nonsense. She is in pain ...
      2. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 24 September 2019 03: 13
        0
        Aircraft carriers.
      3. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 24 September 2019 03: 16
        -3
        I will add. Democracy delivery vehicles for the banana republics, that is, aircraft carriers, are moving away. Do you have a fantasy about guns, tanks, etc. Or is it smarter than Shoigu? From the couch?
        1. Alf
          Alf 24 September 2019 21: 23
          0
          Quote: Cro-Magnon
          Democracy delivery vehicles for the banana republics, that is, aircraft carriers, are moving away.

          This is you tell China.
          1. Cro-Magnon
            Cro-Magnon 25 September 2019 13: 53
            0
            But is China the standard of military strategy? Oh well...
  22. Izotovp
    Izotovp 23 September 2019 18: 04
    -3
    Many of the tasks that the United States solve by aircraft carriers can be solved by helicopters and drones. Therefore, our MO is not in a hurry, it is balanced.
  23. panov_panov
    panov_panov 23 September 2019 18: 08
    +4
    Purely in my opinion,) you need to live within your means and be realistic. The answer to the adversary should be as effective and economically cheap as possible. During the Second World War, I think we succeeded. Our equipment was easy to manufacture, maintainable, effective in battle. I don’t think that in this regard, with a high-intensity conflict, something has changed. If our military doctrine is purely defensive in nature, does not provide for the aggressive imposition of its worldview, then the reasonable question arises, why spend money on something that is not necessary. It seems to me that the analogy with a personal car is appropriate, if you are going to drive in a city where there are continuous traffic jams, expensive gasoline, then why do you need an SUV, and even on credit?))
  24. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 23 September 2019 18: 09
    +3
    For me, personally, the opinion of the Chinese comrades is very important))) Just ask you to clarify - the author is Chinese from where he will be: from China, from Hong Kong or from Taiwan ??? There is only one China - only the "love" for Russia is different for all the Chinas listed))) If from the PRC, it is clear that it is a pity not to have a strong ally of the distracting US Navy, if from Hong Kong, it is clear that the hopes of exchange players to profit from loans for construction of ships, equipment, etc. it will not work if from Taiwan - it is the enemy's "voice of America" ​​with a Chinese accent. It is a pity that I am not Shoigu, otherwise our Chinese and non-Chinese comrades would have answered with plagiarism "from Medvedev": There is no money (for the status of an ocean power), but you (in China) hold on!)))
  25. Shuttle
    Shuttle 23 September 2019 18: 10
    +4
    Publications from the PRC note that in the 1950 - 60 of the USSR, the Soviet Union sought to implement the concept of "missile universality", categorically abandoning the construction of aircraft carriers, as it considered them useless. But the Cuban crisis, accompanied by the American blockade of Liberty Island, showed the fallacy of this approach.

    In the People's Republic of China they hate Comrade Khrushchev fiercely and, as a consequence, obviously transfer this dislike to the decisions taken in the USSR at that time. Including and decisions in military construction. Of course, Comrade Khrushchev pummeled so much that many consider the period of his reign the beginning of the end of the USSR as the leader of the world proletariat. But, fortunately, not all decisions taken with him were extremely harmful to the USSR. The bet on the development of rocket technology may have been too high, too comprehensive, but to call it unsuccessful is a clear mistake and pulling an owl on the globe.
  26. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 23 September 2019 18: 13
    -1
    Quote: Shahno

    I'm afraid the quality hits the quantity.

    Not always like this. Was the t-34 the best WWII tank? But there were so many of them ...
  27. rocket757
    rocket757 23 September 2019 18: 16
    0
    If the nuclear submarines are part of a vigorous triad, then do they need to be covered from above? If there is a shock ocean fleet, it must be covered from below and this is exactly the submarine! One without the other is not viable!
    All this is very expensive, expensive and even more expensive!
    What to do?
    Well, at the expense of the AUG near your shores, you don’t have to worry much if you have a good reconnaissance control system ... this is also an underwater, surface fleet, just a smaller scale! And of course in a sufficient number of coastal missile systems! Naval aviation will also be very relevant!
  28. mark2
    mark2 23 September 2019 18: 16
    +5
    Analysts have always been amazed, who made far-reaching conclusions on one phrase. Where in the quotation Shoigu said that Russia is abandoning the ocean fleet?
    Actually, it is better to have ships with powerful anti-ship missiles than traveling pit.
    And this does not mean abandonment of the ocean.
  29. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 23 September 2019 18: 21
    0
    Quote: donavi49
    Well, then you have to work according to Kudrin. Contain a professional, well-equipped, but very compact army, Air Force, Navy. Which will be enough to solve problems a la 888 or Syria. The rest is returned to the economy (both in money and in labor).

    If necessary, the army is enough to pacify which Georgia or to fulfill a duty in Syria. If big uncles from NATO attack, well, radioactive ashes. What is the difference how many hundreds of thousands there are in the army and how many hundreds of Armats are in service?

    One should not look at the army through the eyes of this premature accountant, but a real military man. Of course, the appetite needs to be determined somewhat, not to give what is dreamed of. Otherwise, it can turn out like in Tukhachevsk. Dreamed of 60 thousand tanks in peacetime. But at first, our craftsmen were able to give the enemy two tens of thousands, which they somewhat managed to use for their own purposes. What would happen if the guests could fuck the very one, 60 thousand ..... We would be much worse. And the economy was ruined and the trophies richer were given .... The enemy must be suppressed as at the time on Damansky. By fire and fire .... Put the sword to the side for this time.
  30. loki565
    loki565 23 September 2019 18: 22
    +2
    One aircraft carrier can be built, at least for the image of the country. As the Syrian conflict showed, aircraft carriers are quite suitable for sabotaging weapons.
    1. fezm.fan
      fezm.fan 23 September 2019 21: 52
      +1
      An aircraft carrier is a means of delivering weapons from its shores to the other shore, if we do not plan to conquer other countries, then one or two for the eyes.
  31. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 23 September 2019 18: 27
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
    Quote: Shahno

    I'm afraid the quality hits the quantity.

    Not always like this. Was the t-34 the best WWII tank? But there were so many of them ...

    What do you compare the T-34 with? With T6? Then you need to compare and load the load, like Jabotinsky. And whip if you fall.
  32. APASUS
    APASUS 23 September 2019 18: 36
    +3
    I think all the same, it’s not a fleet development strategy, but a banal lack of funds. When investing in the economy, we cannot arrange shows, we need olympiads, rallies, summits ................... .........
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 24 September 2019 08: 21
      0
      The strategy begins with an assessment of the possibilities: one's and probable opponents.
  33. Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 23 September 2019 18: 37
    +4
    How can we discuss the nonsense from the icteric Chinese press for domestic consumption?

    "Russia refuses to build the Death Star", "The fall of Moscow's ambitions: Shoigu showed that Russia is giving up the status of a state-destroyer of star systems", "The Kremlin has lost the fight for natural resources: Lavrov announced its refusal to conquer bursts of magma in the core of the planet." ..

    I can throw you the same headlines of "Chinese media", will we also discuss?
  34. 30143
    30143 23 September 2019 18: 41
    +2
    This is the end! Signed in their inability to build something.
    Only resources can sell. It’s also easier. We will prove that the PRC will protect us, and then have where they can.
    We have to admit that the competencies, both in the Russian Federation and in Ukraine, for the construction of ocean ships have been lost!
    Ours with a brush.
  35. New Year day
    New Year day 23 September 2019 18: 51
    +4
    what is it that turns out- ship aviation kirdyk?
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 24 September 2019 11: 01
      0
      what is it that turns out- ship aviation kirdyk?

      Manned Aviation Kirdyk. Soon.
  36. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 23 September 2019 19: 01
    +4
    An important fact is that Shoigu stressed, "But does Russia need its own five to ten aircraft carrier groups?" It is entirely possible to assume that for Russia, two or three is enough. After all, we are talking about an aircraft carrier group, not a separate aircraft carrier. So, the Chinese media boast in vain. Not tomorrow yet!
  37. Flanker27
    Flanker27 23 September 2019 19: 06
    0
    What is the ocean fleet? In Russia, the population is 145 million, and in the US 350! Where to get the sailors? Already there are not enough pilots for aviation. And we have the most extended land border. What to breeze go to children conception. And then soon the Chinese and Indians will do it instead of you.
  38. ololo
    ololo 23 September 2019 19: 07
    +1
    Correctly! Why build aircraft carriers if the dock is already sunk?
  39. 1536
    1536 23 September 2019 19: 08
    +4
    And why all fight something? Aircraft carriers can also harness the oceans, but icebreakers are preferable for Russia. China, however, resembles more and more late for the pie section. This has already happened in history and ended badly for the whole world. But even in this case, the Russian aircraft carriers are currently not really needed. Since you have to fight on land.
  40. Antares
    Antares 23 September 2019 19: 12
    0
    All over the world, happily (except for the USA itself) all the time they are trying to say that aircraft carriers are outdated, that they are inefficient, that roads and why not build ...
    And only the United States continues to stubbornly build these largest military surface ships, practicing technology and production. The rest are content with ersatz and mini. It's expensive!
    And everyone in the world is comforted that this is outdated and not why.
    I have two thoughts — either the United States itself is spreading rumors about the premature death of His Majesty the Aircraft Carrier (Smirnov. Ships and battles). In order not to disturb the process. And then when they were they were built by everyone who could.
    Or a kind of ideology justifying the absence.
    The aircraft carrier itself is the crown of creation of surface ships, it embodies the achievements of modern human processes, both production and society itself (a mini city on the water). There are a lot of technologies. And expensive. You need to rebuild the whole country to repeat the construction of such monsters.
    And the meaning ...
    Despite all the rumors about the premature death of aircraft carriers, they are exaggerated.
    1. fezm.fan
      fezm.fan 23 September 2019 21: 47
      -2
      The answer to one question (at least for myself) for what the aircraft carrier was invented!
  41. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 23 September 2019 19: 16
    -3
    Quote: wkd dvk
    Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
    Quote: Shahno

    I'm afraid the quality hits the quantity.

    Not always like this. Was the t-34 the best WWII tank? But there were so many of them ...

    What do you compare the T-34 with? With T6? Then you need to compare and load the load, like Jabotinsky. And whip if you fall.

    Yes, I compare it with a tiger. And your "compare", "load", "lash with a whip" have nothing to say to me. These are all emotions. TTX please and their comparison.
    1. Alf
      Alf 23 September 2019 21: 34
      0
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      Yes, I compare it with the tiger.

      Have you tried comparing with your classmate? Your example is like a destroyer compared to a cruiser.
  42. Mentat
    Mentat 23 September 2019 19: 18
    +1
    Quote: Greg Miller
    Oh how! In the ranks of the Navy, there are 14 nuclear submarines of all types that are capable of entering the base. Since 2014, NONE of the new nuclear submarines have been commissioned, and you are in the "recovery" stage. Another 10 years of this stage and there will be nothing to restore ...

    Nuclear parity exists between the USA and Russia, and nuclear submarines are used specifically for this. Nuclear submarines are not an end in themselves for narcissism; they perform specific tasks. They are doing it successfully, and new ones are being built so that this will continue to be the case.
  43. Aliken
    Aliken 23 September 2019 19: 28
    0
    Do not give up the sky, and we will live ..
  44. kimlykvp
    kimlykvp 23 September 2019 20: 18
    -1
    The ocean fleet was not in Russia, the USSR, or the Russian Federation. For its functioning, a basing system and a floating rear are needed.
  45. Old26
    Old26 23 September 2019 20: 29
    +3
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    We have not had a 100 normal fleet in recent years.

    Come on. The USSR Navy was the second most powerful fleet after the US Navy. The USSR Navy had only about a hundred nuclear submarines. And you call this “there was no normal fleet?” The Russian Empire's fleet is even ridiculous to compare with the USSR Navy both in number and in technological excellence. Just in the period of the USSR, Russia had the most powerful fleet in its entire history.

    Maxim! A normal fleet is a balanced fleet. So what if the USSR had atomic boats under a hundred. surface ships, but were built in obscure series of 4-7 hulls. There were lots of ships that could be dispensed with, but there weren’t enough supply transports in sufficient numbers. There were small landing ships (including tank landing ones) that could hardly go into the ocean to protect at least the islands of the Kuril ridge. Some 50 destroyers were built in the 60-40s. There were strange series of cruisers of 4 hulls or BODs that could not protect themselves, since they had launchers for anti-submarine missiles.
    So to some extent correct. We did not have and do not have a long-term fleet construction program, designed for 20 years. And if in some years they did, then they were redrawn to please the political leadership, but not expediency

    Quote: Shuttle
    The bet on the development of rocket technology may have been too high, too comprehensive, but to call it unsuccessful is a clear mistake and pulling an owl on the globe.

    He had a clear bias towards rocketry. Tanks are necessarily missile. Any ship is missile. Aircraft - exclusively with missile weapons. On some aircraft projects, the air gun was not initially provided for as a melee weapon. The rate on missiles slowed down our artillery for 15 years. So, of course, there are a lot of pluses from rocketia, but there are enough minuses
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 24 September 2019 11: 11
      0
      A normal fleet is a balanced fleet.

      This is the Gorshkov mantra, which everyone has been repeating for decades.
      Amers have an unbalanced fleet.
      A normal fleet is a fleet suitable for performing assigned tasks. Like any toolkit.
      If you work as a furniture assembler, you don’t need a set of hammers from jewelry to pood sledgehammers. Two are enough.
  46. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 23 September 2019 21: 17
    +1
    Quote: donavi49
    Well, then you have to work according to Kudrin. Contain a professional, well-equipped, but very compact army, Air Force, Navy. Which will be enough to solve problems a la 888 or Syria. The rest is returned to the economy (both in money and in labor).

    If necessary, the army is enough to pacify which Georgia or to fulfill a duty in Syria. If big uncles from NATO attack, well, radioactive ashes. What is the difference how many hundreds of thousands there are in the army and how many hundreds of Armats are in service?

    According to Kudrin, we need to contain all of our government-Duma hevra. The data is old, I may not be quite accurate, BUT! The Department of Agriculture of Canada has as many as 300 employees.
    To the whole country. For, they grow and sell bread (sold in the USSR) not according to orders, decrees and plans, but in private. And, as you know, private ministers and Heads of Departments of ministries like a stop signal to a hare.
  47. alex-sherbakov48
    alex-sherbakov48 23 September 2019 21: 21
    0
    Respecting Shoigu, I, however, do not agree with his statement that Russia does not need aircraft carrier formations. They will prevent the enemy from reaching our shores and make them stay away from our shores.
    1. fezm.fan
      fezm.fan 23 September 2019 21: 43
      0
      How can the ACG prevent the enemy from reaching our shores?
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 28 September 2019 16: 54
        0
        Destroy it at a distance from our shores, for example.
        1. fezm.fan
          fezm.fan 28 September 2019 20: 21
          0
          For destruction, another technique is used for removal; AUGs are weapons off the coast of the enemy.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 28 September 2019 21: 48
            0
            Deck strike aircraft are the most powerful non-nuclear instrument for such purposes. And the most versatile.
            1. fezm.fan
              fezm.fan 28 September 2019 22: 09
              0
              I do not agree with your words. Until the 60s of the last century, the AUGs were intended for delivering nuclear strikes against strategic targets on enemy territory. With the introduction of ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and the creation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the aircraft carriers were transferred to the category of general forces, but were left in the reserve of strategic forces in the event of a nuclear war. The main objectives of the AUG in wartime are: - striking at targets located on the sea coast and in the interior of the enemy; - air cover and support for the landing forces and ground forces operating in the coastal zone; - gaining and maintaining air superiority in the area of ​​operation, - providing air defense of ships, landing troops, large convoys at the crossing by sea, - blocking the enemy’s coast, - conducting tactical aviation reconnaissance.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 29 September 2019 08: 56
                0
                And that is precisely why the Harpoon anti-ship missile, apparently, is one of the main weapons of US carrier-based aviation.

                No, what you have listed is also there and is being done, I do not argue.

                But strikes on surface targets were what aircraft carriers were originally born for, what they were most often used in history for, what they did best. Now the combat training of the US Navy is not focused on strikes on surface targets, although they are practicing them. But they have everything technically necessary for this, and changing the focus of combat training is not a problem.

                In addition, we are not talking about the American AUG, right? As soon as we admit that we will have our own numerous aircraft carriers (all of a sudden?) Then why don't they solve the classic aircraft carrier problem - a massive air strike on surface ships? What is in the way? There are so many advantages over missile ships and coastal aviation in such a battle that a book can be written.

                I can, at least.
                1. fezm.fan
                  fezm.fan 29 September 2019 09: 35
                  0
                  All our arguments from the theory (if), I would not put all the eggs in one basket (aircraft carrier), but worked to remove them using missiles.
  48. fezm.fan
    fezm.fan 23 September 2019 21: 41
    +1
    What is a normal and strong fleet !!! What do we want, to protect our own shores or to conquer another country across the oceans !!!
  49. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 23 September 2019 21: 53
    +3
    Some Chinese mediocrity wrote this article.

    Russian ships, although they become smaller in tonnage, but at the same time they are an order of magnitude more powerful in armaments in comparison with their classmates from the time of the USSR.

    At the same time, Russia does not refuse neither the ocean fleet nor the aircraft carriers, but we do not need to chase the quantity.

    Whoever needs it, we will reach and break it by land.

    Russia is already building a series of frigates - pr. 22350 with powerful air defense, anti-aircraft defense and armed with cruise missiles with a range of 2600 km, and in addition it is developing their more powerful version, destroyers with a nuclear power plant, new UDC and aircraft carriers.

    The Russian fleet is growing and developing, and we have where and to whom to build ships of the ocean zone and we are already building them, but we don’t need to tear the budget and drive the country into debt.
  50. Vladimir Lenin
    Vladimir Lenin 23 September 2019 22: 15
    +3
    I see the inhabitants here love to prepare for the past wars! If we want to intimidate some kind of backward natives, then of course aircraft carriers will do for this. But maximum two! One is frightening, and the second is at the berth for spare. And in order not to be expensive, then a little bit to modify some kind of project like the USS Midway (CV-41), you can of course act like the British who converted coal miners into escort aircraft carriers and remake a used "super tanker" and even equip with conventional piston aircraft close in characteristics to the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, on the other hand, it will be possible to place 200 of them on it and voila, even now, into battle against ISIS. And with a blockade of some kind of Papua or Guinea, it will also cope well. And against the US strike forces, only nuclear weapons will be brushed aside and it will work, even do not harbor illusions! Here a different approach is needed, not one AUG versus another! This is not a battle at Leyte Bay or Midway!
    1. Karabas
      Karabas 24 September 2019 00: 13
      0
      Right. But before you intimidate the natives you need to find the meaning of this act, but it certainly will not be. Missile abundance is enough for US AUGs.